PDA

View Full Version : Which Middle Eastern Nation Will Be Next ??



Pages : [1] 2

OZZ
22nd October 11, 09:52 AM
The uprisings continue..who's next ?
Pro-Democracy demonstrators in Syria and Yemen are warning their leaders THEY are next..
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/syrian-protesters-congratulate-libyans-gadhafis-death-8-killed-123542367.html

Ajamil
22nd October 11, 10:05 AM
We're definitely attacking Iran next. "Pre-emptive strike" has been cropping up in all the talk radio shows these days.

...oh you meant! LOL, nevermind.

Lollius Urbicus
22nd October 11, 10:12 AM
Syria still seems pretty strong, they've had extensive army desertions, multiple city uprisings and regular protests of 1000s of people and yet... Bashad is still there and looking very much in charge.

Saleh looks more precarious he's been holding onto Yemen by the skin of his teeth for a while now, much longer than Syria, there's a deep split between North and South, heavily armed organised proficient anti-government tribal and jihadist forces.

This Arab spring thing is pretty unpredictable no one foresaw the downfall of Gadaffi or Mubarak and yet before Tunisia many predicted the Green revolution would topple the Iranian govt.

I wonder if the next uprising might not come from somewhere we've completely taken our eye off maybe even somewhere outside the Middle East there's quite a few central Asian countries that are ripe for a revolution and may look to their Muslim counter parts in the Arab world for inspiration.

Robot Jesus
22nd October 11, 06:46 PM
if Iraq falls apart when the Americans leave I could see the Iranian government facing some issues, if only because of general instability can be a wild card; they could easily come out of that more secure as well.

elipson
22nd October 11, 08:33 PM
Yemen will be next.

The Syrian military is too homogenous and unified behind Bashir.

I don't think Iraq will go into civil war, but its politics will be dominated by Iranian money and influence.

OZZ
2nd November 11, 03:37 PM
Here's something interesting in relation to Syria :
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-un-investigators-probe-signs-syria-aided-131905740.html

Robot Jesus
3rd November 11, 02:12 AM
something may or may not happen in Oman.


you can quote me on that.

KO'd N DOA
3rd November 11, 03:58 PM
Isreal will collapse under pressure from the world stage, partition into two sections, one being the new Judah and the other Isreal, and then the Massiah will come as promised.

we are all doomed

OZZ
9th February 12, 10:12 PM
Syria...
Then Iran.

elipson
10th February 12, 05:47 AM
Yemen happened.

Syria is going to be in a civil war within 6 months.

Iran is a decade away at minimum.

Iraq is still dangerously unpredictable.

OZZ
10th February 12, 07:54 AM
Iran is a decade away at minimum.

Seriously?
Don't you think Israel is going to missile strike their nuclear facilities and that it will lead to war ?
I guess this thread is supposed to be about which Middle Eastern regimes are going to get overthrown, not attacked.

OZZ
10th February 12, 07:56 AM
I think Iraq will fragment and spiral into civil war within two years.

Ajamil
10th February 12, 11:29 AM
If it comes down to Romney and Obama, I'll probably vote for big O cuz he seems to fight wars surprisingly well, and my money's on Iran before they openly team up with Russia.

elipson
10th February 12, 03:00 PM
Oh you're thinking Israel?

ya I thought we were talking about the populations overthrowing the government.


Ya Iran is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with Israel.

Russia has nothing to gain from teaming up with Iran or encouraging a war with them.

Ajamil
10th February 12, 04:57 PM
Russia and china are fighting the west for trade influence in the ME and Africa. Stirring up trouble so we lose even more purchase and knowing a typical US reaction to any instability is great reason for Russia to be an alternative friend for Iran.

Adouglasmhor
10th February 12, 06:14 PM
something may or may not happen in Oman.


you can quote me on that.

My uncle was military advisor to the sultan in the 70s.

elipson
10th February 12, 08:01 PM
Friend of Iran is one thing. Encouraging a war in the region is another. Russia and China also do a lot of business with other middle-eastern countries. War and instability is bad for overall business.

Plus, encouraging a war that gets your ally killed is NOT a good way to build up your influence around the world. Russia and China are using soft power to grow their influence. Hard power is too unpredictable and expensive.

I'll elaborate.

Russia would like it if Iran turned all the gulf states into proxi-Iran states, and therefore became pro-Russian and Anti-American. Iran has been quietly doing this for some time, encouraging pro-Iranian political groups (Iraq), violent anti-government demonstrations (Bahrain), and pro-Iran para-governments in waiting (Hezbollah and Hamas).

Kicking off a giant war with the US, allowing them to flood these States with US money, armed forces, and clandestine forces, would make Iran's work more difficult in these countries. Doing so would also run the risk of having the Iranian regime destabilized at home due to US attacks on command-and-control, Iranian oil infrastructure, and the attrition of the Iranian armed forces.

A war between Iran and the US would go bad for Iran, and would therefore lesson its influence in the region and the likelihood of the Gulf countries becoming exclusively pro-Russian. Russia knows this, and will try to restrain Iran from forcing the American hand, even if Iran is too cocky to understand why.

Cullion
10th February 12, 08:10 PM
My uncle was military advisor to the sultan in the 70s.

one of those advisors ?

OZZ
10th February 12, 10:43 PM
Russia would like it if Iran turned all the gulf states into proxi-Iran states, and therefore became pro-Russian and Anti-American. Iran has been quietly doing this for some time, encouraging pro-Iranian political groups (Iraq), violent anti-government demonstrations (Bahrain), and pro-Iran para-governments in waiting (Hezbollah and Hamas).

Kicking off a giant war with the US, allowing them to flood these States with US money, armed forces, and clandestine forces, would make Iran's work more difficult in these countries. Doing so would also run the risk of having the Iranian regime destabilized at home due to US attacks on command-and-control, Iranian oil infrastructure, and the attrition of the Iranian armed forces.

A war between Iran and the US would go bad for Iran, and would therefore lesson its influence in the region and the likelihood of the Gulf countries becoming exclusively pro-Russian. Russia knows this, and will try to restrain Iran from forcing the American hand, even if Iran is too cocky to understand why.

And the Chinese just don't want any problems getting their oil from the region. lol

elipson
11th February 12, 12:43 AM
Basically ya. Shutting down the straight of Hormuz would fuck up oil prices and therefore the Chinese economy (and Western economies).

Adouglasmhor
11th February 12, 04:34 AM
one of those advisors ?

Officially he was a Lt Col in the Royal Artillery at the time. Later on he retired as Brigadier on a Friday, was senior civil servant in Whitehall on the Monday.

Lebell
12th February 12, 01:08 PM
Nice predictions.

Personally i wouldnt be surprised if shit hits the fan in the Lebanon first.
Usually it's a testing ground for Syrian conflicts.

Anyway, here's some additional info: Assad is Alawit muslem, which is a minority group.
With a minority president/leader/dictator other minorities such as xtians are protected.
I hate to see what will happen when Assad would fall.
Also it seems that the 'protesters' are well armed and are in the Homs region.

I feel the West is playing very dangerous games here, and also the public opinions her ein the West are completely distorted.
Arab dictators have been the buffer between the Islamic Godstate and the Western nations for decades.
And it worked.

The 'protesters' are being portrayed as noble patriots fighting for freedom, while the real reports indicate different, in Egypt for example attacks against religious minorities and women have skyrocketed since Mubarrak's fall.

The border erea between Israel and Egypt has become instabile and accessable for jihadist insurgents, as could be seen during the Eilat attack that killed about 8 people.

Imo two things can be going on: this shit is completely random, orrrr....an evn bleaker thing can be going on.

bare with me:

Syria lies on a fracture line of islamic denominations: sunni and shi-ite.
Iran is shi-ite and backs shi-ite factions in syria and lebanon.
A 60-ish % majority is sunni in syria.
Most people deeper into the crescent that is the middle east are sunni, and in Iraq the shi-ite influence/majority starts again, up to in Iran.

Iranians arent arabs but persians, yet in some cases work together with arabs such as the Hamas boys.
Hamas is located in southern Libanon and also in southern Syria, though not officially ofcourse.

Hamas sorta has panarabic goals and is...Sunni.
They focus on the liberation of palestine and yackedeeyack.
They came forth out of the egyptian muslim brotherhood.
Egypt is also a Sunni nation.

Okay so here we have the simple picture: Egypt, Hamas, good chunk of Syria is sunni, on the other hand we got Iran as the main shi-ite/shia nation who arent even arabs, and IraQ that has a Shia majority.

Both use Israel and the jewish state to cry wolf and manipulate people, without israel they would be at eachothers throats.

With the muslim brotherhood in Egypt having great chances during elections, the egyptian army can see what's up and they pospone and delay free elections.

Should the muslim brotherhood win, then hamas and other splinterparties would get support, and Israel would bomb the shit outta Egypt, they simply cant afford to have sucha security breach right on their longest, hardest to defend border.

Maybe Iran is playing a dangerous game in the middle east, maybe it's america or the mossad, but right now its all a little too much of a coinsdance to me.

I at this point have no fucking idea who really is behind this and why, but my best bet is that we shouldnt let Assad fall and especially in the case of the middle east reconsider our ideas about 'supporting freedom' as we would open the floodgates of extremists bringing us not one, but two steps closer to WWIII.

resolve
12th February 12, 01:16 PM
Wow, nice assessment Lebell.

Lebell
12th February 12, 01:26 PM
its not an assesment, its more of an outline of what i think are the mainbackgrounds.
pretty much all conflicts are related.
at this point i have no idea who is stirring the shit.

Vieux Normand
12th February 12, 04:07 PM
I hate to see what will happen when Assad would fall.

That's only because you hate christians and don't want them to attain their faith's highest honour: sainthood via martyrdom.

You nasty christian-hater, you.

elipson
12th February 12, 04:40 PM
Israel isn't going to bomb Egypt.

They can't even muster enough support to bomb Iran, the world Pariah.

Lebell
13th February 12, 06:40 AM
Israel isn't going to bomb Egypt.

They can't even muster enough support to bomb Iran, the world Pariah.

lolwut.
They can easily bomb the shit out of Egypt.
Iran however is a complete different story: bombing em doesnt make sense.
Western powers got these bunkerbusters right?
What you reckon those Iranians were thinking when thy build their centra inside a GODDAMN MOUNTAIN?
Deeper than any bunkerbuster can reach.

This is the true problem:you can only delay the iranian program by hitting soft targets, and guess what, that is happening already: iranian nuclear scientists r dropping like flies.
Bombing will have little effect.
The only way to end it is invasion with a landarmy and physically occupy these centra and dismantle em.
Nobody is up for that.

Israel-Egypt war is very realistic option in the near future.
And Israel will win, because they are decades ahead of the Egyptian military.

Also their Iron dome project seems to be working quite well after some initial problems.

Feryk
13th February 12, 01:51 PM
I nominate Lebell for Sociocide's Middle East War Correspondent.

We could get him media credentials and everything.

elipson
13th February 12, 03:15 PM
Physically speaking yes they could bomb Egypt.

Politically speaking it would be suicide.

We should also set a timeline too. Are we talking 5, 10, 50 years?

I'm saying there is no chance that Israel will bomb Egypt anytime in the next 10 years. Iran on the other hand could be bombed within the year.

Vieux Normand
13th February 12, 03:26 PM
I nominate Lebell for Sociocide's Middle East War Correspondent.

We could get him media credentials and everything.

A one-way ticket would suffice.

Lebell
13th February 12, 03:59 PM
Physically speaking yes they could bomb Egypt.

Politically speaking it would be suicide.

We should also set a timeline too. Are we talking 5, 10, 50 years?

I'm saying there is no chance that Israel will bomb Egypt anytime in the next 10 years. Iran on the other hand could be bombed within the year.

lolwut.
it wouldnt be political suicide.
if you'd follow the news you could have known that Bibi has no problems opting for 'political suicidal policies'.
he's got a huge lobby behind him and the other countries in the region are too divided.

you gotta understand that most arab countries are only anti israel on paper, on words.
why? to appease their masses.
if the dictators fall and we sit by and applaud it, we are actually applauding the rise of islamic fanatism.
where people like mubarrak and assad were more than willing to strike a deal with israel (and bribes from the usa), the muslim brotherhood homies will show to have a bit more ' moral integrity'.

but by all means, keep talking outta ur ass.

Lebell
13th February 12, 04:00 PM
A one-way ticket would suffice.

I always go on a one way ticket.
Yet each time I manage to get back :-p

anyway the way things look now ill be starting out in jerusalem within two months and from there hit the south, ending in Aqaba, al urdun.
if the shizzle hits the fan im going to be right there.

elipson
13th February 12, 04:23 PM
Like I said, won't happen in the next 10 years.

The Egyptian military regime, which is still firmly entrenched, was fully onboard with Mubarak's supprt of Israel and isn't going to stand by while the brotherhood walks them into another loosing war with Israel. It's going to take a long while before the military is purged of that old regime.

The boys who drive the tanks remember what happened last time Egypt fought with Israel.

We'll just have to revisit this thread in 10 years and see who was right (it'll be me).

Lebell
13th February 12, 04:53 PM
Like I said, won't happen in the next 10 years.

The Egyptian military regime, which is still firmly entrenched, was fully onboard with Mubarak's supprt of Israel and isn't going to stand by while the brotherhood walks them into another loosing war with Israel. It's going to take a long while before the military is purged of that old regime.

The boys who drive the tanks remember what happened last time Egypt fought with Israel.

