Israel Plans to Restore Death Penalty for Everyone but Jews

[Metsfanmax]

They're not there for "combat" purposes (in the sense of fighting ISIS) -- they're there to help defend the American Embassy. (Do you think we should not defend American territory?)

You don't see the contradiction from Obama?

No. My point was that if you were literally just reading the headlines, there would be no contradiction, because he's not sending in troops for the purpose of combat.

Also, the American Embassy is not "American Territory". You know that's a bullshit myth about the embassies, right? The American embassy is not sovereign American territory within Iraq.

Actually, I didn't know that. Interesting.

That damn embassy cost a billion dollars to build, damn right we don't want it falling into the hands of the ISIS. But you are stupid Mets, if you think the best way to defend it is to sit behind it's walls and wait for the ISIS to attack.
We'll see how long those "for embassy defense only" fellows actually stay within the embassy.

I didn't say that's the "best way to defend it," and I wasn't condoning or condemning the President's action. I was merely commenting that this troop movement is not a combat operation. I really don't think there's any chance that the President is going to take those 275 special forces and mount a counter-offensive against the entirety of the ISIS army moving into Baghdad.

In fact, as Obama was saying on the 13th "No troops are going to Iraq", we now know that troops were already indeed being sent to Iraq. Those guys were already on the way and they are just the first to arrive. More troops are already on the way.

Did he say that? My understanding is that he said we "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq." Hence the headline of the article that you posted.

[saxitoxin]

If we would just leave it alone, stay out of it, then the natural balance would restore itself and the Muslim sects can go back to killing each other until the end of time.
The people will clamor for stability and in answer totalitarian regimes will rise that will crush the fanatics. All we have to do is stop trying to impose our version of society on other people.

Well the first sentence is not the natural balance. Islam was regulating until the fall of the Ottoman Empire. What has occurred since is what would have occurred in the U.S. if the Soviet Union had periodically dropped large arms caches and briefcases filled with millions of dollars to the Westboro Baptist Church throughout the 1980s. Great intellectuals like Zaki al-Arsuzi (the founder of the Ba'ath Idea and an avowed atheist) were able to solidify national over religious identity in opposition to the west's attempts to militarize small religious minorities in order to create internal division and prevent the unity that would be necessary to free Jerusalem. The west has been working hard to create an artificial religious strife that does not naturally exist, and it's okay occasionally losing a few skyscrapers in the process.

[patches70]

Did he say that? My understanding is that he said we "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq."

And exactly what about Obama's past actions makes you believe him when he says this this time?

We'll see.

[Metsfanmax]

Did he say that? My understanding is that he said we "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq."

And exactly what about Obama's past actions makes you believe him when he says this this time?

We'll see.

I didn't say I believe him. I said he hasn't shown it to be a lie yet.

[kuthoer]

Did he say that? My understanding is that he said we "will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq."

And exactly what about Obama's past actions makes you believe him when he says this this time?

We'll see.

My God back to partisan politics, geezes.

He's sending a couple of hundred troops to make sure we keep our Diplomats safe, otherwise we'll have Republicans screaming Bengazi again!

[kuthoer]

As we speak the Sunni killers are retreating. Iran won't let these killers take over Baghdad.

In about a week the Sunnis will be retreating into Syria to avoid being massacred as they have done to Shiites.

[saxitoxin]

As we speak the Sunni Salafist killers are retreating.

lolwut

What exactly do you imagine your role here is, anyway?

[patches70]

yeah, kuethor doesn't realize. The ISIS are of the ideology of Salafist jihadism and the majority of the Salafist come from Saudia Arabia and Qatar. Our allies against Assad in Syria. Which is where this current incursion into Iraq comes from, the rebels in Syria who are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and by proxy the US.

The current invasion of these particular Salafists has as their goal the establishment of the Caliphate. It's kind of the Islamic version of the second coming of Jesus. The Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of Islam and he'll fight against Masih ad-Dajjal who is the "deceiver", the equivalent of the antichrist. Jesus will come down, his second coming, just outside of Damascus and join Mahdi in the battle.
Mahdi and Jesus will prevail and Mahdi will set up the Caliphate upon which the entire world will submit to.

So the story goes.

It puts the US in a bind. We can't let these guys over run Iraq, and especially can't let anyone into our Iraq embassy. There is some major shit going on in there that we (the US) can't let anyone know about. At the very least it is the major listening post in the region. Lord knows what else is going on there but there is a lot of sensitive shit going on there.

On the other hand, these guys that are over running Iraq are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the fight against Assad. So we can't outright crush them because that would hamper the effort in Syria.

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Or we could just self destruct the billion dollar embassy in Iraq and cut out completely and let the Salafists fight it out with moderate Sunni and Shia sects.

Of interest, in regarding the Mahdi Caliphate, a senior adviser to the Department of Homeland Security by the name of Mohamed Elibiary said something about this via twitter on June 13, 2014. Elibiary sits on the Homeland Security Advisory Council said that the Caliphate is "inevitable" and that the US is going to have to figure out how to work with and live with the Salafist Caliphate. That US "belligerence" toward the Salafists has to stop.
Elibiary argues that we've already started down the road to cooperation citing Bush's OIC special envoy and Obama's removal of discriminatory engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood.

<shrugs>

I'm not sure how the US can ever accept the Salafist Caliphate, especially since the Caliphate dictates that everyone submit to the Caliphate's authority. By everyone they mean everyone on the planet.

The ISIS is nuts, you all think Christians are radical, or the Westboro baptist church is bad, they don't hold a candle to these psychopaths. IMO.

