Post: #226

Gabard just nuked Tapper here when she called out the US govt enabling Isis



Great video

Post: #227

Does CNN remind anyone else of the low budget command and conquer games live action cutscenes?

Post: #228

The Syrian army recently captured the Wadi Barada pocket near Damascus, and has also made a lot of progress between Aleppo and Al Bab. Turks have been trying to take Al Bab from ISIS for weeks and weeks, and now the SAA is coming towards it from the other side.

Post: #229

The SAA in the northeast of Syria has now pushed so far west that they've now linked up with the Kurds that control the entire northwest part of the country.

SAA also has made more progress towards Palmyra, and is now right outside the city.

Post: #230

Its easy to forget how the media has not squawked about the massacre awaiting those poor civilians.

Perhaps the old media couldn't spin the terrorists and their sympaphisers into refugee's once real footage of Aleppo saw the light of day and how Syrians were claiming they were terrorists and not normal people who just wanted a different opinion to Assad.

Dropped off like a rock but if Trump were to say something about it they'd do a full 180 and probably drag the pseudo terrorists from the White Helmet organisation (they kill people) onto CNN and praise them for their work.

Post: #231

Good read by Justin Raimondo on "Why Russia" , as Enemy of the year as progressives and neocons unite.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/...hy-russia/

Quote:I once had an online conversation with a journalist whose name you would instantly recognize that started with a question for me: “Why Russia?” Why, this person wanted to know, are we witnessing a hate campaign aimed at Moscow, decades after the implosion of international communism and the breakup of the USSR?

I tried to give him a coherent and comprehensive answer, but Twitter is not conducive to in-depth discussions of that sort, and so I filed it away as a question to be answered at a later date. And certainly now is the time to answer it: the Democratic party and its media minions are demanding an “investigation” (i.e. a fishing expedition) into the burning question of whether the President of the United States is the Manchurian Candidate: “Putin’s puppet,” as Hillary Clinton infamously averred. Our out-of-control intelligence agencies are furiously pushing the same line.

This echo of the 2016 presidential campaign is surely one major reason why the anti-Russsian hysteria has reached such a fever pitch. As Glenn Greenwald writes in a recent piece in The Intercept:

“[I]t’s used to avoid confronting the fact that Trump is a by-product of the extraordinary and systemic failure of the Democratic Party. As long as the Russia story enables pervasive avoidance of self-critique – one of the things humans least like to do – it will continue to resonate no matter its actual substance and value.”

Well, yes, but the fact is that Mrs. Clinton likened Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler well before the 2016 election, and the same Democratic party foreign policy mandarins – Strobe Talbott comes to mind – were busy whipping up Russophobic sentiment in the years preceding Trump’s victory at the polls. Greenwald points out that President Obama’s policy toward Russia wasn’t at all Clintonian, but this is only true if one fails to look beneath the surface. The roots of the current hysteria were laid during his reign: after all, the US-German-EU effort to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, and the installation of a “pro-Western” regime, occurred while Obama was in the White House. The Magnitsky Act, targeting top Russian officials, was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2012.

And so while the present quite extraordinary campaign to portray Russia as our Major Adversary has been given considerable impetus by the Democratic party elites, eager to explain away their humiliating defeat – and discredit the current occupant of the White House – there’s much more to it than that. We can break it down into four major reasons:

1) Inter-service rivalry in the military – In May of last year, I wrote about the war breaking out between the various components of the US military, a battle over budgets:

“In early April, a battalion of senior military officials appeared before a Senate panel and testified that the US Army is ‘outranged and outgunned,’ particularly in any future conflict with Russia. Arguing for a much bigger budget for the Army, they claimed that, absent a substantial increase in funding, the Russians would overtake us and, even scarier, ‘the army of the future will be too small to secure the nation.’

“The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! And before you know it, Brooklyn will be renamed Putingrad.