We'll just have to revisit this thread in 10 years and see who was right (it'll be me).

yeah cos like nothing changed since the last war with egypt right?
you remind me of this smug american types i met over there, they also thought they knew everything cos they once saw a documentary that was longer than 20 minutes.

tell me, if the egyptian army is so all powerfull, why did mubarrak leave again?
they caved in towards the demands of the protesters last year and it's extremely unarab to show weakness.

thats another thing you dont seem to understand: things can get very easily outta hand cos of the local habit to never back down nor show weakness or fear.

the hawks in israel won't even think twice to bomb the fuck outta egyptians once there is an unstable regime.

elipson
13th February 12, 07:20 PM
The Army didn't cave, they threw Mubarak under the bus!

I figured even you would see that.

They did it for self-preservation, which is the same reason that they would stop the Brotherhood from getting them into a war with Israel. The military would launch a coupe before they launched an attack on Israel.

Lebell
14th February 12, 04:51 AM
The Army didn't cave, they threw Mubarak under the bus!

I figured even you would see that.

Duh..
Now why would they do that?
Couldnt they just say: no! bad Egypt! Mubarrak stays on so we are sure of American bribes/aid and thus money for our army.

Instead they caved in, 'threw uncle Hosni under the bus' because they know they cant win.
This isnt about the all powerfull military junta who are kingmakers.

Things are crumbeling over there as the old elite which were ofcourse a bunch of thieving who came to power through nepotism, are losing their positions.

On the other hand you got the muslim brotherhood, mubarrak always crashed down hard on them so they are resistance heroes by default in te eyes of the masses.
The muslim brotherhood, much like Hamas has offices, carecenters and what not to gain the hearts and minds of the poor.

Unless the army comes up (probably with foreign help) with a diabolic sceme to thwart these guys, there's a big chance Egypt will take a turn for the worse.
Egyptian Coptic xtians are already feeling 'the winds of change' as we type.


They did it for self-preservation, which is the same reason that they would stop the Brotherhood from getting them into a war with Israel. The military would launch a coupe before they launched an attack on Israel.

Yes I think that's the most likely scenario aswell.
Except there's more options here besides fullscale war.
Right now Israel trusts Egypt with the security/blockade of the Gaza border, with the muslim brotherhood seeping into power, im pretty sure there will be a hell of a lot more blind eyes being turned and secret provisions wil make it across the border into Gaza.

This already is unacceptable for Israel.

Vieux Normand
14th February 12, 03:23 PM
...if the shizzle hits the fan im going to be right there.

Thou shalt cease typing redundancies.

Meanwhile, try to make sure the fan is switched off first, okay?

Lebell
14th February 12, 05:23 PM
Thou shalt cease typing redundancies.

Meanwhile, try to make sure the fan is switched off first, okay?

don't worry, ill post on here to let you know im safe should somethin happen.
and if you hear rumours about groups of armed jews who call themselves the wolverines and they're blowing up iranian supply lines and shit, well...then you'll know im having fun.

OZZ
14th February 12, 07:06 PM
Elipson, I know you are well-informed, but I think you may be underestimating the volatility of the region a bit.
All it takes is a single spark and things can escalate very quickly.

OZZ
14th February 12, 07:08 PM
things can get very easily outta hand cos of the local habit to never back down nor show weakness or fear

Hardly eloquent, but true.


I'm saying there is no chance that Israel will bomb Egypt anytime in the next 10 years. Iran on the other hand could be bombed within the year.

And what are the repurcussions of the Israelis bombing Iran ? Hamas leaders in all the other countries will be screaming for Jewish blood.
And they will probably get it.

elipson
14th February 12, 08:05 PM
Well my predictions are on the table, with rough timelines.

You all are welcome to do the same.

Lebell
15th February 12, 04:24 AM
And what are the repurcussions of the Israelis bombing Iran ? Hamas leaders in all the other countries will be screaming for Jewish blood.
And they will probably get it.

I'm not sure what will happen, it's always surprising to me.
These people have made deals with achother before, whilst in front of a camera they keep vowing to drive eachother into the sea and what not.

Elippson can make his one dimensional predictions as much as he likes, it only makes him more seem like the average smug undergraduate I meet there, talking out of his ass.

Hamas will get blood?
Like during the Gaza-war?

lol. please.

Ever heared of the iron dome project?
It's operational, earlier last year it seemed to be working properly despite rumors about the functionality of the system.

I've seen the borders in the south and the borders up north, good luck crossing those without being detected.

If the jews wouldbe smart like me, and they are, then they'll launch a pre emptive strike with a tankbrigade into Gaza, approx 15-30 mins their first planes enter Iranian airspace.
And they probably will.
Which means I wont get a lotta sleep cos i live over there directly underneath the flightpath of the IAF to Gaza.

But there's a zillion other scenario's, I know enough about it to realise you can't say a goddamn thing about it due to the lack of info.

OZZ
15th February 12, 08:04 AM
Well my predictions are on the table, with rough timelines.

You all are welcome to do the same.

But you were wrong about Syria..you thought the government was too stable to be overthrown and look what happened.

I think Iran's regime is in no danger of falling to a military coup in the near future.
Iraq will fragment into chaos and civil war within two years.
I don't really understand the politics of Egypt well enough to make a sound prediction.

Madgrenade
15th February 12, 10:52 AM
Surprised this hasn't got a mention. The US navy has two strategic carriers in the gulf and another on the way, while the Army has sent 100,000 reinforcements to the region. Also two US missile subs recently passed through the Suez canal into southern waters, with no prizes for quessing where they are probably going. Combined with the presence of British and French warships the buildup is evident. Check out your media sources and they will be banging on about enriched uranium every day. Anyone remember the months leading up to Iraq.

With Iran suffering from almost total encirclement by US Empire military bases, the spark from a conflict in this region this year is unlikely to come by Arab or Persian hands, and the decision to sancftion Irans primary export could be considered an act of war in itself. With the west sliding into depression, and the US drowning in debt, a war at this point could be just the tonic to allow the US gov to enact civil reform at home by declaring wartime and going against Iran with a spring offensive, possibly started by some hyped up media event involving Israel.

This would give the US military machine a chance to empty their magazines and reassert themselves before the inevitable cuts. Maybe send a couple of those pricey carriers to the depths before they have to be decommisioned. Also, considering the US penchant for bombing with DU, they don't even have to 'win' to salt the earth for a few centuries, and Iran get their own mutant babies.

Feryk
15th February 12, 01:50 PM
While it's true that the US military industrial complex is in the market for a new war, I'm not sure taking on the ENTIRE middle east will happen. What I can say after watching this for awhile is that public opinion over there can whipsaw FAST.

Assad could be out on his ass within a few weeks. Mubarak certainly didn't feel like he was in any danger, then he was done within a couple of months.

IF the US is dumb enough to use military force to 'help Syria's struggle for freedom', then they risk watching the entire region turn on them. This makes no sense at all.

Arming the militants is something that the Europeans MIGHT be able to do without repercussions, but if the Americans get involved, then the Pan Arab nations will view that dimly. Same for NATO.

As Lebell pointed out, a truly democratic Arab nation will most likely vote in an Islamist government. Not particulary friendly to the west - at least on the surface.

This is a long, careful game. It is best for the West to proceed cautiously. China and Russia vetoing the vote in the UN Security Council allows the West to continue it's doctrine of expressing concern/outrage without actually doing anything.

Vieux Normand
15th February 12, 01:51 PM
If I were an Iranian monobrow who'd just developed nuke weapons--but had spent all sorts of time and effort asserting that my nuke program was for 'peaceful purposes'--I might suddenly make a big show about having developed new centrifuges and the like.

When other countries decided to attack in order to prevent me from going further, I could then cry "I've been attacked!" and then detonate my new nuke weapon, citing a need for self-protection. Nuclear weapons? Check. Pretext for having them when I'd previously claimed no interest in them? Check.

Feryk
15th February 12, 01:59 PM
IF Iran is stupid enough to detonate a nuke, do you think they are dumb enough to do it in their own region?

Israel would turn them into a glowing pile of refuse within minutes.

Iran won't detonate their own bomb. They will just sell it to terrorists to use against the US or other western nations.

elipson
15th February 12, 03:02 PM
While it's true that the US military industrial complex is in the market for a new war, I'm not sure taking on the ENTIRE middle east will happen. What I can say after watching this for awhile is that public opinion over there can whipsaw FAST.

Assad could be out on his ass within a few weeks. Mubarak certainly didn't feel like he was in any danger, then he was done within a couple of months.

IF the US is dumb enough to use military force to 'help Syria's struggle for freedom', then they risk watching the entire region turn on them. This makes no sense at all.

Arming the militants is something that the Europeans MIGHT be able to do without repercussions, but if the Americans get involved, then the Pan Arab nations will view that dimly. Same for NATO.

As Lebell pointed out, a truly democratic Arab nation will most likely vote in an Islamist government. Not particulary friendly to the west - at least on the surface.

This is a long, careful game. It is best for the West to proceed cautiously. China and Russia vetoing the vote in the UN Security Council allows the West to continue it's doctrine of expressing concern/outrage without actually doing anything.


It's more likely that Saudi Arabia will be the ones arming the rebels, possibly with Western countries using them as a proxy. The leaders of the Arab League are the ones asking for UN sanctions at this point, and will soon be asking for UN intervention. Which countries would turn against the US if they intervened at the request of the Arab League?

Feryk
15th February 12, 04:56 PM
The Arab League will never ask for direct US intervention. If anything, it'll be 'humanitarian aid and observers' - read covert ops.

Lebell
15th February 12, 06:08 PM
The Saudi's hate Iran, not to mention Iraqi's.
Taking on Iran does not automatically mean the whole middle east will revolt.

one more time:Iranians are PERSIANS, not arabs.
persians and arabs hate eachothers guts.

about military buildup:who is to say, if im not mistaken the US navy permantly has a presence in one of the gulfstates where they lease a naval base.
I think it was abu dhabi, but not sure.

AAAhmed46
15th February 12, 06:16 PM
I fucking hope Syria gets fucked up. Proxy ruler or not, proxy government or not...Assad needs his ass kicked.

elipson
15th February 12, 07:53 PM
The Arab League has already asked for UN peacekeepers.

Obviously there would be no US troops on the ground, they would just be the ones dropping the bombs while soldiers from poor countries did the dirty work. Same way it happened in Libya.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying that the Arab leaders are already asking for it to happen.

Anyone not in bed with Iran wants Syria to fall, and they won't mind if the US spends some of its money to do it.


Assad is going to end either the way Gaddafi did or Saddam did. With a bullet or with a rope.

Lebell
16th February 12, 05:38 AM
I'm pro Assad, so I just hope you eat some cock, die and burn in hell for your stupidity.
To get rid of Assad is to open the floodgates of radicals.

elipson
16th February 12, 04:27 PM
Is THIS the best trolling Sociocide has to offer anymore?

A sad day....

Vieux Normand
16th February 12, 04:29 PM
IF Iran is stupid enough to detonate a nuke, do you think they are dumb enough to do it in their own region?

Yeah, nobody would be that dumb. *cough*New Mexico*cough.


Israel would turn them into a glowing pile of refuse within minutes.

Do you know how big, geographically, Iran is? Doing that would result in the populations of the entire region--Israel included--having to wear lead suits for the rest of their days.


Iran won't detonate their own bomb. They will just sell it to terrorists to use against the US and other Western nations.

You do know--don't you?--that the phrase "having the bomb" does not mean you've limited yourself to possessing only one device. You know this...right?

Reports have it, meanwhile, that the US drone recently "shot down" by the Iranians wasn't shot down at all. The monobrows hacked it and landed it, capturing it intact, and are now in the process of reverse-engineering it. Priceless.

Feryk
16th February 12, 04:38 PM
Vieux, I was generalizing.

The Israelis would probably not respond with their own nuke, but rather a series of strikes designed to eliminate any nuclear facilities, storage sites, and command and control in Iran.

And yes I am aware that Iran will not build A bomb, but a series of bombs. My point is that they would be better off using cutouts to do the actual dirty work if they really wanted a detonation.

I'm sorry, did you think I got stupid somewhere along the way?

Vieux Normand
16th February 12, 04:45 PM
Vieux, I was generalizing.

O RLY?


The Israelis would probably not respond with their own nuke, but rather a series of strikes designed to eliminate any nuclear facilities, storage sites, and command and control in Iran.

You might want to read up on that. Even the most optimistic forecasts show that, at most, one might be able to delay the attainment of nuclear-weapons capacity for any nation determined to achieve and retain it.


I'm sorry, did you think I got stupid somewhere along the way?

Got there somewhere along the way? Not at all, Feryk.

elipson
16th February 12, 06:32 PM
Do you know how big, geographically, Iran is? Doing that would result in the populations of the entire region--Israel included--having to wear lead suits for the rest of their days.

It REALLY would not.

Nuclear weapons have a huge range of variability for their yield.

Iran could detonate a small bomb, a few kilotons, just to prove they could. Being able to detonate a weapon of any size is the real challenge. Scaling up the yield is relatively easy. By comparison, Hiroshima was about 15 Kt, and yet people in Japan are able to go about their business without wearing lead suits. So a single nuclear test bomb isn't going to irradiate the region like you are implying it will.

To put things in perspective, this is how many bombs have been detonated throughout history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk

As you can see, literally hundreds of bombs have been test detonated within the continental US without turning the US into a radioactive wasteland. So it's very possible for Iran to test a small nuke within their borders, or somewhere in the Indian ocean.

Lebell
17th February 12, 11:18 AM
Is THIS the best trolling Sociocide has to offer anymore?

A sad day....

Well, step up your trolling game then.

