^@rudebwoy: take a look at the release date.
-------------------------------------------------------
Very good interview between Sargon of Akkad and Ryan Dawson. For anyone who felt like they maybe didn't get the complete overall picture or couldn't see all the connections in their entirety:





Ryan Dawson really knows his stuff.

(02-27-2016 06:11 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  China warship sent to join Russia and Iran.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/09/30/a-c...y-buildup/

Date: Sept. 30th 2015.

Site does not look like a trustworthy source of news.

Grand Chessboard.

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/02/kerr...lan-a.html

(02-14-2016 09:33 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 12:35 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Samseau this is factually wrong.

For one, it was George Bush Jr. that sent troops to Iraq with insubstantial evidence that Saddam Hussein was creating weapons of mass destruction. So it was the Bush administration driven by imperialism and nation building that led to this epic disaster.

The withdrawal process was put together and ratified by the Bush administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80...Agreement.

The blame lies entirely at the feet of the Bush administration and his cronies, not the Obama administration.

I do not agree with every decision that Barack Obama makes, but we need to be grounded in facts and reality when making strong claims against a man's reputation.

First, do not be confused I am not defending Bush. Bush sucked ass, and was just a puppet much like Obama. These guys are both worthless. Obama in particular though, had an explicit non-interventionist vibe to him, yet he destabilized Egypt, Libya, and Syria. So I will give extra evil points to Obama for lying so bad, and for being either incredibly incompetent or stupid.

Who knows, Bush's withdrawal strategy may have been exactly the same as Obama's, or it may have been stronger. Bush did add an extra "surge" of troops back in 2006-7 when it was clear that his withdrawal strategy wasn't working then. So Bush did appear to have more of a mind of his own and was smarter than to let the entire Middle East fall into war, which Obama has done.

I do not know if the destabilization of Egypt, Libya, and Syria was all Obama's doing. It may have been a result of a domino effect with Iraq being shaken up. I don't really know enough to comment though, so I will give you credit on this one.

Quote:Elections in the Middle East just mean that the most radical Muslim gets elected. Democracy + Islam is a proven failure, something most people don't get yet. Islam breeds exponentially fast, they will always have the biggest numbers in the long run until there is a massive war killing them off. They are the r-selected religion of war and destruction.

Iran has just had their elections and they just voted in a bunch of "moderates". Essentially, president Rouhani's coalition just got voted into power.

Rouhani represents Iran's move away from the ultra-conservative wackos that currently run Iran, so I personally believe that that country has hope for the future.

My main problem with Islam is still the same. State driven Wahhabi Islam is the real problem here with Saudi Arabia being the epicenter of this ideological movement. Unlike the other sects of Islam, state driven Wahhabi Islam does advocate for violent jihad.

Shit, ISIS practices Wahhabi Islam, which just reinforces what I am saying.

I really think we need to narrow our focus when talking about muslims and I say this as someone who personally has friends who are second generation immigrants from Iran.

Amazing article from National Interest (not to be confused by the National Review cuck central) on the Russian-Kurdish alliance:

Quote:Russia: the Kurds’ Oldest Great-Power Patron

The first thing observers need to understand is that today’s alliance between Russia and the PKK is hardly new or unusual. The Russian-Kurdish nexus has been a recurring feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics for more than two hundred years, since Catherine the Great commissioned the publication of a Kurdish grammar in 1787. Catherine’s interest in the Kurds was not purely academic. Kurdish tribes, tsarist officials recognized, were important actors along Russia’s southern frontiers. From 1804 forward, Kurds played important roles in Russia’s wars with Qajar Persia and Ottoman Turkey. As the century wore on, the Russian army made increasing use of Kurdish units to fight the Persians and Turks.

Kurdish motives for fighting alongside tsarist forces varied, but most often involved resentment at Qajar and Ottoman interference in tribal affairs or sheer opportunism. But by the dawn of the twentieth century, a number of Kurds began to see Russia as their best hope, not just to throw off external interference, but also to transform the Kurds from an overwhelmingly nomadic, tribal and illiterate society into a modern one that could compete in the information age dawning in the twentieth century. The most famous of these was Abdurrezzak Bedirhan, a scion of the last independent Kurdish emir of Cizre (Cizre, not coincidentally, has been the site of some of the most intense fighting inside Turkey today). Deprived of his patrimony and placed in the Ottoman foreign service, Abdurrezzak’s stint in the St. Petersburg embassy in the 1890s converted him into a true Russophile. In 1910, he crossed over to the Russian side and with Russian backing—arms, money and intelligence—began organizing Kurdish tribal chiefs and inciting a series of rebellions against Ottoman rule across Eastern Anatolia.