“Of course it was pure coincidence that, shortly after these alarm bells were rung, a piece appeared in Politico magazine purportedly showing that the Russians were breathing down our necks: it revealed a ‘secret study’ – revealed for the first time! – that supposedly detailed Russia’s deadly new capabilities as demonstrated in Ukraine. Included in this potpourri of propaganda was the assertion by none other than Gen. Wesley Clark, former presidential candidate and well-known Russophobe, that Moscow had developed a tank that is for all intents and purposes ‘invulnerable.’”

The national debt is now at $20 trillion – a sum that the human mind can barely conceive. The reality is that we cannot afford the kind of money the military is now demanding. Indeed, the defense budget hike being advanced by the Trump administration is dead on arrival, and even if it were passed by Congress – an unlikely outcome – it would hardly satisfy the projected expansion of military spending envisioned by the generals. And so we are now witnessing a ramped up campaign to portray the Russians as ten feet tall. As a follow up piece in Politico by Mark Perry put it:

“’This is the ‘Chicken-Little, sky-is-falling’ set in the Army,’ the senior Pentagon officer said. ‘These guys want us to believe the Russians are 10 feet tall. There’s a simpler explanation: The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock.’”

A war with Russia would require land forces in huge numbers, more tanks, more artillery, and much more money for the Army. If the Russian Threat is what they say it is, then the Army will devour a glutton’s share of the military budget, leaving the Navy and the Air Force to starve. It would also require complementary upgrades for the militaries of all the NATO nations – a gold mine for the US weapons industry.

So one answer to the “Why Russia?” question is simple: follow the money.

And speaking of following the money, another big factor energizing the anti-Russian campaign is:

2) The Russian diaspora – When Putin came to power one of the first things he did was go after the infamous oligarchs who had backed – and manipulated – his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. Under the drunken Yeltsin, these “entrepreneurs” had used the State apparatus to “privatize” (i.e. loot) what had previously been the State-owned economy, gobbling up entire sectors at unbelievably cheap prices. Putin moved to disassemble what was a competing power center, and the result was the flight of the oligarchs to the West. Having put their ill-gotten gains in Western banks and holding companies, they shacked up in London, New York, Switzerland, and the French Riviera, where they plotted Putin’s overthrow and their triumphant return.

There’s an awful lot of money sloshing around in these circles, and a good part of it is being used to buy up media properties that act as outlets for anti-Russian propaganda. Newspapers, think tanks, and various other vehicles for the molding of public opinion are financed by this Russian Diaspora, which acts as an intellectual Praetorian Guard for the politicians hoping to ride the wave of anti-Russia sentiment. They act as a lobby on behalf of the arms industry, and the political forces that stand to gain from the anti-Russian campaign – but they are not alone.

3) The Israel and Saudi lobbies – The network of organizations that form one of the most powerful lobbies in this country, and throughout Europe, has been a major albeit largely undercover factor in the growth and development of the anti-Russian propaganda blitz.

Back in 2013, when President Obama was seeking congressional authorization for military action in Syria, AIPAC deployed hundreds of lobbyists to Capitol Hill to convince the assembled solons to support him. And it was AIPAC and allied groups that successfully pressured Congress to impose Syrian sanctions.

When the Russians moved into Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad’s government, they came into conflict with the stated objectives of Israelis, who have long sought the overthrow of the Syrian regime. Indeed, Israeli officials have openly stated that they prefer ISIS to Assad – all the better to undercut their principal adversaries in the region, Iran and Hezbollah, both of which are fighting ISIS in Syria on Assad’s behalf.

Acting in concert with AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations, the very well-funded Saudi lobby has been another factor driving the anti-Russian campaign. The Saudis, in collaboration with the Gulf sheikhdoms, have been funding the “moderate” Islamists who have been fighting to overthrow Assad, and with the Russian intervention they have an interest in pushing for a new cold war. Russia’s ties to Iran make Moscow, by extension, an enemy of the Kingdom, and, in Washington, D.C., the Saudi lobby is quietly fighting that battle in the corridors of power.