Cos you're either trolling or a retard.
I never realised just how much you are talking outta your ass.

nuke tests out on the indian ocean..really?
hahahah goddamn son!
If i were you id ask my money back from the school i obviously wasted it on.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 02:09 PM
It REALLY would not.

Nuclear weapons have a huge range of variability for their yield.

Iran could detonate a small bomb, a few kilotons, just to prove they could. Being able to detonate a weapon of any size is the real challenge. Scaling up the yield is relatively easy. By comparison, Hiroshima was about 15 Kt, and yet people in Japan are able to go about their business without wearing lead suits. So a single nuclear test bomb isn't going to irradiate the region like you are implying it will.

To put things in perspective, this is how many bombs have been detonated throughout history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk

As you can see, literally hundreds of bombs have been test detonated within the continental US without turning the US into a radioactive wasteland. So it's very possible for Iran to test a small nuke within their borders, or somewhere in the Indian ocean.

If you'd actually bothered to read the posting to which I was responding, you'd have seen Feryk's "Israel would turn them (Iran) into a glowing pile of refuse".

Kindly tell me, genius, how to turn a nation the size of Iran into a "glowing pile of refuse" without contaminating the entire surrounding region. The stuff you posted does not address this.

Thanks in advance.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 02:41 PM
Tactical nukes.

It is not like physicists and environmental scientists can't do some calculations and determine where and how big the nukes should be to keep any impact to surrounding areas at a minimum.

Right.

You can turn the entire land area of Iran into Feyk's "glowing pile of refuse" without much contamination spilling over into the surrounding areas...using some calculations and tactical nukes.

On one side of the border, glowing refuse where an entire country used to be.

Just over the other side--all the way around the glowing pile--all is pretty much as it was.

And there will be no wind or any other way that contamination drifts across this line-on-a-map. Cuz calculations and tactical nukes.

Thanks, NoB.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 02:54 PM
Exactly. The areas near the outside won't glow as much as the ones inside, but it is certainly possible. You might have to throw some conventional explosives in there to make sure the 'pile of refuse' part is all taken care of.

Yep: conventional explosives won't pulverize radioactive rubble into airborne fallout and spread it over borders once it's been created by nukes. Cuz calculations cancel wind and weather patterns.

Priceless.

Feryk
17th February 12, 03:00 PM
Well, since Vieux is being French about this; here is a link to someone who has thought about this way more than we have.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/01/31/stuxnet-a-way-to-nuke-iran-without-using-a-bomb/

The crux of his thought is that the Israelis/US could hack the Iranian nuclear power plant and rig it to go critical, accomplishing the goal of nuking Iran without the political fallout.

No discussion of actual fallout or wind patterns, etc. though.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 03:02 PM
You are silly. You do the conventional explosives first.

You would make a terrible general.

So...bomb everything into rubble and airborne dust with conventional weapons first...then make what's already airborne into radioactive fallout--all the while creating more airborne radioactive fallout--by nuking the piles of rubble you made with your conventional weapons.

Brilliant. That will guarantee that nothing radioactive spreads into surrounding areas. Really.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 03:05 PM
Well, since Vieux is being French about this; here is a link to someone who has thought about this way more than we have.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/01/31/stuxnet-a-way-to-nuke-iran-without-using-a-bomb/

The crux of his thought is that the Israelis/US could hack the Iranian nuclear power plant and rig it to go critical, accomplishing the goal of nuking Iran without the political fallout.

No discussion of actual fallout or wind patterns, etc. though.

But Feryk...would that, alone, be enough turn Iran into your "glowing pile of refuse?"

Feryk
17th February 12, 03:16 PM
Vieux;

Perhaps a restatement of 'glowing pile of refuse' into 'a country who would effectively cease to function' would further this discussion. The point was that if they were dumb enough to nuke Israel, then the response would be immediate and severe. Israel possesses the nuclear technology to end Iran as a policital/military power in the region.

As I said, the 'glowing pile of refuse' was a generalization.

Vieux Normand
17th February 12, 03:30 PM
Perhaps a restatement of 'glowing pile of refuse' into 'a country who would effectively cease to function' would further this discussion.

The only country that's been nuked in war did not "effectively cease to function" and has nuclear technology of their own (much to their regret at present).

So far, every nation that wanted nuclear weapons managed to obtain them. Even Pakistan--far further down on the "advanced-civilisation" scale than even Iran-- has, despite much opposition from the Powers of the World, developed its own nukes.

Delaying Iran from getting nukes may be possible. Denying that eventuality forever, however, would indeed require nothing less than the "glowing-pile-of-refuse" scenario. Even that might not work if Iranians outside the country's borders (some of them very wealthy people) decide to get revenge by buying nukes.

elipson
17th February 12, 04:11 PM
If you'd actually bothered to read the posting to which I was responding, you'd have seen Feryk's "Israel would turn them (Iran) into a glowing pile of refuse".

Kindly tell me, genius, how to turn a nation the size of Iran into a "glowing pile of refuse" without contaminating the entire surrounding region. The stuff you posted does not address this.

Thanks in advance.

A) Nuclear fallout is predictable along weather patterns

B) Air burst's produce much less nuclear fallout than ground detonations

C) Nuclear yields are controllable and can be tailor made for intended targets

D) The HUNDREDS of nuclear detonations within the continental US haven't made anywhere in the US a nuclear wasteland

E) It wouldn't take that many nuke strikes to completely breakdown the Iranian government and society.

F) Iran is 2,200 km's by 1,300 km's. Israel is 1,500 km's away from Tehran.

By contrast, LA is 2,200 km's away from the Arkansas border in the US, and this contains the region where all the US bomb tests were conducted. The White Sands nuclear test site is only 150 km's from Albuquerque NM and only 500 km's from Pheonix Arizona. Those areas are still quite habitable.


I'm pretty sure Feryk was speaking metaphorically. Not ALL of Iran is going to glow in the dark. Just the important parts.

resolve
17th February 12, 04:42 PM
The only country that's been nuked in war did not "effectively cease to function" and has nuclear technology of their own (much to their regret at present).


Only because the United States effectively perma-occupied there until we completely built up the Japanese nation again. Why?

To eliminate fascist leanings in Japanese culture.

and

Guilt over this:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDJG3JOWy1Wa-w8HJzCMGQuAQk_W-IPSpf-iHrGiIlFap-Y2BxHpovjDJD

Vieux Normand
18th February 12, 11:59 AM
A) Nuclear fallout is predictable along weather patterns.

Weather patterns are predictable...sometimes, to some degree. As is the case in other forces we do not control.


B) Air burst's produce much less nuclear fallout than ground detonations.

Destroying deeply buried and reinforced nuke-research via airbursts...without creating a lot of fallout. Please go on, this is fascinating.


C) Nuclear yields are controllable and can be tailor made for intended targets.

If you know for sure the exact size and depths of all the targets, you can try "surgical". Otherwise, area-destruction will be the way you have to go.


D) The HUNDREDS of nuclear detonations within the continental US haven't made anywhere in the US a nuclear wasteland.

...and if you were to try using "surgical nukes" to destroy all suspected underground research facilities in the US--wherever you think they might be--what might the result look like?


E) It wouldn't take that many nuke strikes to completely breakdown the Iranian government and society.

Nor Pakistan's, nor North Korea's, nor that of any other country with an unpalatable regime. So? Unless you kill every single Iranian on the face of the planet (your only 100% guarantee)...if they want nukes badly enough, they'll obtain them. As did Pakistan and North Korea.


F) Iran is 2,200 km's by 1,300 km's. Israel is 1,500 km's away from Tehran.

By contrast, LA is 2,200 km's away from the Arkansas border in the US, and this contains the region where all the US bomb tests were conducted. The White Sands nuclear test site is only 150 km's from Albuquerque NM and only 500 km's from Pheonix Arizona. Those areas are still quite habitable.

Apples and oranges. See my response to your D).


I'm pretty sure Feryk was speaking metaphorically. Not ALL of Iran is going to glow in the dark. Just the important parts.

Yes, I know Feryk was just using sabre-rattle-speak. It's just that monobrows seem to get off on sabres being rattled at them. Seems to motivate them to go harder in the opposite way from the direction you want them to go.

Rattling sabres won't work. The opposite--appeasement--won't work.

Surgical strikes on that many buried facilities, over that wide of an area, guarantee (at most) a bit of a delay in the monobrows developing nukes.

Guess the only recourse is complete annihilation (somehow without contaminating surrounding nations--on the other hand, no worries there: just more monobrows). Either that, or one more middle-eastern country with nukes.

Don't know about you, but I can live with either. Bombs away!

@Jeezolve: Go to Japan and see for yourself. Lots of far-right leanings there.
As for the Marshmallow Plan, the Japanese--living on fault lines--are used to rebuilding, with or without anyone else's help. They're doing so again right now.

resolve
19th February 12, 02:55 PM
I just saw the cell phone video footage being leaked to the internet from Libya.

I can't get them out of my head... I literally could not sleep last night.

They were cell phone videos taken during the Arab spring uprisings as NATO and the CIA helped the rebels overthrow Gadaffi.

I don't even want to link to them. I don't think anyone should have to see what those people did.

They have started mass lynchings of black people since Gadaffi is dead.
They are executing people in the streets by beheading.
They are forcing Gadaffi's ex-troops to eat their dead comrades and make out with dead dogs.
In one video they shoved a spike through a little kids anus until it came out through his shoulder and the hospital received him like that and were trying their best to help him.
In another they sodomized one of the ex-troops with a gun and then pulled the trigger.
In yet another video you could see the aftermath of a NATO bombing strike where they hit the same building 10 times... and it was full of kids... little kids being ferried off to the hospital with no jaws and their tongues hanging out of their necks. Those were the ones who weren't killed immediately. While I know that accidental strikes can happen and tragedies like that are common in war... 10 times?

All the while the people recording were chanting "Allahu Akbar!!"

Why did we help those people?

Israel is basically begging us to stop. They said "democracy in the other middle eastern countries is really not going to help our national security".

Russia has warned us on multiple occasions (at least 4) that we are severely destabilizing the region and as it gets closer to their borders they might have to take action.

China has said that the "unwarranted aggression by the United States and NATO will be checked by China and Russia if they do not stop their actions in the Middle East. The balance of power must be restored."

Lebell
19th February 12, 06:58 PM
no shit sherlock.
newsflash, they are not like us.

resolve
19th February 12, 09:45 PM
no shit sherlock.
newsflash, they are not like us.

DUH



Why did we help those people?

Commodore Pipes
20th February 12, 06:10 PM
China has said that the "unwarranted aggression by the United States and NATO will be checked by China and Russia if they do not stop their actions in the Middle East. The balance of power must be restored."

STFU you fucking commie

resolve
20th February 12, 06:26 PM
This thread shouldn't be about Iran. That should be its own thread. However, it is a contributing factor to what is going on so I will respond with this:

IxnRQFZRHpA

dPjxeyG-Ztw

C9Y2iQdN9NQ

NeQ70AuoJg8

Lebell
20th February 12, 07:08 PM
C9Y2iQdN9NQ



You are a proper retard, arent you?
did you even listen to what this nutcase was saying?
the brittish empire?
really?

Ajamil
20th February 12, 08:08 PM
I'm still calling WW3 as israel/US/EU/India/Japan vs. Iran/russia/pakistan/china and maybe some S American nations.

Edit: I forgot australia and canada - they're with us. I can't believe I forgot the Aussies, and I even worried about India's vulnerability!

OZZ
12th March 12, 09:33 AM
US soldiers in Afghanistan :
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/officials-us-member-opened-fire-afghan-civilians-south-100152602.html

Expect a full-scale pull-out reminiscent of Saigon soon lol

OZZ
26th May 12, 09:19 PM
UN intervention coming in 4..3..2..

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/more-70-killed-syria-ahead-annan-return-034341117.html

Keith
26th May 12, 11:41 PM
UN intervention coming in 4..3..2..

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/more-70-killed-syria-ahead-annan-return-034341117.html

I doubt the US will get involved except as part of a coalition with EU countries doing the heavy lifting. We've been fighting for 10 years or so in Afghanistan and the US public is starting to get sick of it.

resolve
27th May 12, 12:38 AM
starting


http://herbalcell.com/static/images/misc/lion-facepalm.jpg

Lebell
27th May 12, 02:59 AM
And Assad is still in control.

What were the predictions again?

;-)

Cullion
27th May 12, 06:03 AM
You're still young enough to enlist NOB. Perhaps if you died in Afghanistan then your children could remember you as a hero.

Lebell
27th May 12, 06:40 AM
lol id pay money to see nob go through phydical.
lots of wtf's and lolwuts? will be had by the medical staff.

Lebell
27th May 12, 10:42 AM
orlly?
just because i cant be bothered to adress your assumptions doesnt mean they are true.
;-)

OZZ
27th May 12, 12:10 PM
The USA may very well sit on the sidelines for the Syrian thing. So that means other UN nations will have to pick up the slack.
Send the French in..they sit around with their nukes doing fuck all most of the time.

elipson
28th May 12, 05:02 AM
The US didn't want to get pulled into Libya and it did. The same could happen with Syria.

I think its more likely they will start funneling more money and weapons to opposition forces via proxies. I'm not sure any Western country has the stomach to start a big fight with Syria until the opposition looks like it can actually win.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th May 12, 05:28 AM
That and the Russian army presence

Lebell
28th May 12, 06:17 AM
That and the Russian army presence

exactly.
what you see happening is the skirmishes, syria is a vazal of iran.
what did the chinese general say?
attack the allies of your enemies to weaken him.
soon lebanon will also light up.
its already brewing there.

I hope I can join the Falanx and off some infidels when shit hits the fan!