Abdurrezzak’s efforts were not limited to insurrection. St. Petersburg was the world’s center for Kurdology, and working with Russian experts in academia and the foreign ministry he opened in 1914 a Russian school for Kurds, and planned more schools, believing that a Kurdish elite trained by Russians and educated in Russian universities would lift the Kurds out of their poverty and ignorance. Only the outbreak of World War I dashed his dream.
...
Red Kurdistan, the Mahabad Republic and the PKK: The USSR and the Kurds

The end of the Russian empire in 1917 did not mean the end of Russia’s Kurdish ambitions. In 1923, Soviet authorities established “Red Kurdistan,” a nominally autonomous Kurdish province wedged between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan. It was the first ethnically defined Kurdish entity. Complete with a Kurmanji (Kurdish-language) newspaper and Kurdish schools, its purpose was to serve as a beacon of socialist revolution to Kurds throughout the Middle East. Deciding that devices to export revolution might serve instead to import counterrevolution, however, Stalin disbanded Red Kurdistan in 1930.

There is an even longer historic dynamic with the Kurds as being a natural buffer between the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire and the Russian Empire. The Kurds reinvented themselves as Muslims after the Arab invasion and conquest, as Sunni Muslims after the Ottoman Turks conquest, as Shiite Muslims after the Persian conquest, as Kurdish Nationalists in the aftermath of World War I and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Since the conquest of Persia in the 7th century A.D., the Kurdish independent nature has been continuously suppressed by others.

Before the Muslim conquest in the 7th century A.D. they were nomadic tribesmen inhabiting the Caucasus and the upper Tigris. Before these conquests, these tribesmen recognized the over-lordship of the Aremenia King which then became a province of the Sassanid Kingdom that was handed over to the Roman empire late part of the 3rd century A.D. and ceded back to Persia less than a century later. Moving back further to the 5th century B.C., they were known as the Kardouchoi against the Greek Spartans fighting their retreat from the attempted conquest of ancient Persia, before that the influence of the Median (Medes) kingdom in the 8th century B.C. Between the 6th and 8th century B.C. the Assyrians exemplified the imperial rule that would become the template for later empires (Greek and Roman).

The 8-9th century B.C. to the 12th century B.C. was a relative dark age for the near east that was marked by migration (to include migration to the north).

The time before the 12th Century B.C. illustrates the progressive technological and commercial overshadowing of Kurdistan by neighboring Mesopotamian cultures. This was the dawning of more urban life. The time between 1200 BC and 3000 BC indicate a power struggle between the military forces of the mountains (Kurdistan) and the plains of the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Syria) for political and economic control of this most civilized and richest of the planet at that time. This time-frame marks the coming of the Aryans and the beginning of the transformation of Kurdistan into an Indo-European-speaking society, which culminated in the classical period.

Moving back in time further, pre-dating the Hurrians (Hurri was the tongue of northern Syria, Northern Mesopotamia, part of Armenia and contiguous sections of Asia minor) in 3000 B.C to the time before the ancient Hurrians in 9000-10,000 B.C., there have been discoveries of technological advances made in the Kurdish highlands pre-dating the rise of Mesopotamia in 3000 B.C. This vast amount of archaeological, zoological, and botanical evidence of Kurdistan's crucial importance to the development of civilization is under-estimated on a good day.

This is an epic part of the history of the modern world that may go back even further and this culture has been trading with Slavic cultures for thousands of years. As it relates to a larger issue, tribal cultures have been and will continue to be eradicated as they are not compatible with modern (post Greco-Roman) ideologies and particularly the modern nation state (post-1648).

Capitalism requires World War

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-02...-world-war

This is a good article (+1), but I disagree with the conclusions and I will elaborate and post it here:
/thread-53234.html

Here is the post in its entirety.