4) Ideology – No, the crazed rhetoric coming from “mainstream” Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff isn’t just an opportunistic way of explaining the failure of Hillary Clinton to win the White House – there’s much more to it than that. Perhaps the most powerful factor driving the anti-Russian polemics we’re hearing from our liberal Democratic politicians and pundits – the kind we haven’t heard in this country since the heyday of McCarthyism – is ideology.

Russia has become an international locus of populist conservatism and nationalism. Against the globalism of the Davos crowd, Putin has enunciated the revival of national sovereignty as the organizing principle of his preferred international order. Against the cultural cosmopolitanism of the Western elites, Russia has championed traditional values. This is a red flag for American liberals, whose war on behalf of political correctness ignores such outdated forms as national boundaries.

Far more serious, however, is Putin’s opposition to the idea of a “liberal international order”: the Russian leader, who clearly doesn’t know his proper place in the world, has stubbornly upheld the validity of a multi-polar world where Washington’s will is far from supreme.

The ideological divide between East and West really started in the run up to the Iraq war, when neoconservatives went ballistic as Putin cleaned out the oligarchs and derided US war propaganda. He has since articulated a consistently disdainful critique of the idea that has shaped US foreign policy since the end of the cold war: the concept of America as a “hyperpower,” dominant all over the globe.

Putin is an unrepentant nationalist, and nationalism in any form – whether Russian, American, French, British, or whatever – is the enemy not only of our liberal globalists, but also of the neoconservatives. This antipathy is what united them during the 2016 election, and it is what brings them together in the Anti-Russian Popular Front. That they are both focused on a campaign to discredit – and impeach – President Trump on the grounds that he’s “Putin’s puppet” marries their twin obsessions in a perfect storm of vitriol.

You don’t have to approve of either Putin or Trump to see the danger in this. As the American political scene undergoes a seismic realignment, the War Party is taking advantage of this plastic moment to augment and strengthen its forces. With Putin as the new Saddam Hussein, and Russia as the new Iraq, our tireless warmongers are at it again. In a modern reenactment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the liberal-neocon alliance is desperately maneuvering for a confrontation with Russia – they’ve even brought George W. Bush out of mothballs!

Whether they can revive the dead carcass of the Bush wing of the GOP remains to be seen: I’ll believe it when I see it. However that may be, I have to sit back and just enjoy this moment, because the sight of our “liberals” hailing Dubya as the voice of Republican sanity goes to show what we knew all along – that these people have no shame.

** On a quick note and update from Syria, it appears the Syrian army is making big advances against ISIS in Syria, and is on verge of re-capturing and liberating the city again.

Post: #232

Great read , spassiba.

Post: #233

Excellent video from Syrian journalist Kevork Almassian on how Israel is helping to prolong the conflict in Syria by supporting Islamists and forging close ties with the Gulf Arabs.





Tel Aviv is actively working for a failed state in Syria which would weaken Hezbollah and the Palestinians.

Post: #234

Why is Israel allied with the house of Saud? What's in it for Israel?

Post: #235

(03-05-2017 04:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Why is Israel allied with the house of Saud? What's in it for Israel?

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra.

Priority of both is deposing of any Shia gov't in the region, Ala Iran, Syria, Lebanon. Once the common enemy is removed, then they can focus on each other.

I always wondered, if Saudi-Israeli alliance finally achieves their mission of ridding the region of Shia regimes, and inevitably then went after each other, whose side would the U.S. pick.

The greatest ally OR Al-greate$$t ally ?

Post: #236

(03-05-2017 04:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Why is Israel allied with the house of Saud? What's in it for Israel?

Quote: "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra.

Priority of both is deposing of any Shia gov't in the region, Ala Iran, Syria, Lebanon. Once the common enemy is removed, then they can focus on each other.