Madgrenade
28th May 12, 06:35 AM
This war is just getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day. After a brief ray of light where the US withdrew carriers to slightly more diplomatic range we get the news that they flew in an entire squadron of bunkerbusting raptors.

Then in Syria after some cooldown (everybody gotta resupply sometime I quess) we have news reporting that the Syrian government is conducting false flag attacks (lol U insane paranoid conspiracy theorists, false flags don't happen. And if they did only nasty, evil demon leaders like Assad would do such a thing yes, never would he upright tall holy honourable leaders like Bush and Blair ever to that nonono. Specially not in Newyork and London... but anyways, yes the evil Assad.)

Now this thread gets bumped off the back of a syrian attack, however terrible, and evryone starts cheerleading the intervention strat as if its some inevitable duty we have to go and "save" the citezens of the Evil Assad from his mad rule. And of course the best way to protect people is to flood the country with guns them bomb all infrastrucure. (Its ok cos its evil infrastructure which serves the evil servants of the evil Assad)

As we have already seen the send militants, agitate them bomb everything strat has proven extremely effective in creating iddylic utopias where nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen. Care to add another two to the list? We're saving them!

Not that I don't think that the Syrian issue is a problem. Yet is is a largely manufactured crisis whereby the travelling warriour troubadours Al Queda have show up in another mdeast country determined to fuck shit up at the behest of their CIA masters. And the puppets once again start merrily dancing to their tune.

I note there is no thread here that follows the weekly toll of drone strikes across the region. People slain by robots in their beds on orders from the Peace Laureate. Even women and children. Gods help us all.

@ Epsilon. Yes the Americans didn't want to be drawn into another war. But the Peace Laureate now has a sizeable army of special forces and CIA drones under his direct command, so he can bypass congress and even the Pentagon if he wants to start a war.

Infact, congress was so incensed at this bypassing of their authority they actually piped up for once and tried to impeach the Peace Laureate for going to war without congrssional approval.

To which the Peace Laureate replied. "Fuck you little congress bitches, the U.N tells America when to go to war now not you so you can all suck my presidential balls" (Paraphrase)

@ Everyone please try to make an effort to distugish war propaganda from the truth. Americans are especially vulnerable now that it is legal for the government of the US to propagate war propaganda amonst its own people (they been doing it for years but its about to get a whole lot worse). Dont forget in Waco the US gov burned people alive for not paying taxes, so dont piss your pants when the Evil Assad gets a bit pissed off with people standing in open rebellion, financed by foreign powers.

Lebell
28th May 12, 06:49 AM
the american solution in short: when someone's house has a roof thats near collapsing, they set the house on fire.

they are helping.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
28th May 12, 07:20 AM
The US aint gonna do anything overt for a while...


Russian naval baseTartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. The base was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.[8] During the 1970s, similar support points were located in Egypt and Latakia, Syria. In 1977, the Egyptian support bases at Alexandria and Mersa Matruh were evacuated and the ships and property were transferred to Tartus, where the naval support base was transformed into the 229th Naval and Estuary Vessel Support Division. Seven years later, the Tartus support point was upgraded to the 720th Logistics Support Point.[9]

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and its Mediterranean fleet, the 5th Mediterranean Squadron which was composed of ships from the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet, ceased its existence. Since then, there have been occasional expeditions by Russian Navy vessels and submarines to the Mediterranean Sea. The naval logistics support base in Syria is now part of the Black Sea Fleet. It consists of three floating docks of which one is operational, a floating workshop, storage facilities, barracks and other facilities.[9]

Since Russia forgave Syria of three quarters, or $9.6 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier in 2006, Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge its naval base, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean.[10] Amid Russia's deteriorating relations with the West, because of the 2008 South Ossetia War‎ and plans to deploy a US missile defense shield in Poland, President Assad agreed to the port’s conversion into a permanent Middle East base for Russia’s nuclear-armed warships.[11][12] Since 2009, Russia has been renovating the Tartus naval base and dredging the port to allow access for its larger naval vessels.[13]

On September 8, 2008, ten Russian warships docked in Tartus.[14] According to Lebanese-Syrian commentator Joseph Farah, the flotilla which moved to Tartus consisted of the Moskva cruiser and four nuclear missile submarines.[15] Two weeks later, Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said the nuclear-powered battlecruiser Peter The Great, accompanied by three other ships, sailed from the Northern Fleet's base of Severomorsk. The ships would cover about 15,000 nautical miles (28,000 km) to conduct joint maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy. Dygalo refused to comment on reports in the daily Izvestia claiming that the ships were to make a stopover in the Syrian port of Tartus on their way to Venezuela. Russian officials said the Soviet-era base there was being renovated to serve as a foothold for a permanent Russian navy presence in the Mediterranean.[16][17]

In 2009, RIA Novosti reported that the base would be made fully operational to support anti-piracy operations.[18] It would also support a Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean as a base for "guided-missile cruisers and even aircraft carriers".[19]

In late November 2011, Pravda and Reuters announced that a naval flotilla led by the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was on its way to the naval base in Tartus as a show of support for the al-Assad regime.[20][21]



Welcome to Tartus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus#Russian_naval_base)

AAAAAA
28th May 12, 07:27 AM
This is a kind of cold war last heritage, Russia cannot let go of its only partner and relinquish any control in the area to Israel / the "Arab spring" countries.

Obviously Assad and the entire ruling class would be publicly dismembered if he were to "step down" (i.e. forced to), usual Shi'a - Sunni divide between elites and population, so he's fighting for his life. It's not going to end soon...

OZZ
28th May 12, 11:18 AM
I knew the Russians had a history with that country, but didn't realize the extent of their modern-day involvement as far as their navy goes.
If Syria is their foothold in the region, then that complicates things significantly.
Being ' involved ' in the happenings in the Middle East by the US is a given, whether behind the scenes or directly. No matter what country it is.

Lebell
28th May 12, 12:05 PM
until the oil runs out.

Lollius Urbicus
28th May 12, 12:53 PM
Turkey should get in there and sort it out. It wants to be a big regional player, time to start showing it can knock heads if it needs to.

Lebell
28th May 12, 01:04 PM
Turkey should get in there and sort it out. It wants to be a big regional player, time to start showing it can knock heads if it needs to.

I don't think you have a good insight on the Syrian army, and it's allies, and arab vs turkish/ottoman sentiments.

Cullion
28th May 12, 02:23 PM
can anybody think of any other countries in the eastern med with a history of hosting russian naval bases that could use some financial help right now ?

Lollius Urbicus
28th May 12, 02:29 PM
http://www.worldmapsinfo.com/flags/1205750648fEgypt_flag(1).gif

Cullion
28th May 12, 02:40 PM
that's not the one I'm thinking of.

Lollius Urbicus
28th May 12, 02:55 PM
Greece has hosted soviet naval bases?

Lebell
28th May 12, 02:56 PM
*cough* NATO *cough*

Cullion
28th May 12, 03:02 PM
Greece has hosted soviet naval bases?

The Imperial Russian Navy had an officer training academy in the Greek islands (Poros, not far out of Piraeus). I think it may be time for them to help their orthodox brothers out financially again.

They've talked about wanting a Greek base for some time http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_2_04/08/2010_410321

Cullion
28th May 12, 03:05 PM
*cough* NATO *cough*

Iceland is a NATO member too.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/iceland_invites_russia_to_keflavik_air_base.html

Sometimes when you really need money you can just suddenly think of a nice way of explaining things that stops you feeling guilty.

You of all people should know that.

Lollius Urbicus
28th May 12, 03:09 PM
The Imperial Russian Navy had an officer training academy in the Greek islands (Poros, not far out of Piraeus). I think it may be time for them to help their orthodox brothers out financially again.

They've talked about wanting a Greek base for some time http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_2_04/08/2010_410321
Oh right. Think there'd have to be a bit of an attitude change first the Greeks have a whole "we're European/Western not Eastern" thing going on at the moment realigning towards Russia doesn't really square with that. Then again if the start associating their economics woes with the European membership that might change.

Cullion
28th May 12, 03:23 PM
Then again if the start associating their economics woes with the German government and American banks that might change.

Yes, it might.

Lebell
28th May 12, 03:26 PM
Iceland is a NATO member too.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/iceland_invites_russia_to_keflavik_air_base.html

Sometimes when you really need money you can just suddenly think of a nice way of explaining things that stops you feeling guilty.

You of all people should know that.

no i dont I never feel guilt.
or mercy.

Cullion
28th May 12, 03:35 PM
I'll keep a record of Russian aid to Greece in this thread

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136113

http://hellasfrappe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/putins-consultant-says-russia-will-help.html

http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c39/369421.html

Lollius Urbicus
28th May 12, 03:42 PM
This has reminded me that the FT article I read the other week about what Greece would do after Grexit it said that its most likely route to funding would be Russia and that Russia would be likely to oblige.

Feryk
29th May 12, 02:37 PM
I saw some british talking head being interviewed about the current problems in Syria, and it's impact on Russian foreign policy.

He was of the opinion that between Syria and Iran, the Russians were having to scramble right now. He believes that the Russians will back Assad to the end, but are having to think about what they will do without a Meditaranian port to use.

When I thought about it, I realized that the Arab Spring has got to be making the Russians very nervous right now. A lot of their diplomatic efforts in the region are disappearing, and they are being replaced with people who don't exactly share their ideology.

Lebell
30th May 12, 03:32 AM
the english have always been a bunch of stumbeling clowns when it comes to diplomacy or insight of any other cultures and politics.
i wouldnt take their word for anything.

Craigypooh
30th May 12, 09:00 AM
the english have always been a bunch of stumbeling clowns when it comes to diplomacy or insight of any other cultures and politics.
i wouldnt take their word for anything.

What are you taking about look at what we did for the middle east...oh hold on...no we helped install and support a whole series of brutal dictators. But North Africa...oh no same thing. Ah but India...err no they kicked us out and then initiated a brutal and bloody civil war...USA..err no same thing. But...ermm...Australia...oh no we massacred the indigenous population and left a bunch of convicts take control of the place...well...then...errrr....New Zealand...no..same thing but sheep farmers left in charge. South Africa! No never-mind apartheid was possibly partly our fault and also we invented concentration camps there....no that wasn't good. Well there was Gibraltar...Gibraltar's nice...although there were a few nasty wars and it still affects diplomatic relations with Spain. The Pitcairns - no that ended up being run by a bunch of child molesters. I know - Malta! We didn't screw up Malta at all. We even gave them a nice medal to put on their flag. See - we can do diplomacy.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
30th May 12, 09:05 AM
What are you taking about look at what we did for the middle east...oh hold on...no we helped install and support a whole series of brutal dictators. But North Africa...oh no same thing. Ah but India...err no they kicked us out and then initiated a brutal and bloody civil war...USA..err no same thing. But...ermm...Australia...oh no we massacred the indigenous population and left a bunch of convicts take control of the place...well...then...errrr....New Zealand...no..same thing but sheep farmers left in charge. South Africa! No never-mind apartheid was possibly partly our fault and also we invented concentration camps there....no that wasn't good. Well there was Gibraltar...Gibraltar's nice...although there were a few nasty wars and it still affects diplomatic relations with Spain. The Pitcairns - no that ended up being run by a bunch of child molesters. I know - Malta! We didn't screw up Malta at all. We even gave them a nice medal to put on their flag. See - we can do diplomacy.

CANADA!!

Craigypooh
30th May 12, 09:15 AM
We did kind of slaughter the indigenous population there too. Also we left a bunch of Frenchies behind when we left...not nice really.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
30th May 12, 09:44 AM
Oh yeah I remember now...

Lollius Urbicus
30th May 12, 10:00 AM
What are you taking about look at what we did for the middle east...oh hold on...no we helped install and support a whole series of brutal dictators. But North Africa...oh no same thing. Ah but India...err no they kicked us out and then initiated a brutal and bloody civil war...USA..err no same thing. But...ermm...Australia...oh no we massacred the indigenous population and left a bunch of convicts take control of the place...well...then...errrr....New Zealand...no..same thing but sheep farmers left in charge. South Africa! No never-mind apartheid was possibly partly our fault and also we invented concentration camps there....no that wasn't good. Well there was Gibraltar...Gibraltar's nice...although there were a few nasty wars and it still affects diplomatic relations with Spain. The Pitcairns - no that ended up being run by a bunch of child molesters. I know - Malta! We didn't screw up Malta at all. We even gave them a nice medal to put on their flag. See - we can do diplomacy.
Don't suppose you know of an empire that was put together without anyone dying and which was disassembled in a complete peaceful and problem free way?

Craigypooh
30th May 12, 10:17 AM
You don't hear people complain about the Portuguese too much.

Lollius Urbicus
30th May 12, 10:57 AM
You don't hear people complain about the Portuguese too much.
Perhaps because indigenous Amazonian populations that have been wiped out can't protest?

I think the 3 million African slaves employed in the Brazillian sugar plantations would paint a less than rosy picture.

The peoples of Angola and Mozambique would also question whether sweeping their decades of independence wars in which hundreds of thousands died and the Portuguese used napalm against civilian villagers was really appropriate.

Next?

Feryk
30th May 12, 11:04 AM
Yes. Colonialism is a dark, dirty business for the most part.

Btw, in Canada, there wasn't that much slaughter of the Natives. The Brits decided to bargain with them instead.

So 300 years later we spend billions on Native Land Claims every year. Thanks for that.