The article is missing the point of pricing in risk. One of the largest problems today in the ´market´ that is keeping things in the managed state, is that risk is not adequately priced in the financial instruments (various derivatives and derivations of derivatives with the assets market to fantasy and not marked to market as a basic example), so people and institutions are not able to correctly gauge the time value of money (capital not currency) in a more objective fashion. There are people and institutions taking enormous risks and receiving negative real returns based on interest rates. So the first solution proposed is not a real solution, rather it is moving the shell under another nut and the ´can is kicked down the road´ as people continue to believe (have confidence) in the system as they are getting fleeced through the mis-allocation of capital and many may not have their capital returned to them. Hence the eventual need for war to distract from the implosion.

Trade by definition will decrease war, as war is the ultimate in the mis-allocation of capital (WWII did not bring the U.S. or the World out of the Great Depression). War is always bodies (human capital) for land; where resources are used to destroy capital (structures, bodies, productive endeavors). The land has the resources whether it is the water, the oil, the gold, the rice, the castle, the women or the strategic value of the land itself, ad. infinitum. Capitalism only requires war if you do not allow the business that is not economically competitive (in relation to the customers) to die a natural death and go bankrupt or cease to operate because it is not profitable (allowing them to operate thusly is by definition, not capitalism). Otherwise it is greed and lust for power. Currently there is mal-investment as the capital is being mis-allocated and eventually the capital is being destroyed (to include capital being retired or taken out of service). Capital destruction is the root of the economic malaise today. The larger the war, the easier it is to mis-direct public attention; and the puppeteers continue the show.

When you study the transitions from one power (Empire) to another power (Empire) there is always a financial component (event before the 20th century when gold and silver were the commonly used). It was obviously so in with the transition from Britain to the U.S., it is so now with the transition from the U.S. to (I posit) China and it will be so when there is the transition (I posit) from China to ??? near the turn of the 22nd century.

These modern notions can be traced back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century with her Prime Minister when they began to implement the notion of ¨most favored nation¨ concept with trade (not from 1971). You can also trace them back to the City States of Italy in the 14th century and the use of silver for a domestic trade and gold for international trade. What happened from 1330 - 1345 is a parallel to what is happening today. The puppet masters have played this show a number of times between the 14th and 21st centuries. It is regrettable that people are being awed by the variation on a theme once again.

The notion of economic growth being related to energy gain is an important concept that very few people discuss. In reality, it is the net energy cost (as well as net energy gain) that is critical as it takes energy to find or create energy. It is this surplus that is the key to the engine of economic growth. Short of breaking the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this will be pivotal. Also it is the neo-liberal capitalism that requires war because it emphasizes a strong state and its intervention, not because of the laissez-faire capitalism and open markets. If this is de-emphasized, (I postulate that) the outcome would be different. This is why thread one of my five (now six) threads on geo-politics and monetary issues is energy.

I posit a four part solution.

1) Promote trade among nations, cultures.
2) Create machines/engines that are more efficient that reduce the (input) energy needed to increase (relative) energy output (moving towards a Carnot engine). These machines/engines include various forms of robotics, nano-machines, better carburetors, etc.
3) The advancement of Zero-point and Fusion types of energy devices (Carnot Engines that do not exist publically).
4) The movement of humans off world.

There is more but it gets deeper into economic philosophy, political philosophy and policy. Perhaps I will venture there as time goes by.

This is interesting. I, as also many others in this thread believed that Putin wanted Assad to stay in Syria, therefor he intervened.

A couple a days ago Kerry visited Putin in Moscow and I knew something is odd.

And here is the turnaround in the case of Assad:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/...r-country/

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry informed several Arab countries that the U.S. and Russia have reached an understanding that Syrian President Bashar Assad will leave to another country as part of the future peace process aiming to put an end to the bloody civil war, reported the London-based Al-Hayat Thursday.

Quote:According to the report, based on a Security Council diplomat, a timetable was not set for Assad’s departure. The understanding between the United States and Russia came about in behind-the-scenes diplomatic channels involving military operations against Islamic State and it includes the departure of Assad to another country at some point.

However it was stressed that “the timing of the move and its context in the political process is still not clear to everyone so far.”

I'll believe it when I see it.

What Syria does not need is a moderate leader who will settle for less than total destruction of those who caused this war. A man with a spine is required and wouldn't bend over to appease the west who will be all too hungry to get into those oil fields as they have always wanted.

Kerry knows Assad will not do infrastructure deals with western companies or governments.