I always wondered, if Saudi-Israeli alliance finally achieves their mission of ridding the region of Shia regimes, and inevitably then went after each other, whose side would the U.S. pick.

The greatest ally OR Al-greate$$t ally ?

It goes way way beyond a temporary meeting of interests.

To understand the modern Middle East, you have to go back to an often neglected former power The British Empire. Imagine all the dark Obama Clinton shit, multiply them by a million, and you get the policies of the British Empire in the region.

Reading about it was my first redpill in life.
As early as the 1800s, the British were for example arming muslims here against Christians.

Anyway, the house of Saud is mostly a british creation.

Many say El Saud have jewish origins, but to me this is irrelevant and any way hard to verify. But you can google plenty of stuff about it.


What is known however is that Saudi Arabia in the modern history has always been a necesessity and the greatest ally Israel could hope for. Saudi Arabia is the richest country and the center of Islam. Yet none of those two were ever used against Israel.

It fought against Arab nationalism which was israels biggest enemy.

It wasted billions of arab oil money, none of which went for Palestinians, all of which went to rolls Royce and hookers.

Its now attacking iran and hezballlah (the only group to ever annoy Israel) and turned sunni public opinion against it)

El Saud have no ideology, Islamic or otherwise. Their regime fights the islamists inside when they threaten their power yet finances them elsewhere. Saudi Arabia under Saud would never attack ISrael even if it could and even if Iran disappears.

Do you know how easy it would be to make Israel a living hell if those arab regimes with billions of dollars ever wanted to?

None of the international Islamic groups have attacked Israel significantly. None. Alqaeda has been on israels border in Syria for years yet 0 attacks.

Islamists come from Sweden, tunis, Belgium to fight Assad yet no significant numbers ever came for Palestine.
Politically Saudi Arabia and Israel are perfectly aligned and have been for decades.

These days because they turned sunni opinion against Iran, theyre being more vocal about it.


The british laid out a truly diabolical scheme in the region a century ago. Its both chilling and impressive to be honest.

Those US troops are there to protect the Saud regime. Its the most fragile regime yet the most useful for them.

Post: #237

Its hard for me to condense years of stuff into a post, but I do encourage anyone interested to dig deeper into the history of the region.

Im not fan of Islam and think its ideology is retarded for our times, and im not one to blame the west for the regions troubles, but I do believe that the arab world would've moved on from radical islam had it not been partly for Western-Israeli machinations in the region.

Post: #238

This thread has really died down.

In the alternate world where Clinton was elected, it's now rivaling the Trump thread for length.

Post: #239

There was a report in the media last week that Syria was using chlorine gas in some helicopter attacks but I haven't heard about it since.

Post: #240

Ron Paul chiming in on the Russia scare, very telling stats from a new
NBC poll (link below) showing a deep cleavage along political and
age segments wrt attitude on Russia. Democrats and older
Americans (who get spoon-fed their news from the MSM) have
bought into the Russian narrative:





http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/data-poin...to-n723931

Post: #241

(03-05-2017 08:36 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  This thread has really died down.

In the alternate world where Clinton was elected, it's now rivaling the Trump thread for length.

Oh I'm sure if Trump doesn't stop going down the track Obama took we could very well see it going that way.

Post: #242

I've been wondering, what exactly is the legal justification we've been using for military involvement and bombing runs by the United States in Syria? Is it really just the accusation that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people? And therefore we have indefinite amount of time to do whatever we want inside the country? I can't think of any other excuse. Russia is allied with Syria and was invited in, that makes sense to me, I'm assuming Iranian forces were called in too. The U.S., Turkey, and Saudi Arabia getting involved without permission and no one questioning it is perplexing to me. We want to lecture the world on the locked in permanent borders of sovereign countries yet continue to do whatever we want as long as it feels good to leftists.