Craigypooh
30th May 12, 04:13 PM
Next?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Lebell
31st May 12, 05:32 AM
What are you taking about look at what we did for the middle east...oh hold on...no we helped install and support a whole series of brutal dictators. But North Africa...oh no same thing. Ah but India...err no they kicked us out and then initiated a brutal and bloody civil war...USA..err no same thing. But...ermm...Australia...oh no we massacred the indigenous population and left a bunch of convicts take control of the place...well...then...errrr....New Zealand...no..same thing but sheep farmers left in charge. South Africa! No never-mind apartheid was possibly partly our fault and also we invented concentration camps there....no that wasn't good. Well there was Gibraltar...Gibraltar's nice...although there were a few nasty wars and it still affects diplomatic relations with Spain. The Pitcairns - no that ended up being run by a bunch of child molesters. I know - Malta! We didn't screw up Malta at all. We even gave them a nice medal to put on their flag. See - we can do diplomacy.


The problem with the anglo saxons is that they usually miss the point and lack well thought out plans for the long term.

My bet is that the Americans got their ideas about having a mission or a goal as a nation from the british.

The british at some point during their empire felt it was their duty to teach and spread civilisation throughout the world.
When there would be a succesful revolt they'd go: orlly? well fuck you then, stay savage if you like!' and sulk like a child.

The dutch trading empire however was way more cunning: In Africa we picked off portugese colonies, in Asia we took Indonesia, Macau, Ceylon and had for over 2 centuries exclusive traderights with Japan, as the only western power.
Japan was a telling example: the portugese tried to convert and got kicked out, the Dutch however were only interested in trade.
It also helped that the japanese were marveled by our culture, they still are to this day, you can visit Holland town over there.

Then suddenly england and the usa forced japan to open its markets.
no respect for the sovereinity of other cultures.

In the new world it went the same: where the english and french would 'buy' land, furs and what not using glass and booze, the dutch gave em a fair price, so each time there was some indian revolt, the dutch settlements were left alone while the english got massacred.
That's the whole thing, im quite sure the dutch had no more or less respect than the english for natives, except they understood quite early on it was healthier to pretend you do. (cos outnumbered abroad)
the english didnt get that lesson.

Also south africa: the Boers, who were Dutch wtfpwned the zulus on several occasions despite being heavily outnumbered, where the british unable to adapt to new rules got massacered at rorke's drift and what not.
And they had a fooking colonial proffesional army.

Lebell
31st May 12, 05:36 AM
I think the 3 million African slaves employed in the Brazillian sugar plantations would paint a less than rosy picture.

The peoples of Angola and Mozambique would also question whether sweeping their decades of independence wars in which hundreds of thousands died and the Portuguese used napalm against civilian villagers was really appropriate.

Next?

boo fucking hoo.
those descendants of slaves in brasil have way better lives than their former brothers who now still live in Africa.
Not that the brazilian blacks dont try to make it more like africa though, but thats another story.

Feryk
31st May 12, 12:45 PM
The problem with the anglo saxons is that they usually miss the point and lack well thought out plans for the long term.

My bet is that the Americans got their ideas about having a mission or a goal as a nation from the british.

The british at some point during their empire felt it was their duty to teach and spread civilisation throughout the world.
When there would be a succesful revolt they'd go: orlly? well fuck you then, stay savage if you like!' and sulk like a child.

The dutch trading empire however was way more cunning: In Africa we picked off portugese colonies, in Asia we took Indonesia, Macau, Ceylon and had for over 2 centuries exclusive traderights with Japan, as the only western power.
Japan was a telling example: the portugese tried to convert and got kicked out, the Dutch however were only interested in trade.
It also helped that the japanese were marveled by our culture, they still are to this day, you can visit Holland town over there.

Then suddenly england and the usa forced japan to open its markets.
no respect for the sovereinity of other cultures.

In the new world it went the same: where the english and french would 'buy' land, furs and what not using glass and booze, the dutch gave em a fair price, so each time there was some indian revolt, the dutch settlements were left alone while the english got massacred.
That's the whole thing, im quite sure the dutch had no more or less respect than the english for natives, except they understood quite early on it was healthier to pretend you do. (cos outnumbered abroad)
the english didnt get that lesson.

Also south africa: the Boers, who were Dutch wtfpwned the zulus on several occasions despite being heavily outnumbered, where the british unable to adapt to new rules got massacered at rorke's drift and what not.
And they had a fooking colonial proffesional army.

In the middle of this longwinded post there is actually something pretty intelligent. Stop making it so hard for us to get to your point, Lebell.

OZZ
31st May 12, 09:27 PM
Canada's founding, establishment as a nation and separation from GB was relatively bloodless and we have one of the best countries in the world.
As Feryk pointed out, the British did treat the natives much better than the US government did. But as it stand snow, they are filing land claims that amount to over 2/3 of the entire country.
I think we need to stop giving them so much. Give 'em a big chunk up north somewhere and let that be the end of it.
I have a copy of the land transfer agreement between the Natives and the Brits for the city I live in and its pretty humorous to read in today's world.
Lots of fish hooks included in that one lol

Lebell
1st June 12, 03:03 AM
the natives are growing restless in canada?
oh my..

Cullion
1st June 12, 04:28 PM
Thank you Lebell, for your lesson in the history of an alternate universe where the Dutch made a much greater success of their colonial adventuring in North America and their culture eventually came to dominate the continent.

On my planet, things turned out different.

Lebell
2nd June 12, 05:18 AM
Thank you Lebell, for your lesson in the history of an alternate universe where the Dutch made a much greater success of their colonial adventuring in North America and their culture eventually came to dominate the continent.

On my planet, things turned out different.

we came out of it better.
the british are still under the impression they matter, like the french.
at least we are not delusional.

Cullion
3rd June 12, 04:27 PM
Yes you are. You know perfectly well what's cooking in Lolland.

Madgrenade
3rd June 12, 04:31 PM
What is cooking in Lolland? I presume you aren't talking culinary delights.

Queen Beatrice is at the Bilderberg conference this weekend. Shame she couldn't make her cousins Jubilee.

I wonder if teh world power brokers reference Lebells views while they make policy?
It would certainly explain the War on Terra.

Lollius Urbicus
3rd June 12, 04:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
You aren't seriously suggesting that the collapse of the Roman empire was an orderly affair and that it lead to a period of peace and prosperity?


In the middle of this longwinded post there is actually something pretty intelligent. Stop making it so hard for us to get to your point, Lebell.
It would be if he wasn't making the fundamental historical error of comparing two radically different time periods and situations.

The Dutch period of imperial expansion was in the 16th and 17th centuries, when weak European nations with even weaker and more tenuous supply lines tried to tap into a well established Asian trade network made up of many very powerful states and empires. Naturally all Europeans trading and colonising in this region and in this period trod softly, was respectful to the locals and generally sought negotiation over conflict.

The main period of British imperial expansion was in the 18th and 19th centuries. European powers were technically, tactically and materially more advanced and more powerful than all but the greatest Asiatic and other non-European powers - India, China, Japan etc... Thus what couldn't be achieved through diplomacy could be taken through force of arms. And it was natural for Europeans to believe themselves superior to Non-Europeans.

To compare a militarily inferior Dutch state's imperial tactics in Asia to a militarily and technologically superior British state's actions in Asia and elsewhere is simply ahistorical.

I would direct this rant at Lebell, but he wouldn't deal with it properly and just waste my time with trolling.

Lebell
3rd June 12, 05:12 PM
To compare a militarily inferior Dutch state's imperial tactics in Asia to a militarily and technologically superior British state's actions in Asia and elsewhere is simply ahistorical.



hahaha nice downplay.
perhaps you should learn a bit more about the dutch imperial past.
it is an interesting empire because the homeland was so small,and with relatively so few people, surrounded by much bigger nations that were hostile to Holland.
It was an amazing feat that they lasted as long as they did.

Cullion
3rd June 12, 06:01 PM
It's mainly because the 'glorious dutch empire' was so small that nobody noticed it tbh.

Lollius Urbicus
3rd June 12, 06:05 PM
hahaha nice downplay.
perhaps you should learn a bit more about the dutch imperial past.
it is an interesting empire because the homeland was so small,and with relatively so few people, surrounded by much bigger nations that were hostile to Holland.
It was an amazing feat that they lasted as long as they did.
I know plenty about Holland's rise to prominence and its decline, probably more than you as I studied it at University, which I don't think you did.

It indeed was impressive what Holland achieved, however, you haven't managed to prove me wrong in my assertion that you're comparing the 16th and 17th centuries with the 18th and 19th and that is a fundamental historical error.

resolve
3rd June 12, 08:57 PM
The Dutch had South Africa (lost to the British in boer wars?!? memory failing me), parts of North America (lost to British), the huge trading contracts with Japan and China, and uh... what else again?

Lebell
4th June 12, 03:58 AM
The Dutch had South Africa (lost to the British in boer wars?!? memory failing me), parts of North America (lost to British), the huge trading contracts with Japan and China, and uh... what else again?

Well, the dutch didnt really have the entire south african area, what the VOC at the time did was establishing strongholds near ports, so the tradeships were well maintained along the route.
Later the boers came, dutch citizens looking for new land and wealth.
In a way SA was our new world.

The Boers didnt receive support from the Dutch government once they were there, they had to fend for themselves.

Madgrenade
9th July 12, 06:27 PM
Short of cash? Don't worry, the US is spending money so you'll never have to.

http://www.businessinsider.com/weekly-united-states-defense-contracts-spending-2012-7#ixzz209PWXJgm

Guess they had a rummage down the back of the couch in the Pentagon lobby.

As to the nature of teh purchases they are quite telling. Plenty of heavy haulage? Expect reinforcements arriving in the Middle East real soon.

Turn on the TV you will hear the drums banging away all channels. Jesus Christ preserve us.

Now at least we know what they have chained in the Pentagon basement. A financial event horizon.

Hedley LaMarr
9th July 12, 07:13 PM
Well, the dutch didnt really have the entire south african area, what the VOC at the time did was establishing strongholds near ports, so the tradeships were well maintained along the route.
Later the boers came, dutch citizens looking for new land and wealth.
In a way SA was our new world.

The Boers didnt receive support from the Dutch government once they were there, they had to fend for themselves.
Your new world sucks ass.

Lebell
10th July 12, 02:39 AM
Your new world sucks ass.

sucked.
this happened centuries ago.

Lebell
10th July 12, 02:43 AM
As to the nature of teh purchases they are quite telling. Plenty of heavy haulage? Expect reinforcements arriving in the Middle East real soon.



lol.
question: whenever you hear reports of syrian rebels knocking out regular army tanks, do youjust take that for what it is or do you actually wonder where the rebels get the hardware from that enables em to knock out modern tanks?
hint: it's not provided by any western nation.
second hint: with what nation besides the russians is the syrian regime friends with?
what religion does that regime have?
what religion do the insurgents have?

who are the 'rebels'?
what do they want?
who are their leaders?

if you can answer these questions you can also know why there wont be any american reinforcements showing up there soon.

Cullion
10th July 12, 02:50 AM
Is it Iran?

Lebell
10th July 12, 03:31 AM
now why would Iran support insurgents that want to topple their only ally in the middle east?
what was it that tzun tsu or whatever the hell is name was said?
' attack the allies of your enemy before directly assaulting your enemy.'

and no, its still not america or some obscure cia unit involved.

Hedley LaMarr
10th July 12, 03:44 AM
sucked.
this happened centuries ago.
South Africa still sucks, and all my dealings with Afrikaaners have been skeezy at best.

Lebell
10th July 12, 04:25 AM
South Africa still sucks, and all my dealings with Afrikaaners have been skeezy at best.

guess where one side of my family is from?

Lebell
10th July 12, 04:25 AM
I'm tempted to live in the usa for a year or so and list myself as african american...

OZZ
10th July 12, 06:35 AM
Only you would be crazy enough to try something like that.

Lebell
10th July 12, 07:28 AM
oh cos im african american im crazy?
homey, you b trippin.

Harpy
10th July 12, 09:40 AM
I like Saffers for the most part. It is hilarious how racist the older generation are and they struggle to contain that in the corporate environment here but everyone gives them a hall pass and grimaces behind their back.

Vieux Normand
10th July 12, 10:02 AM
The Boers didn't receive support from the Dutch government...

So...no government teat, leading to fail?

You are very much the E.U.-ropean, aren't you?

billy sol hurok
10th July 12, 10:23 AM
Only you would be crazy enough to try something like that.

Wrong. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/24/121520.shtml)

Madgrenade
10th July 12, 11:18 AM
I like big military. I hate this though:

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-companies-got-rich-selling-illegal-weapons-to-us-adversaries-2012-7?op=1


They need more penalties than just fines. Some people should be jailed and some fired.

That's the problem NoB, your big military has suppliers who are multinational corporations who do not give a fuck about the US, American security or the lives of US servicemen.

All they care about is money. And there is a lot of money to be made in wars between major industrialo powers.

Feryk
10th July 12, 04:00 PM
Mandatory jailtime for senior executives in these cases would put a crimp in the practice.

Fine the corporation, or better yet, seize assets. It would change the dynamics pretty quickly if Boeing lost their plant and it got auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Cullion
10th July 12, 04:44 PM
now why would Iran support insurgents that want to topple their only ally in the middle east?
what was it that tzun tsu or whatever the hell is name was said?
' attack the allies of your enemy before directly assaulting your enemy.'

and no, its still not america or some obscure cia unit involved.

Tell us.

Lebell
11th July 12, 03:09 AM
Wrong. (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/24/121520.shtml)
that article is telling and exactly the reason why africans are and always will be stupid.
' why doesnt she build a hospital with her fortune?'
fuck you, stop getting pregnant/hiv/ebola, go read a book and become a doctor yourself you lazy bl...oated bitch.

africans...ugh.