The current events seem to me like the western governments (especially USA) admitting defeat and pulling back - not so much because of their military/cover-ops failure, but because of the danger in the upcoming elections. They want to defuse the anti-interventionist sentiment that has brought about the rise of Donald Trump.

Wow, this is the best synopsis and explanation i've seen of the Syrian War so far, the entire article needs to be read to really understand what happened there so far.

How the war broke out in Syria
http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-...deraa.html

The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone of Palestinian rights into dust. To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.

Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the Turkey-Aleppo border. The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia. The weapons were all supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya. The US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.

However, the US strategy was to create a “New Middle East”, which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka ‘winds of change’.

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the “Arab Spring”. But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage.

Is it true that Syria does not have a Rothschild bank?

The truth of ISIS you will never see in Mainstream media:

China now getting involved. For such a minor conflict, it does seem like the entire world cares about the outcome of this war far more than it seems like they should, shouldn't they?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2016-08/...396907.htm

Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Fula Jie met with Chinese military delegation of the Foreign Affairs

Quote:Xinhua News Agency, Damascus, August 15 (Reporter Che Hongliang) - Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Fula Jie in the 14 afternoon in Damascus, met with visiting Syrian International Cooperation Office of the Central Military Commission, director of Friends of flying off military admiral.

　　Fula Jie said that China several thousand years of history and civilization. Since 1978, the Chinese government led the people in working hard to achieve in science and technology, and military achievements that attracted worldwide attention. Syria has a long history of friendship, the two sides have maintained close coordination on international issues. Syria supports China's stance on the South China Sea issue, and thanked the Chinese government and armed forces to give Syria's help. Syria ready to work with China to push forward the continuous development of bilateral military relations.

　　Friends flew off, said this year is the 60th anniversary of Sino-Syrian diplomatic ties, the two sides has long been mutual help. China has been playing an active role in the political settlement of the Syrian issue, we support the maintenance of an independent Syria. Syria traditional friendly military relations, China is willing to continue to strengthen military exchanges and cooperation with the Xujun.

　　The two sides strengthen personnel training, Chinese troops to provide humanitarian assistance to Syria to reach a consensus.

　　15 morning, the Friends of flying off and 奇瓦尔科夫 director Mediation Centre in the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Syria on issues of common concern were exchanged.

The answer is in bold. China sees the USA as a threat to their hegemony, so other governments, like Assad's, are now China's friends.

I hope no one got their hopes up that Assad would be overthrown. Will be extremely unlikely now that China is involved.

Perhaps China will offer some kind of material and financial help ?

Naval or Air support from China is both unlikely and unnecessary at this point. Things that Syria lacks are manpower and of course, tons of moneyz to fund the war.

So far the strategy for filling manpower gaps was steady supply of Iranian troops and Hezbollah volunteers.

China could help with oil, cash and other kind of aid including small arms and specialist equipment - explosives, mines, etc...

Quote:For such a minor conflict, it does seem like the entire world cares about the outcome of this war far more than it seems like they should, shouldn't they?

I forget who said it (someone British, probably) but there's a maxim about certain places having greater-than-it-would-seem importance in international affairs. One is Syria/The Levant and another is Afghanistan.

The Sino-Syrian and Russo-Syrian connections are interesting.
They hint at a Russian-Chinese coalition.

If Trump gets elected, and the UK becomes more insistently anti-EU, we might see Ukraine partitioned without any major conflict.

If Turkey continues to veer towards Islamism, the kind supported by the US in Saudi Arabia and Syria, then it's conceivable that a Kurdish insurrection could receive Sino-Russian support, and that the main Turkish state would receive lukewarm Western support.

Hard to say where Israel really stands. Do they want to disintegrate their neighbours in civil wars against secular governments, or kill off their most ideologically insistent opponents, the Islamists?
The middle east is fascinating.

It's a really simple scenario.

The US wants to pipe Saudi petro chemicals northwards through Syria into Europe which will end Russia as the primary nat gas and oil supplier for Europe.

Assad is friendly with Russia and wouldn't allow such a deal to occur. So, we need to remove an unfriendly leader and put in someone who would allow it. That's where Isis comes in.

Putin doesn't want his country's cash cow to be cut off and intervened. The US can't come out and admit that it has been financing terrorism and has to back off.