The legal basis for foreign military intervention in Syria
Not sure about this "middle east eye" website, never heard of it, but they have a lengthy article on the legal justification for Russia and the U.S. I skimmed most of it as I deem Russia having permission good enough of a reason and that's what the writer seemed mainly focused on. Here is the U.S. portion

Quote:US-led military intervention in Syria’s civil war

Security Council resolution 2249 (2015), which was adopted unanimously by the UNSC on 20 November 2015, calls upon member states “to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter,” against IS and the former al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al Nusra - now the Levantine Conquest Front - both groups on Syrian and Iraqi soil.

Contrary to common belief, resolution 2249 does not authorise member states to use military force against the aforementioned groups, as it does not refer to Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

In order to provide member states with legal authority for the use of military force against the groups in question, a Security Council resolution needs to constitute a decision taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which presents members states with a “loophole” to the general prohibition of the use of force encompassed in Article 2 of the UN Charter.

Therefore, the US-led coalition is not authorised by any Security Council resolution to use military force in Syria.

The question, then, remains: in the absence of Syrian regime-consent and/or a specific authorisation from the Security Council, does the US-led coalition have a legal basis for military action in Syria?

Throughout 2014, the internationally recognised government of Iraq requested “the assistance of the international community” to fight IS, and provided “express consent” for US-led intervention in Iraq.

For instance, in September 2014, in a letter sent to the president of the Security Council, Iraq emphasised that: “In accordance with international law and the relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements, and with due regard for complete national sovereignty and the Constitution, we have requested the United States of America to lead international efforts to strike ISIL sites and military strongholds, with our express consent.”

Thus, the air strikes launched by the US-led coalition against IS in Iraq have taken place on the legal basis of “intervention upon invitation”.

There is no “invitation” nor “express consent” from the Syrian regime for US-led coalition air strikes against IS in Syria, however.

Consequently, the actions of the US-led coalition in Syria have been legally justified using Article 51 of the UN Charter: the US-led coalition is exercising individual self-defence, and collective self-defence.

If self-defence is invoked against a non-state armed group – IS, in this case – it must be shown that the state in which the armed group is found – Syria – is “unwilling or unable” to prevent it from attacking other states. Ostensibly, Syria is “unable” to sufficiently degrade or destroy IS because the group controls a significant amount of territory within Syria’s borders that pro-regime forces have not been able to reclaim.

It can be argued, then, that acting in individual self-defence is permissible because the Syrian regime is “unable” to prevent IS from launching attacks against states, including the US, the United Kingdom and France.

Furthermore, it can be argued that acting in collective self-defence – on behalf of Iraq – is permissible because the Syrian regime is “unable” to prevent IS from attacking Iraq from Syrian territory.

Humanitarian intervention

As it did in 2011 against the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi, the Security Council can authorise military intervention in Syria for humanitarian purposes provided that it has determined that there is a threat to international peace and security.

Why has the Security Council failed to do so against the Syrian regime? Whatever the reasons, the humanitarian dimension has been marginalised in Syria.

That sounds incredibly flimsy to me. Of course we will take "self defense" and stretch it out to an indefinite length of time excuse to do whatever military operations we feel like in Syria. When it reality it probably means to be able to strike back if terrorist forces in Syria fire upon our forces while in Iraq.

Are the US-led air strikes in Syria legal - and what does it mean if they are not?
And then we have a more mainstream website, surprisingly, publishing a piece by the Head of the Department of War Studies at King's College in London which seems to affirm the U.S. having no real legal reason to be in Syria.

Quote:Usually self-defence applies when a state has been attacked, and must use force to repel the attacker or prevent further attacks. Thus, the United States clearly exercised a legal right of self-defence when it used force against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan following 9/11. However, Islamic State has not attacked the United States. There is a right of anticipatory self-defence under customary international law, but here things get a bit murky.

Most international lawyers accept that states may use force pre-emptively against an immediate threat, for example, to strike first where there is clear evidence that an opponent is about to attack. Under the Bush administration, the United States claimed a right, exclusively to itself, to use force to prevent a threat from emerging.