OZZ
19th July 12, 03:17 AM
Big development here..
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/no-sign-assad-bomb-kills-kin-rebels-close-000219552.html

I think Assad is probably dead..or at the very least, disfigured and badly wounded.
Either way, it looks like the end is near for the current regime.

Madgrenade
19th July 12, 07:39 AM
Aww man. I had hoped with the destruction of the NATO narrative the Syrians would be able to hold out, end the war. No such luck.

billy sol hurok
19th July 12, 08:10 AM
Um, which Syrians?

Madgrenade
19th July 12, 04:51 PM
Originally from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/three-us-aircraft-carriers-now-middle-east-fourth-en-route

A week ago we reported news (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/third-us-aircraft-carrier-returning-unexpectedly-mideast-ahead-schedule)that Middle East veteran aircraft carrier CVN-74 Stennis was ending its brief sabbatical prematurely, and far earlier than previously expected, and heading right back into the field, er sea, of action. As Kitsapsun reported (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/jul/09/uss-stennis-going-right-back-to-mideast/#ixzz20DIpekWx), "Bremerton-based aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is returning to the Middle East much sooner than expected. The Navy hasn't officially announced the new deployment plan for the Stennis, said spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Zach Harrell." The ship came home to Naval Base Kitsap on March 2 after seven months of launching planes into Iraq and Afghanistan. Generally, it wouldn't go back to the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility for four to five years, after a deployment to the Western Pacific and a maintenance period. But with Iran making threats, crew members learned Saturday they'll be leaving again in late August for eight months." We concluded that shortly, Stennis will be the third carrier accompanying Lincoln and Enterprise. As it turns out, a third carrier was already en route, and as of today, CVN 69 Eisenhower is either at the opening of the Straits of Hormuz, or just past it. That makes 3 aircraft carriers in the middle east, 2 in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea and one just off the coast of Syria. And technically, the LHD 7 Iwo Jima Big Deck Amphibious ship, which is also just off the coast of Iran region, makes three and a half. Which means that a 5th one (rounded up) - Stennis - is coming in 1-2 months. Good luck Iran.


It's in the frackin' ship!

Lebell
20th July 12, 05:49 AM
Big development here..
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/no-sign-assad-bomb-kills-kin-rebels-close-000219552.html

I think Assad is probably dead..or at the very least, disfigured and badly wounded.
Either way, it looks like the end is near for the current regime.

A couple of things I noticed:

-Doesnt it strike you as odd that some rebels suddenly have the skills to infiltrate and bomb very high circles of command?
I wonder who really is behind that, as in supplying the bombs, or information of locations and whereabouts.

-The Iraqi nor the Turkish authorities attack these rebels who are on their borders, eventhough they have good reasons to do so.
Syrian rebels and the chaos/lawlessness that comes with it is not a good devellopement for their border regions, both deal with kurdic insurgencies.(turkish and iraqi)
Instead they let the status quo that existed under Assad go up in flames...why?

The rebels are militant islamists.
The same types that fought in Iraq.
Current Syrian regime is an ally of Iran.

I can imagine the hand of the USA in this, in yet another stumbeling moronic attempt to play the subversive game.
They are stupid enough for it, thats for sure.
I can imagine some hamburgermunching CIA moron suddenly has this lightbulb moment and says: what if we let Syria fall, destabilise the country, and hopefully the jihadi's pour from iraq to syria, we kill two birds with one stone!

In the long term it's a perfect scenario for the USA to really set itself up for a spectacular asswhooping (something they are really good at, with their short attention span and overall ignorance they cant grap long term effects)

Follow my train of thought and fast forward with me 5 years into the future:

Israel, 'Merrika's 'closest ally' is now effectively surrounded by extremist nations, created by their big pal, the USA: to it's north we have the islamic republic of Syria, and a destabilised/civil war torn lebanon, with a Hezbollah who is more powerfull than ever before because of the muslim brotherhood government (same club, different name) in Egypt to Israel's southwest.

Iran is by that time in no way beaten and either at war with a coalition of the willing or at the brink.
The islamic vulture states at the middle east are sharpening their knives and waiting for the USA to make that strategic offensive mistake, to enter iran, and with that force commited in Iran, it's bye bye Israel, who ofcourse rather nukes the entire region then to give up it's nationstate.


bravo morons.

AAAAAA
20th July 12, 06:00 AM
A couple of things I noticed:


This is a good analysis sadly, especially the details about Lebanon and Iraq.

There are other big variables though. what will Russia, but especially China, be up with in these five years? I can't envision the Chinese just watching it all go ablaze thinking they can pick up the spoils later. They sure know how to do longterm waiting, but this could be too much even for them.

Feryk
20th July 12, 12:00 PM
I think Lebell may not be far wrong. The US announced that the UN has 'failed utterly' or something a couple of days ago after China and Russia stonewalled the latest Security Council resolution proposal.

I believe they are getting ready to put together another 'Coalition of the Willing' which will essentially be them, Israel, Britain and whoever else they can strongarm.

I don't see them using ground troops, but I can see them blowing whatever is left of the Syrian air force out of the sky so the rebels don't keep getting mowed down.

The hope being that when the rebels take over they'll be more pissed at Russia and China for sitting on their hands.

Totally can see that happening.

Lebell
21st July 12, 04:20 PM
This is a good analysis sadly, especially the details about Lebanon and Iraq.

There are other big variables though. what will Russia, but especially China, be up with in these five years? I can't envision the Chinese just watching it all go ablaze thinking they can pick up the spoils later. They sure know how to do longterm waiting, but this could be too much even for them.

Yes they can.
As long as they stay succesfull with their african campaign.
China does not have the same logistical structures like the usa does, with bases along the road, to get militairy involved would be a nightmare to them.
China is acquiring satellite states in Africa and does so quite succesfully.

Personally I think that to keep staring at fossile fuels is a retarded long term strategy, the nation that can invent and implement a easily obtainable fuelsource will lose a lot of headache and overseas involvement.

I am convinced it can be done within 30 years, the western nations will be amongst the first, and it probably will be agreed that the develloping nations can keep using fossile fuels so the transition (and income)for the oil-countries and its industries can go more smoothly.

Lebell
21st July 12, 04:24 PM
I believe they are getting ready to put together another 'Coalition of the Willing' which will essentially be them, Israel, Britain and whoever else they can strongarm.

I don't see them using ground troops, but I can see them blowing whatever is left of the Syrian air force out of the sky so the rebels don't keep getting mowed down.

The hope being that when the rebels take over they'll be more pissed at Russia and China for sitting on their hands.

Totally can see that happening.

God, let's hope not.
The middle east is a funny area, and I don't think a lot of western analysts or strategists are fully aware of arab mentality.

America could walsh in there, drive off the regime and build each arab there a new house and give each person a car, and they'd still hate americans.

The rebels are a chaotic bunch of monkeys, and they are being led and/or play into the hands of the islamists.
These people do not care about making deals, they are religious fanatics.

Harpy
21st July 12, 06:50 PM
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2011/02/egypthelmets.jpg

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
21st July 12, 07:00 PM
MJS's latest fashion collection?

Feryk
23rd July 12, 11:23 AM
Saw an 'analyst' talking about the Americans interest in Syria. Apparently, their biggest issue is ensuring that after Assad falls, that Iran, Iraq and Syria don't form a middle eastern Axis of Shia based Islamic beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone? I have a hard time believing this.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 11:59 AM
Saw an 'analyst' talking about the Americans interest in Syria. Apparently, their biggest issue is ensuring that after Assad falls, that Iran, Iraq and Syria don't form a middle eastern Axis of Shia based Islamic beliefs.

Does this make sense to anyone? I have a hard time believing this.

That is exactly the whole goddamn point.
the rebels are getting aid by their shia brethren.
There's some stuff about shia/sunni regions on wikipedia.
In short: Iran, majority Iraq, akistan: shia.
The rest sunni dominated.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 12:02 PM
thing that ircks me most about these so called arab springs is that in ALL cases the extremists have gained significantly in power and the personal freedoms of women in general and religious minorities have gone down.
and it's being portrayed by western media as if it's a good thing.

Feryk
23rd July 12, 02:11 PM
The media have no idea what to make of it. Tyrants are going down, so that 's gotta be a blow for democracy, right?

And any democracy will by definition love us, right? They'll want what we have, so we'll be able to work with them, right?

What you have described, Lebell, is a return to the religious sectarianism that has plagued the region for centuries. Awesome.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 02:26 PM
The media have no idea what to make of it. Tyrants are going down, so that 's gotta be a blow for democracy, right?

And any democracy will by definition love us, right? They'll want what we have, so we'll be able to work with them, right?

What you have described, Lebell, is a return to the religious sectarianism that has plagued the region for centuries. Awesome.

well yes.
history of middle east in short:

pagan times, monotheism introduced, first in egypt (akhnaton cult) then judaism.(primitive)
romans govern, pagans. (prosperous)
christianity comes into existance.(prosperous)
Islam takes middle east from the xtian byzantines (primitive/poor again in a matter of one generation)
Crusades, xtians retake the holy land. (economy and magistrative services come back to life again, prosperous)
Salah a din takes jerusalem for the muslims again (stark decline)
Sultan Baibars and the mamelukes rise to power (religious persecution and argueably genocide)
Several mongol incursions
Ottoman empire takes middle east up til 1918 (some Napoleontic campaigns in the meantime but nothing lasting)
and it is agreed by most scolars that the middle east under the ottomans received its economical coupe de grace.

The ottomans allowed the katholics and other xtians to build monestaries and allow pelgrims to visit in a desperate attempt to revive economy, but to no effect.

After 1918 the protectorates of western powers period.
oil found in the gulfstates, emergence of a saudi arabian nation.

Up til now.

My point?
The middle east always has been a fucking shithole under islamic rule.
Hell, almost any country under islamic rule is a shithole, maylaysia being the one exception i can think off.
And the ones with some oil to sell are sorta bareable but only if you're an arab yourself.

The islamic enlightement and/or golden age is A LIE.
There was a brief periodwhere they made achievements, using christian serfs.
Aya sofia was a church, the glden dome in jerusalem was designed and built by byzantine/greek workers and architects.

Cullion
23rd July 12, 02:32 PM
What about the achievements of islamic persia? Avicenna, the sufi poets etc.. ?

Cullion
23rd July 12, 02:39 PM
What about islamic Al-Andalus ? Was that all the work of Christian vassals ?

I know that the Islam of Andalusia wasn't exactly the strict puritanical form modern day salafis espouse, but that was a bonafide Islamic civilisation with a degree of pluralism, wasn't it ?

Lebell
23rd July 12, 02:43 PM
What about the achievements of islamic persia? Avicenna, the sufi poets etc.. ?

Really?
Sufi poetry?
Overrated at best.
Avicenna, who wrote treaties on (vast majority) philosophy and some on medicine?

For each Avicenna there were 10 Christian scientists.
Hell, even persia still had the old knowledge from their pagan heritage and India right at their doorstep.
(for example the number 0 was NOT discovered by an arab but by the indians, also the numbers we use are from india, not from the arabs)

It's reaching for straws.

It's a big p.c. bullshit lie: yes there was an islamic golden age *COUGH* to be seen in the early stages and in the countries they just conquered, relying on the indigenous xtian/hindu scientists and scolars, after 30/40 years of islamic rule and primitivism you could also immediately see a stark decline, also in none of the home regions of the arabs was there any sign of innovation up to this very day *COUGH*

Cullion
23rd July 12, 02:49 PM
Really?
Sufi poetry?
Overrated at best.

Overrated by whom ?



Avicenna, who wrote treaties on (vast majority) philosophy and some on medicine?

He wrote about a lot of scientific subjects. His 'some on medicine' was a big tract that was used as the core text in lots of mediaeval Christian universities.



For each Avicenna there were 10 Christian scientists.

Steady on, is that actually accurate ? What's your source for this assertion ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd July 12, 02:53 PM
Except for mathematics of course.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 03:06 PM
Overrated by whom ?

Sufist 'poetry' is mystical stuff.
I don't consider it very high on the art scale.





He wrote about a lot of scientific subjects. His 'some on medicine' was a big tract that was used as the core text in lots of mediaeval Christian universities.


Yes and?
Still one guy.
The arabs and other cultures took over a shitload from the Christian nations (never the good stuff unfortunately).
Europe was WAY more advanced than the islamic world: siege equipment, siege technics, armoring, weaponry, engineering, there were tons of experiments going on, and there was an allround curiosity to the world around them.
Not in the islamic world however.
Europe sailed to the new world.
Europe figured out how to use the gunpowder to it's best effect.
Europe built cathedrals (look up the one in Reims), set up the first TRUE universities, and shook off serfdom and unlimited powers of their kings.

Eventhough medieval christianity was rough it did allow for the enlightenment to occur.
Medieval Europe in mainstream media is hugely underrated.




Steady on, is that actually accurate ? What's your source for this assertion ?

Yes , yes it is accurate, how do I know?
Universities, proper universities were set up across europe.
The first one was in Bologna if im not mistaken, then Paris and oxford followed.

Not some one obscure persian writer and mysticist, or sufi's who learned from masters in a cultlike setting.
Universities with teachers, gradings and discussions (some more retarded than others I admit)
The blueprint was there.

Take for example William of Tyre: he could spend a decade or even longer at a french university and when he returned to his homeland the kingdom of jerusalem he learned several languages and an overall proper education.
Lots of crusaders and monks learned and mastered arabic, vice versa the arabs were behind.
There's an old map made in the norman kingdom of sicily which is partly in arabic for example.
People backthen werent as ignorant as is portrayed in movies.

Minus the technology, the islamic middle east is still prettymuch what it was since the early middle ages: outraged populaces running amok, the wildest rumors and supersticious bs are wide and deeply spread.