Putin drops some bombs and does some good deeds. Isis cracks and begins to rapidly fall apart showing that they can't do their job without the US or Saudi's financing them.

I'm curious what Israel's influence and opinion is on this matter.

I'm willing to bet that Trump once he wins is going to expose this whole matter and prosecute everyone involved. He's out for blood and the level of hate against him suggests to me that heads will roll once he has access to all the materials.

2017 will be a very interesting year.

(08-19-2016 09:48 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm curious what Israel's influence and opinion is on this matter.

Israel loves the concept of ISIS taking over Syria because a bunch of ragtag sheep fuckers is no threat to a nationalistic police state like Israel, but a strong secular leader with a sizable military and economy definitely is.

Turkey seems to be determined to shove its nose into Syria's business even more.

Reuters link

Tanks rolling in to deal with both Kurds and ISIS. It seems the Syrian army has no way of stopping them and the Kurds will not allow Turkey to take advantage. Looks like another front has opened up.

Quote:Syrian rebels backed by Turkish special forces, tanks and warplanes entered one of Islamic State's last strongholds on the Turkish-Syrian border on Wednesday, in Turkey's first major U.S.-backed incursion into its southern neighbor.

A column of at least nine Turkish tanks crossed into Syria with the group of largely Arab and Turkmen rebels to drive Islamic State out of Jarablus and surrounding villages. A Reuters reporter at the border witnessed intense bombardments, with palls of black smoke rising around the town.

President Tayyip Erdogan said the operation was targeting both Islamic State and the Kurdish PYD party, whose gains in northern Syria have alarmed Turkey. Ankara views the PYD as an extension of Kurdish militants fighting an insurgency on its own soil, putting it at odds with Washington, which sees the group as an ally in the fight against Islamic State.

"This morning at 4 a.m. (0100 GMT) an operation started in northern Syria against terror groups which constantly threaten our country, like Daesh (Islamic State) and the PYD," Erdogan said in a speech in Ankara.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who arrived in Turkey, a key NATO ally with its second biggest armed forces, on a pre-planned trip hours after the operation began, tried to soothe Turkish concerns about Kurdish territorial gains in Syria.

Biden said Washington had made clear to Kurdish militia fighters that they should return east of the Euphrates river again - a red line for Turkey - after helping to capture the city of Manbij south of Jarablus from Islamic State this month.

"They must go back across the river. They cannot, will not, and under no circumstances get American support if they do not keep that commitment. Period," he told a joint news conference in Ankara with Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim.

The offensive, dubbed "Euphrates Shield", is Turkey's first major military operation since a failed July 15 coup shook confidence in its ability to step up the fight against Islamic State. It comes four days after a suicide bomber suspected of links to the group killed 54 people at a wedding in the southeastern city of Gaziantep.

Syria's foreign ministry condemned what it said was a breach of its sovereignty and accused Ankara of launching the incursion to replace Islamic State with "other terrorist groups". Russia, which backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said it was deeply worried by the escalation of tension after Turkey's move.

More in the article. But this stood out for me.

Quote:Despite their differences, Turkey and the United States hope that by removing Islamic State from the border, they can deprive it of a smuggling route which long saw its ranks swollen with foreign fighters and its coffers boosted by illicit trade.

Are we forgetting something here Turkey?

(08-19-2016 10:09 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:48 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm curious what Israel's influence and opinion is on this matter.

Israel loves the concept of ISIS taking over Syria because a bunch of ragtag sheep fuckers is no threat to a nationalistic police state like Israel, but a strong secular leader with a sizable military and economy definitely is.

The elites who prop up Israel as well as run the place have the mindset that arabs will hate Jews no matter what.

So in their mind it's better to enable the more primitive savage variety (ISIS) and keep the region in perpetual war (and profit) rather than risk secular nations forming which could threaten their geopolitical sphere of influence.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it does not benefit U.S. citizens or the majority of the western world in the least. Having a bunch of savage islamists rampaging around, fleeing their wartorn shitholes, and constantly throwing taxpayer money down black holes does not benefit anyone except a handful of elites who profiteer and maybe orthodox jewish settlers.

The foreign policy agenda of the middle east is one big racket and the suckers are the people who end up footing the bill.

(08-24-2016 05:42 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:09 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:48 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm curious what Israel's influence and opinion is on this matter.