This could be applied here, in that it might be argued that Isil presents a latent threat to the United States, with the potential for launching al Qaeda style attacks against US facilities in the region if not the US homeland. However, most international lawyers reject the notion that there is a right of preventive self-defence, recognising the danger that it simply gives licence for powerful states to use force aggressively.

Doesn't sound like preventative self-defense would even apply here, if it were a legitimate casus belli.

Quote:In the name of domestic security
States are permitted to use force to remove internal threats to their security, provided force is used in a manner that is consistent international humanitarian law, especially in terms of protecting civilian lives and property. States may further request military assistance from foreign powers, which may be legally given provided that the rebellion is not so widespread as to undermine the legitimacy of the government, as is the case in Syria. Isil has up to 30,000 fighters, and controls a large swathe of territory across Iraq and Syria (an area roughly the size of Jordan). However, ruling by fear, it lacks a widespread popular base of support, and therefore cannot be said to credibly challenge the legitimacy of the Iraqi state. The formation of a more representative Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, further undermines the legitimacy of the Isil insurgency.

Thus, since US air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq have occurred at the request of the Iraqi government, they are legal.

Syria and the United States see a common enemy in Isil. However, cooperation between the two is impossible. Following terrible war crimes by regime forces in the Syrian civil war, the United States no longer recognises the legitimacy of the Syrian government. The problem is that there is no legally recognised government to replace it. Thus, US air strikes have been conducted in Syria without a request from the national government. Thus, in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria, the United States cannot credibly claim that it used force in self-defence or at the request of the Syrian state exercising lawful force to suppress rebellion.

This was very interesting to me, especially the last part, looks like a very grey area of the law. And another blow to the "self-defense" casus belli.

Finally...

Quote:Not for the first time, the United States has acted illegally in using force in response to overriding humanitarian necessity. It did so in March 1999, when along with its Nato allies it launched an extended bombing campaign to stop atrocities by Serbian forces against civilians in Kosovo. In this case also, the United States could not claim it was acting in self-defence. Nor was military action authorised by the UN Security Council. Whilst there was just cause, humanitarian necessity is not recognised in international law as constituting a legal ground for use of force. Thus, among the Nato allies, only Belgian claimed a legal right to use force for humanitarian reasons.

State opinion was divided following Nato's war in 1999. Many states, especially western, recognised the legitimacy of Nato's actions even if few recognised the legality. Russia and China attempted to pass a UN Security Council condemning the Nato bombing as illegal. A year later, in April 2000, the G77 group of 133 non-industrialised states issued a statement rejecting the “so-called right of humanitarian intervention.” Not much has changed since 1999. Indeed, if anything, attempts by the Bush administration to claim a right of preventive self-defence and fallout over the dubious legality of the 2003 Iraq War, have hardened most states’ views against accepting the legality of humanitarian wars.

We've been here before, business as usual. familiar territory.

And

Quote:There is an added strategic imperative, in that Isil military advances threaten the viability of the Iraqi state, in which the United States has much invested, and threaten the stability of the wider region. This is underlined by the involvement of five Arab states – Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – in the strikes against Isil in Syria.

The upshot is that US strikes against ISIL in Syria are probably illegal but widely recognised as legitimate. We are likely to see a rerun of what happened in 1999. Some states may seek to reaffirm the illegality of using force for humanitarian ends or to otherwise interfere in the internal affairs of states. However, most states will welcome this necessary action and simply stay silent on the question of legality.

So we see the other countries piled into Syria because they want to do so, legal or not, and they'll get away with it because it's "the right thing to do" and the US will continue to do whatever the fuck it wants in the world. Look, I'm all for defeating ISIS, they are one of the most despicable entities the world has even known, but I think it's worth taking a look at the actions of the major players here and how, in practically broad daylight, the precious framework of the west just gets swept under the rug and no one raises their voice (aside from those evil Russians and commie Chinese). Sometimes I just can't get over the U.S.'s hypocrisy: following the law, respecting sovereign nations, yeah...whatever.