You can also see it with the xtian minorities: they tend to be better businessmen, better educated and more nice people, and they are a minority.
These are also the same people who nowadays mass emigrate to western nations cos of the rising tensions.

billy sol hurok
23rd July 12, 03:08 PM
That is exactly the whole goddamn point.
the rebels are getting aid by their shia brethren.

Doubtful. Qatar and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) are probably funding the vast majority, with the hardware being funnelled through Turkey and Jordan (Sunni). An Alewite (Shia) minority runs tings in Syria, and it's long been a tool of Iran.

Despite the Sunni majority, Syria might as well be Shiite, which is why the Saudis are so eager to have a proxy war w/ Iran there, denying them a Shiite swath from Iran to the Med (now that they run tings in Iraq, more or less).


There's some stuff about shia/sunni regions on wikipedia.
In short: Iran, majority Iraq, akistan: shia.

Pakistan is 80/20 Shia/Sunni. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#Pakistan)

Lebell
23rd July 12, 03:10 PM
Except for mathematics of course.

another bs remark people keep rehashing.
the mathematic advancements in that era were made in...zomg...INDIA.
India had the moghul empire to deal with at that time, via moghul empire>persia>middle east.
just a matter of being at the right place.

So answer me this, even if you'd be right: where are the brilliant arabic advancements?
where are their nasa-like observatories,labs,spaceprograms,sattelites?

those guys must be vastly ahead of us by now given the fabeled status of their mathemetics centuries ago.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 03:13 PM
Doubtful. Qatar and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) are probably funding the vast majority, with the hardware being funnelled through Turkey and Jordan (Sunni). An Alewite (Shia) minority runs tings in Syria, and it's long been a tool of Iran.

alewite is NOT shia.
im doubtfull whether turkey would really funnel hardwere, same goes for jordany, it just doesnt serve any purpose for either of those countries to have a destebalised syria.
well, not as far as i can reason this through, not to say i can be wrong ofcourse.


Despite the Sunni majority, Syria might as well be Shiite, which is why the Saudis are so eager to have a proxy war w/ Iran there, denying them a Shiite swath from Iran to the Med (now that they run tings in Iraq, more or less).



Pakistan is 80/20 Shia/Sunni. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a%E2%80%93Sunni_relations#Pakistan)

That is a interesting idea, it doesnt sound that stupid.
But what about Egypt?
How does it fit in?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd July 12, 03:21 PM
another bs remark people keep rehashing.
the mathematic advancements in that era were made in...zomg...INDIA.
India had the moghul empire to deal with at that time, via moghul empire>persia>middle east.
just a matter of being at the right place.

Didnt say there werent advances elsewhere.


So answer me this, even if you'd be right: where are the brilliant arabic advancements?
where are their nasa-like observatories,labs,spaceprograms,sattelites?

Algebra and its relationship to geometry!

That is all I'm going to say because..

1) we have had this argument before and you lost, badly

2) you're a fucking idiot

Cullion
23rd July 12, 03:25 PM
Sufist 'poetry' is mystical stuff.
I don't consider it very high on the art scale.

It's not up to you though.



Yes and?
Still one guy.

Okay, what about Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi ?

Feryk
23rd July 12, 03:29 PM
Lebell;

If we take your summary of Middle Eastern history and economic prosperity, does that equate to the same results now?

Many of the 'elite' of the middle east have been educated at the world's best universities. They have been deploying their capital building world class cities and infrastructure.

When we say that a nation is 'shia' or 'sunni' how organized is that? Are Iran's mullahs able to organize policy in Iraq, for example? Or Syria?

Is it possible that these nations will squabble amongst themselves regardless of sharing a faith?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd July 12, 03:37 PM
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

I mentioned him last time he didnt like it.

Lebell
23rd July 12, 04:52 PM
It's not up to you though.

neither is it up to you.





Okay, what about Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi ?

lol.
yeah let's try to bring up each and everyone's name (short list btw) in an effort to uphold the illusion of an islamic golden age.
not playing that boring game again.

I say simply: they have been and still are behaving pretty much the same way, they havent discovered or implemented anything worldshocking, nor are there any magnificent buildings that can rival the western accomplishments at that time.

but yeah, keep on naming poets and what not.
slow clapping here...

Lebell
23rd July 12, 04:54 PM
Lebell;

If we take your summary of Middle Eastern history and economic prosperity, does that equate to the same results now?

Many of the 'elite' of the middle east have been educated at the world's best universities. They have been deploying their capital building world class cities and infrastructure.

When we say that a nation is 'shia' or 'sunni' how organized is that? Are Iran's mullahs able to organize policy in Iraq, for example? Or Syria?

Is it possible that these nations will squabble amongst themselves regardless of sharing a faith?

As far as I understand it, each arab hates the other one.
They are in that aspect just like us.
Things will get interesting when the oil runs dry.
When western powers have no more interest in arab oil, their economy is in danger of complete collapse.
They have rpecious little else to export.
well besides medieval vices and terrorism ofcourse.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd July 12, 07:06 PM
2) you're a fucking idiot

Lebell
24th July 12, 02:59 AM
right, I'll explain my attitude towards you just one last time:

You have no need to repeat yourself because I usually simply read over your posts, and no thats not even a joke.
From the very first moment you appeared on here you tried to have this lame E-persona where you think everybody is stupid and you try to mimick the kinda posting behaviour what you think will be perceived as cool.
This does not however conceal that you are most likely a 40something male with light autistic tendencies working a government job.

at least try to be original in life.
By telling you this I hope I can save you time responding with this sorta non witty responses, so you have more time to browse through the match.com result pages instead.

carry on!

billy sol hurok
24th July 12, 06:54 AM
alewite is NOT shia.

I R NOT IZLM XPRT, BUT WIKKKI SEZ:

The Alawis, also known as Alawites, Nusayris and Ansaris (‘Alawīyyah (Arabic: علوية‎), Nuṣayrī (Arabic: نصيريون‎), and al-Anṣāriyyah) are a prominent mystical[9] religious group centred in Syria who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi)



im doubtfull whether turkey would really funnel hardwere, same goes for jordany, it just doesnt serve any purpose for either of those countries to have a destebalised syria.
well, not as far as i can reason this through, not to say i can be wrong ofcourse.

Turkey was hot to trot at first, talking mad shit and grabbing all the headlines with much Righteous Indignation over the slaughter of muslims. They were going to carve out safety corridors, do this and do that. Grabbing the headlines and the high ground as Protector of Teh Muslims, etc.

Then they stepped in a bit too close and got one of their fighters shot down. This arose from one delicious irony, and begat another.

The first: those planes had been modded for them by the Israelis to avoid Russia's latest radar systems (which Syria now has . . . manned by Ruskies most likely). But they didn't get the latest round of mods after staging the Mavi Mara flotilla to break the "illegal" Israeli blockade of Gaza. (NB Even the UN decided that the blockade was legal, which Turkey swore it would appeal to the ICJ and then slunk away.) So all military relations were severed, the Turks didn't get Stealth-point-Jew, and their shit got shot the fuck down.

The second: Turkey figgered that as a card-carrying member of NATO, she could rally the gang in her defense -- OMG ACT OF WAR!!!1! -- and get them to pile on Assad. NATO kind of scratched itself, looked at the big 0's campaign strategy, and demurred. Leaving Erdogen to shake his fist, though more quietly now.

The Turd: Assad is getting some revenge by leveraging the Kurds. He's got a bunch of them up in Northern Syria, and now he's giving the PRK safe bases near the Turkish border to launch their terror campaign against Turkey with better logistics.


But what about Egypt?
How does it fit in?

They haven't figured out among themselves yet, it appears. It presumably is still the arch-rival of Saudi Arabia for Center of the Sunni-verse, but they're BOTH arch-enemies of Iran. (Egypt's own nook program, which they quietly gave up several years ago, was more a response to Iran's than to Israel's.) Yes, there were bouquets from Tehran when Mubarak fell; certainly the Muslim Brotherhood is more to their liking than the military was. After all, Hamas is an offshoot of the MB, so mebbe they can mend fences long enough to kill some jewz together?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
24th July 12, 07:48 AM
right, I'll explain my attitude towards you just one last time:

You have no need to repeat yourself because I usually simply read over your posts, and no thats not even a joke.
From the very first moment you appeared on here you tried to have this lame E-persona where you think everybody is stupid and you try to mimick the kinda posting behaviour what you think will be perceived as cool.
This does not however conceal that you are most likely a 40something male with light autistic tendencies working a government job.

at least try to be original in life.
By telling you this I hope I can save you time responding with this sorta non witty responses, so you have more time to browse through the match.com result pages instead.

carry on!


OMG I'm so transparent!

OZZ
7th September 12, 01:27 PM
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-cuts-ties-iran-closes-embassy-orders-iranian-135726165.html

I know taking your diplomats home is usually part of the political game even when there is no threat of armed conflict..
BUT
I thought I would post this up anyways.
Does the Canadian government know something the general public does not know ?
Maybe Israel wants to missile strike Iran before X-mas.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-congressman-confirms-high-level-u-israel-spat-022556915.html

Israel is pretty eager to throw down the gauntlet aren't they ? I guess it figures, since they can start a war with Iran and then expect the US to foot the bill for the mop up and years of occupation that will surely follow.

KO'd N DOA
7th September 12, 01:37 PM
Maybe Israel wants to missile strike Iran before Hanukkah.

billy sol hurok
7th September 12, 01:39 PM
Maybe Israel wants to missile strike Iran before Election Day (USA).

Spade: The Real Snake
7th September 12, 02:42 PM
Maybe Israel wants to missile strike Iran before Chaka Khan .

Feryk
7th September 12, 05:08 PM
This is all kinds of suck. I have no doubt that Israel WILL bomb the shit out of Iran if they think they have a nuke.

I have no doubt Iran is pushing hard to build a nuke.

I can bet that the US will not be able to dither their way out of this one. What remains to be seen is what Russia and China will do.

This could be very ugly.

Spade: The Real Snake
7th September 12, 05:11 PM
Listen
We have important things to worry about here
Like how Canucklestan feels about US gun laws

Feryk
7th September 12, 05:26 PM
Well, in general we believe the average American is almost as stupid as pond scum. Arming mouth breathing morons by the millions does make us nervous, but at least they are stupid enough to shoot each other most of the time.

FTR, the people on this board are not what Canadians think of as 'average Americans'. For that, consult People of Wal Mart.

Lebell
8th September 12, 07:59 AM
the way it looks now im expecting that the iran standoff will continue for 2 to even 5 more years.
nobody is really that eager or able to make a move that leads to a desirable outcome.

Cullion
8th September 12, 08:57 AM
neither is it up to you.

lol.
yeah let's try to bring up each and everyone's name (short list btw) in an effort to uphold the illusion of an islamic golden age.
not playing that boring game again.

nor are there any magnificent buildings that can rival the western accomplishments at that time.

http://elamparo-granada.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/alhambra-palace.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E69Hvo6LMSc/TihI9t0b--I/AAAAAAAAlv8/eidSPBTL1Ug/s1600/isfahan_lotfo_mosque2.jpg

http://bikyamasr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/al-azhar.jpg

Come on, you don't really believe that.

Lebell
8th September 12, 10:44 AM
come on, do some research.
who actually designed and then built those buildings?

for example the al hambra, was it built by moors?
were the people at court all indigenous arabs from the peninsula, orrrrr let's say greeks, armenians (salahdin was either half armenian or half kurdic) italians and byzantine greeks?

just a wild suggestion.
im not trying to shock you, i want to guide you to that eye opening moment.

Cullion
8th September 12, 11:50 AM
come on, do some research.
who actually designed and then built those buildings?

for example the al hambra, was it built by moors?

The pre-reconquista Al Hambra palace was designed by moors.



were the people at court all indigenous arabs from the peninsula, orrrrr let's say greeks, armenians (salahdin was either half armenian or half kurdic) italians and byzantine greeks?

No, all those ethnicities were there, but it was still an Islamic kingdom, and the design of the pre-reconquista parts of the Alhambra is mostly Abassid arabic architecture. We're talking about Islam here, not arabs per se.



just a wild suggestion.
im not trying to shock you, i want to guide you to that eye opening moment.

Then show me the non-Islamic architecture in the pre-reconquista parts of the Al-Hambra.

resolve
8th September 12, 03:55 PM
Cullion's right in that, in a subjective aesthetic argument especially, you at least need to provide pics of what you're talking about.

Spade: The Real Snake
8th September 12, 04:19 PM
yuk62WtK4sk

Lebell
8th September 12, 04:56 PM
The pre-reconquista Al Hambra palace was designed by moors.



No, all those ethnicities were there, but it was still an Islamic kingdom, and the design of the pre-reconquista parts of the Alhambra is mostly Abassid arabic architecture. We're talking about Islam here, not arabs per se.



Then show me the non-Islamic architecture in the pre-reconquista parts of the Al-Hambra.

omg.
you dont want to understand my point, do you?

ill keep it simple:

me: nothing good or advanced has been or will be brought forth from islamic societies.

you: yeah but no but yeah but..al hambra?

me: lots of íslamic'structures were actually designed and built by (forced) converts, often actually xtians.

you: yeah but thats not the point, technically its islamic.

you see it everywhere in the world with exceptions of modern oilstates: EVERY fucking where where islam becomes the dominant factor in society, societies collaps into poverty and plain stupidity.
because ignorance and xenophobic fascism are an inherant part of that religion.