Israel loves the concept of ISIS taking over Syria because a bunch of ragtag sheep fuckers is no threat to a nationalistic police state like Israel, but a strong secular leader with a sizable military and economy definitely is.

The elites who prop up Israel as well as run the place have the mindset that arabs will hate Jews no matter what.

So in their mind it's better to enable the more primitive savage variety (ISIS) and keep the region in perpetual war (and profit) rather than risk secular nations forming which could threaten their geopolitical sphere of influence.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it does not benefit U.S. citizens or the majority of the western world in the least. Having a bunch of savage islamists rampaging around, fleeing their wartorn shitholes, and constantly throwing taxpayer money down black holes does not benefit anyone except a handful of elites who profiteer and maybe orthodox jewish settlers.

The foreign policy agenda of the middle east is one big racket and the suckers are the people who end up footing the bill.

I am, to be honest, a little bit confused with Israeli policy in Syria.

If I was Bibi, I would prefer Assad.


Why?


If Assad stays in power (quite likely), the front in the Golan will keep being quiet (it was since 1973), because you can shell Damascus from there with impunity. Assad (and his father) knew that fact, and that is why all out has been avoided for so long (the exception was the First Lebanon War in 1982 a.k.a "Peace for Galilee"). Yes, Assad is an enemy, but at least he is reasonable (and smart). If rumors are to be believed, he offered Golan and formal recognition of Israel, on the condition that Israel stops supporting FSA factions in the southern front. Israel refused, which was a mistake.


Now, if ISIS/FSA take over (unlikely, but let' consider this scenario), Syria will be a failed state, which will probably not be able to control it's borders. That means that many Islamist rebels will try to infiltrate Israel from the Northeast, in order to commit terrorist attacks against military and civilian targets. Also, they will launch rockets, like Hamas.

Not good.


It is a shame Israel choose to indirectly support Saudi Arabia. Making peace agreement under wraps with Iran (call me crazy, but in a few decades, it will likely be achieved) would be far more beneficial in the long run (a lot of Israelis and diaspora Iranians share my opinion).

While certainly unnerving, ISIS infiltration and rockets are no threat to a nationalistic police state enjoying diplomatic immunity in the world no matter what it does.

Infiltration < Official and open segregation, massive violations of privacy and human rights
Rockets < Iron Dome system
Large-scale infiltration and rockets < Indiscriminatory napalm and cluster bombing

Conclusion:

   

If you don't believe me just check out how many large-scale terrorist attacks has Israel suffered in the last 5 years (hint: 1 (yes, ONE)). It's significantly less than you'd expect for a nation that everyone hates and is surrounded by hostile Arabs inclined towards terrorism.

Terrorism is something reserved for us cucked goys like Americans or French. Not for nations able and willing to protect themselves like Israel.

(08-25-2016 12:52 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  It is a shame Israel choose to indirectly support Saudi Arabia. Making peace agreement under wraps with Iran (call me crazy, but in a few decades, it will likely be achieved) would be far more beneficial in the long run (a lot of Israelis and diaspora Iranians share my opinion).

It's better not to get too wrapped up in historical minutae. I believe the answer as to why Israel is pursuing the policy it is now is more rooted in the present day and is wrapped up in a combination of agendas pushed by the elites as well as geopolitics.

There was one event that shook Israeli's elites to its core and that was the urban conflict with hezbollah that did not go exactly as planned back in 2006. It's true Israel won every military action but Hezbollah really gave them a black eye through a combination of guerilla warfare and global media propaganda. Does that sound familiar?

Israel is used to steamrolling its enemies. This is the first time in a long time that some paramilitary group actually put up good resistance.

Israel's military doctrine is similar to many small nations that are wealthy but don't have disposable manpower. They need to have force multiplier capability that far outweighs the enemy. The fact that Hezbollah was able to grind Israel down so much and inflict so many casualities probably brought about a feeling of existential threat and annhilation.

Since then Israel has felt that Iran poses a much greater threat at chiseling a greater piece of geopolitical dominance. Hezbollah is of course linked to Iran.

Don't forget that Sunnis have the blessing of the neocon establishment and have always worked as willing strongmen even when they were busy plotting their own global caliphate nonsense. I guess Israel felt Sunni madmen were more predictable and controllable and this is largely true to some extent.