Post: #243

What country using conventional means, outside of Russia and China can stop the biggest military in the world from setting up shop?

The US has a big dick and is using it freely. You don't need a legal justification because nobody will fight you except the terrorists and some countries through secretive means. ANd nobody gives a fuck about them.

They could spin the whole thing into a scenario where SAA is attacking Turkey and all of those third parties will see an opportunity.

Post: #244

https://www.rt.com/news/380061-putin-net...ael-syria/

Putin meets with Bibi and refuses to kiss his ass - tells him to get the fuck over Iran already.

Post: #245

(03-14-2017 02:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  https://www.rt.com/news/380061-putin-net...ael-syria/

Putin meets with Bibi and refuses to kiss his ass - tells him to get the fuck over Iran already.

In that article Netanyahu complains of "Shiite terrorism."

Iran is constantly called the "leading exporter of terror in the world."

Yet nearly 100% of radical islamic terror attacks are by Sunni muslims, following strains of Islam spread by the Saudis.

From what I can tell Iran mostly funds militia groups.

If someone can post a single Shiite "terror" attack that occured in the West, or even outside the middle east, I'd like to see it.

Post: #246

The shiite radicalism comes from a very different place than sunni radicalism.

While both come from an outdated ideology, shiite militantism comes from a victim mentality, and a paranoid minority complex. Shiites from their origins with Hussein being murdered have been mostly oppressed, therefore now they cling to their military power (in iran and hezballah and iraq recently) as a way to say "they wont bully us anymore".

Whatever acts have been attributed to shiites, it was i think one or two instances against Israeli embassies or people abroad, which were in their view in retaliation to Israeli ones.

Shiites dont have the "we want to conquer europe" again, or the "kill the infidels" mentality going.

And shiites view religion more flexibly in general than sunnis, by default due to their belief system.

But you will still find plenty of retarded stuff in both.



Netanyahu talks about shiites because Hezballah has been able to be a thorn in Israels military domination, (Israel for decades has been able to force its policies but hezballah has made it costly for them to do so).

And Iran supports palestinian militants (Hamas before but that cooled down with Syria, Islamic Jihad more and more now).

While sunni terrorist radicals and their backers from Qatar and Saudi and Turkey are harmless to Israel (actually beneficial since they fight israels enemies) and in fact theres no such thing as a saudi foreign policy, the ruling family just does what the US says.

Post: #247

Wtf is this new attack on the capital?

Israel?

US?

This is one thing Trump can't fuck up.

Post: #248

The usual suspects. ISIS and its affiliates have been ousted from the main urban centers of Syria, so now they are going to resort to some hit and run guerilla tactics, which will further reduce any popular support.

The Israelis have been bombing military targets now before the rebels get completely wiped out and the situation further stabilizes.

Interesting and dramatic development in the region: the Russians are apparently now active in Libya.

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/03/19/after...ervention/

They probably have the support of the population there, there are long-standing ties with that country that are similar to Syria's ties with Russia, and the Libyans have figured out by now that NATO didn't destroy their country in order to rebuild something better than what they had under Gaddafi... In any case, this is a huge potential challenge to NATO and another major flashpoint popping up.

Post: #249

Libya is extremely important to stop the migrant invasion.

Post: #250

Updates on the situation:

Rex: "Assad' future has to be decided by the Syrian people."
Looks like he knows about the ASSAD MUST GO CURSE (((They/Atlantic Council/Michael Weiss/etc))) in meltdown

Diversity neocon, Lena, surprisingly agrees

OBVIOUSLY, the dynamic gay duo are not pleased with that development.

Syrian "Opposition", triggered by this ...reacts

Meanwhile , NATO is hiring people to play the role of Russians in war games