Cullion
8th September 12, 05:42 PM
omg.
you dont want to understand my point, do you?

ill keep it simple:

me: nothing good or advanced has been or will be brought forth from islamic societies.

you: yeah but no but yeah but..al hambra?

me: lots of íslamic'structures were actually designed and built by (forced) converts, often actually xtians.

Show me the architect who was a forced convert.


EVERY fucking where where islam becomes the dominant factor in society, societies collaps into poverty and plain stupidity.
because ignorance and xenophobic fascism are an inherant part of that religion.

Al-Andalus was poor ?

Lebell
9th September 12, 06:18 AM
Show me the architect who was a forced convert.

Some names are still known to historians, in other cases you can simply see the typical byzantine buildingstyles.
You are argueing facts here, just so you know.




Al-Andalus was poor ?

Excellent point!
Have a look at Andalus before the muslim conquest and the state it was in when the last Moors were pushed out.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:02 PM
Some names are still known to historians, in other cases you can simply see the typical byzantine buildingstyles.
You are argueing facts here, just so you know.

No I'm not arguing facts, I'm stating them. Your rebuttal consists of 'oh there are totally byzantine building styles, everybody knows this, for realz'.

Bullshit. Show me a photograph of an example of byzantine architecture at the Al Hambra.


Have a look at Andalus before the muslim conquest and the state it was in when the last Moors were pushed out.

You have something to tell us about the economic history of the region? I'm all ears.
I think you're trying to stretch your nightschool class in arabic and a couple of kibbutz holidays into a total expertise about all of Islam a little too hard though.

Harpy
9th September 12, 04:07 PM
Can you guys limit the debate to the present/last decade?

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:13 PM
why?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
9th September 12, 04:27 PM
No I'm not arguing facts, I'm stating them. Your rebuttal consists of 'oh there are totally byzantine building styles, everybody knows this, for realz'.

Bullshit. Show me a photograph of an example of byzantine architecture at the Al Hambra.

Not Byzantine but there is the horseshoe arch that was originally a major Visigoth archetectural motif that was adpoted by the Moors and can be seen all over the Al Hambra.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:32 PM
No I'm not arguing facts, I'm stating them. Your rebuttal consists of 'oh there are totally byzantine building styles, everybody knows this, for realz'.

Bullshit. Show me a photograph of an example of byzantine architecture at the Al Hambra.

That would involve major textquotes and links.
the ignorance is on your side, solve it yourself.




You have something to tell us about the economic history of the region? I'm all ears.
I think you're trying to stretch your nightschool class in arabic and a couple of kibbutz holidays into a total expertise about all of Islam a little too hard though.
Interesting remark.
Jealous much?

Adouglasmhor
9th September 12, 04:33 PM
He asked for a photograph not a dick tuck.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:33 PM
Not Byzantine but there is the horseshoe arch that was originally a major Visigoth archetectural motif that was adpoted by the Moors and can be seen all over the Al Hambra.

Meh, it's not like Lebell can claim the palace wasn't designed by muslims on that basis.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:34 PM
That would involve major textquotes and links.
the ignorance is on your side, solve it yourself.

Busted lying.



Interesting remark.
Jealous much?

Not even a little bit.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:39 PM
Not Byzantine but there is the horseshoe arch that was originally a major Visigoth archetectural motif that was adpoted by the Moors and can be seen all over the Al Hambra.

*sigh*

okay guys, im expaining it the simplest I can, if you still fail to see the obvious, stay in denial.

muhammad dies, in the years following the islamic/arabic conquest starts.
byzantine empire rules middle east.
corrupt empire, weakened, internal strife, etc.
arabs who already dealt with byzantines as mercenaries etc were welcomed by middle easteners: hey maybe those muslims are more tolerant and less corrupt! we r sick of byzantines.

the golden age of islam is here and lasts not even a hundred years.
why?
they were a bunch of savages (no wheel for example lololol) who used local human resources in the middle east (note diff between arabs and middle easteners) jews, greeks etc to build them a warfleet, and helped them rule nationstates etc.

soon each faction went its own way northwestern africans became moors, fatamids arose etc etc.

after the generation of newly converts died out the entire goddamn islamic region collapsed into the same retarded state we can still see.
no inventons or innovations.

brief improvement under the crusaders, and after their failure the ottomans really fucked it up, and the middle east became the shithole as we know it today.

the end.

plz keep argueing facts its amusing.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:40 PM
Busted lying.

no, busted not caring.




Not even a little bit.

lol.
sure you're not.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:41 PM
I know you've repeated this crock of shit version of history so often that you've internalized it, but it's not objectively true.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:43 PM
I know you've repeated this crock of shit version of history so often that you've internalized it, but it's not objectively true.

it's not a crock of shit, it is what actually happened.
you're clining to the p.c. version of history.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:47 PM
I expect next you'll tell me that the Ottoman empire wasn't really muslim and didn't invent anything.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:48 PM
I expect next you'll tell me that the Ottoman empire wasn't really muslim and didn't invent anything.

no way bro.
the ottoman empire was totally awesome!
they made huge conquests, and vast regions under their control flourished!

*snickers*

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:49 PM
no way bro.
the ottoman empire was totally awesome!
they made huge conquests, and vast regions under their control flourished!

*snickers*

Bigger than the Dutch.

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:50 PM
I can tell I have stayed away for too long, Cullion isnt used to his daily doses of WTFP4wNz0rZ by me.

I'll never leave you like that ever again Cull.
EVER.

<3

Lebell
9th September 12, 04:51 PM
Bigger than the Dutch.

Actually they were our allies when we fought off the spanish.
The rebels wore amulets with three crescent moons which said: 'liever turks dan paaps'which means : better to be turkish than papal.

Which is deliciously ironic in this era.

Cullion
9th September 12, 04:52 PM
Lasted longer than the Dutch 'Empire' too.

OZZ
9th September 12, 05:09 PM
I can tell I have stayed away for too long, Cullion isnt used to his daily doses of WTFP4wNz0rZ by me.

I'll never leave you like that ever again Cull.
EVER.

<3
Come to think of it, he has been pretty cocky lately..
Have at 'em - he deserves it.

Cullion
9th September 12, 05:23 PM
I cannot wait for Lebell to crack out his enormous repotoire of laughably easy to disprove crap he gleaned from old skinhead leaflets.

Oh wait, he's already used it all.

No art or architecture produced by Islam. Yup, that's what he said.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/HeratFridayMosque.jpg/800px-HeratFridayMosque.jpg

Lebell
10th September 12, 03:20 AM
haha and if you knew anything about architecture you'd know that what we know consider íslamic' style was in fact byzantine greek.
the round domes, the arches.

the only thing they added was some quranic verses and mozaics.
aya sophia in istanbul is considered as a islamic highpoint by the sheeple, yet it was in fact a church first.
muslims build some minarets around it and painted their infidel language over the precious icons and said: isnt islam great?

you cullion, are one of the morons who stand their to defend and applaud this behaviour.
now we already found out oxford is nothing more than a vulgar diploma mill, but dont take it out on me.

srs tho, wtf was that news all about?

Cullion
10th September 12, 07:15 AM
haha and if you knew anything about architecture you'd know that what we know consider íslamic' style was in fact byzantine greek.
the round domes, the arches.

the only thing they added was some quranic verses and mozaics.
aya sophia in istanbul is considered as a islamic highpoint by the sheeple, yet it was in fact a church first.
muslims build some minarets around it and painted their infidel language over the precious icons and said: isnt islam great?

you cullion, are one of the morons who stand their to defend and applaud this behaviour.
now we already found out oxford is nothing more than a vulgar diploma mill, but dont take it out on me.

srs tho, wtf was that news all about?

So you're claiming that persian islamic architecture is byzantine ?

Lebell
10th September 12, 07:18 AM
So you're claiming that persian islamic architecture is byzantine ?

No, they used newly converted persians to build the structures there.
They also burned down libraries and universities.

Wait...you are under the impression Persia was a native islamic country?!
you fucking idiot...

Cullion
10th September 12, 07:27 AM
No, they used newly converted persians to build the structures there.
They also burned down libraries and universities.

And stopped building within a generation? Yes or no ?



Wait...you are under the impression Persia was a native islamic country?!
you fucking idiot...

There's no such thing as a 'native islamic country' just as there's no such thing as a native Christian country, chump.

Lebell
10th September 12, 08:22 AM
And stopped building within a generation? Yes or no ?

Read more about dhimmi's and you'll understand better regarding your ignorant question about generations.




There's no such thing as a 'native islamic country' just as there's no such thing as a native Christian country, chump.

saudi arabia.
once again you fail to understand the arab fascism woven through islam.

just admit it, my eveningclasses allowed me a more in depth knowledge than you can come up with with your random wiki and google searches because you lack understanding of the framework.

I see the entire puzzle whereas you come up with a small piece, victoriously yelling: HA! BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS, THIS DOESNT MAKE SENSE!

no, in your eyes it does not.

Cullion
10th September 12, 10:02 AM
Read more about dhimmi's and you'll understand better regarding your ignorant question about generations.

I've read about Dhimmi's, what's your point ? Can you give me the names of them involved in the design of these buildings ?



saudi arabia.

No, the arabs of the time of Mohammed's birth (pbuh) time were not muslims.



once again you fail to understand the arab fascism woven through islam.

So apparently do all those Turks, Berbers, Persians and Indians.



just admit it, my eveningclasses allowed me a more in depth knowledge than you can come up with with your random wiki and google searches because you lack understanding of the framework.


Then you should, by now, have been able to produce the name of an architect.

OZZ
10th September 12, 11:21 AM
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canada-closure-tehran-embassy-precursor-attack-iran-211531471.html

More ..

Spade: The Real Snake
10th September 12, 11:26 AM
they should just all claim to be part of a Canadian film crew

Feryk
10th September 12, 11:33 AM
Looking forward to seeing that movie, actually.

OZZ
10th September 12, 11:38 AM
Me too..

OZZ
10th September 12, 12:34 PM
More..
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/iranian-born-professor-says-canada-closure-tehran-embassy-203921572.html

Feryk
10th September 12, 12:37 PM
Israel is going to bomb the hell out of Iran.

And no one is going to do a thing to stop them.

They are lining their ducks up now.

OZZ
10th September 12, 12:39 PM
Great , I get to pay even more for gas.

Feryk
10th September 12, 12:41 PM
It's the aftermath I am concerned with.

OZZ
10th September 12, 12:51 PM
Iran has no real friends though, so I don't see how it could get any worse than the Iraq situation.



It's the aftermath I am concerned with.
What type of scenario are you envisioning ?

Cullion
10th September 12, 03:02 PM
Iran has no real friends though, so I don't see how it could get any worse than the Iraq situation.
[/QUOTE]

It might piss China or Russia off too much.

OZZ
10th September 12, 04:24 PM
Enough to make them attack Israel or the US ?
No.
Enough to make them supply Iran with arms in a prolonged mop-up by the UN Nations ?
Yes.

Cullion
10th September 12, 04:43 PM
Enough to make them attack Israel or the US ?
No.
Enough to make them supply Iran with arms in a prolonged mop-up by the UN Nations ?
Yes.

I think another prolonged war in the middle east where the US attempts to attack a mountainous country supplied by other superpowers is a more serious situation than Iraq.

OZZ
10th September 12, 07:49 PM
Yes..but I'm betting it won't spiral into global conflict.
Let's hope so.

Hedley LaMarr
10th September 12, 08:47 PM
I think another prolonged war in the middle east where the US attempts to attack a mountainous country supplied by other superpowers is a more serious situation than Iraq.
Are you saying Iran is the next Vietnam?

Vieux Normand
10th September 12, 09:19 PM
Israel is going to bomb the hell out of Iran.

And no one is going to do a thing to stop them.

They are lining their ducks up now.

Iran's size and terrain will stop them from attaining 100% certainty of successful outcome.

Question: Has any nation which really wanted nuclear weapons ever been prevented from eventually obtaining them?

Answer: Batshit-crazy Pakistan has nukes. Any more questons?

Cullion
11th September 12, 05:10 AM
Are you saying Iran is the next Vietnam?

I don't think that many American ground troops will get killed. But I think it will have a larger effect on the west's economies.

Lebell
11th September 12, 06:35 AM
Wait. Are you saying war is bad for the west's economy? AHAHAHAHA! What planet are you from?

he's prob from the planet where Iran can blockade one of the most important seastreets for economic trade in the world.
Go check out topography.

billy sol hurok
11th September 12, 06:49 AM
Question: Has any nation which really wanted nuclear weapons ever been prevented from eventually obtaining them?

Answer: Batshit-crazy Pakistan has nukes. Any more questons?

Yes.

What about Iraq? I don't think the Osirak was before your time.

What about Syria?

What about Libya?

What about Egypt? (Far less info available about this, but Hosni had apparently initiated an atomic program to counterbalance the Iranian nook threat, but let it go.)

Hedley LaMarr
11th September 12, 07:52 AM
I don't think that many American ground troops will get killed.

Do you base that on a lack of desire from policy makers to start up a draft, a lack of necessity in regards to the mission to require a draft, or an expectation from policy makers that a draft wouldn't fly in today's America?


But I think it will have a larger effect on the west's economies.
I agree here. There would probably be a short-term boost (if only on paper and on infographics on CNBC), but it would exacerbate and possible market collapse.

Cullion
11th September 12, 08:02 AM
Do you base that on a lack of desire from policy makers to start up a draft, a lack of necessity in regards to the mission to require a draft, or an expectation from policy makers that a draft wouldn't fly in today's America?

I think only the lunatic fringe of the neoconservative movement would want to try and occupy Iran with American ground troops. Whilst he's a neocon, I don't think Romney is that extreme (nor did the last set of odds I saw point at him beating Obama).