[Metsfanmax]

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Why is it harmful to US interests if ISIS were to falter in Syria? Does it really matter one way or the other to us who wins there? (Serious questions, I don't know much about this.)

[saxitoxin]

It puts the US in a bind. We can't let these guys over run Iraq, and especially can't let anyone into our Iraq embassy. There is some major shit going on in there that we (the US) can't let anyone know about. At the very least it is the major listening post in the region. Lord knows what else is going on there but there is a lot of sensitive shit going on there.

On the other hand, these guys that are over running Iraq are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the fight against Assad. So we can't outright crush them because that would hamper the effort in Syria.

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Or we could just self destruct the billion dollar embassy in Iraq and cut out completely and let the Salafists fight it out with moderate Sunni and Shia sects.

The solution was always simple. The U.S. could have recalibrated its foreign policy away from a bellicose approach toward Libya, Syria, [Iran], and Hezbollah. ISIS didn't emerge out of the blue, the Takfiri fundamentalist phenomenon has existed for a thousand years and has been contained by moderate forces like the Ba'ath Party and the Green Movement, and before them the imperial House of Osman. In 1980 Hafez al-Assad explained the problem lurking in the desert -

Your homeland is where oppression, anger, hatred, and unjustness is. Where ignorance is. A country of ignorance is a moving country. It has no borders. It will swim over all the people of the world. It will kill values and ruin humanity wherever possible. It will crush skulls. This is a country of ignorance. But we know the individuals who support it are very small in number. The people here are stronger than them and stronger than their financiers.

The institutions designed to contain this phenomenon were destroyed by the United States, that's why Saif al-Islam, in 2011, said -

You people have no idea what you have just unleashed.

The U.S. could have picked SL[I]H, and kept the Salafist forces bottled up. It didn't because of Israel. It is because of Israel the U.S. interfered in Syria - to force it to get rid of its chemical weapons - and in doing so it weakened the institutions keeping the phenomenon under control. Israel is taking human civilization to the brink of oblivion.

[patches70]

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Why is it harmful to US interests if ISIS were to falter in Syria? Does it really matter one way or the other to us who wins there? (Serious questions, I don't know much about this.)

Oh, Mets, I for one don't think it would matter one hill of beans what happens in Syria. But there is something else in play over there. Something Juan Bottom got all uptight about.

Qatar has the largest natgas reserves in the world. US companies have pumped some $10 billion or so in the last decade building up Qatar's capability in natgas exportation and exploitation. So all they need now is customers.
Qatar's position and lack of pipelines anywhere hinders her ability to export natgas cheaply. She has to move the stuff via tanker overland and by tanker via the sea.
So to increase the capability of exportation, over a decade ago it was decided how it would be done. Pipelines were built through nations. Part of the reason why Iraq was important was because the Qatar pipeline had to go through Iraq, and Sadaam wasn't playing ball.
The very first thing the new Iraq government did after Sadaam was to approve and finish those pipelines.

You see the Qatar pipelines need to hook up in Turkey so Qatar can move their natgas to Europe.

The pipelines are all finished, except for one last leg.
Through Syria.

Assad had previously agreed to allow the pipeline to come through Syria, but after talking with Russia Assad reneged on the deal. Very soon after the insurgency started. Coincidence? Hardly.

Qatar was pissed. The US companies that had invested billions were pissed, they need that line to go through to recoup their investments. Europe was pissed, because they'd like to have an alternative source other than Russia.

And so, the US with the largest mercenary army in the world is called upon to get Assad to change his mind. Of course, it didn't work out so well, did it? The American people ain't having nothing to do with a war in Syria, because you are right, it doesn't matter to the American people. But to certain American's, it most certainly is important.

And so, we find ourselves in this spot. The US unable to force a war with Syria because of Russian and public opinion, turned to the next choice. Hire Salafists to do the work of removing Assad, with assurances that the power that takes over after Assad will allow the Qatar pipeline through and protect that pipeline. No one cares about what happens to the people of Syria, just so long as the pipeline is protected and built. Hell, we'd be just fine with Assad in power if only he'd play ball.


It's a tangled web weaved.

I'm glad you asked, Mets, I assumed everyone knew about all this. I encourage you to research for yourself. Just remember, you'll have to dig, because there is no way anyone in power can admit "Yeah, we are doing it for a pipeline". The story has to be- "To get rid of a dictator" or "save innocent people" and other such noise. But it's all there, the details are in the money trail and those details point to the truth.

[kuthoer]

These Sunni terrorists aka killers are no longer advancing, regardless of what you have been seeing on CNN.

Shiittes have stopped their advancement and the Sunnis will be running for their lives soon.

[saxitoxin]

These Sunni terrorists aka killers are no longer advancing, regardless of what you have been seeing on CNN.

Shiittes have stopped their advancement and the Sunnis will be running for their lives soon.

please try to limit the number of racist posts per day (RPPD) to one

[patches70]

It puts the US in a bind. We can't let these guys over run Iraq, and especially can't let anyone into our Iraq embassy. There is some major shit going on in there that we (the US) can't let anyone know about. At the very least it is the major listening post in the region. Lord knows what else is going on there but there is a lot of sensitive shit going on there.

On the other hand, these guys that are over running Iraq are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the fight against Assad. So we can't outright crush them because that would hamper the effort in Syria.

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Or we could just self destruct the billion dollar embassy in Iraq and cut out completely and let the Salafists fight it out with moderate Sunni and Shia sects.

The solution was always simple. The U.S. could have recalibrated its foreign policy away from a bellicose approach toward Libya, Syria, [Iran], and Hezbollah. ISIS didn't emerge out of the blue, the Takfiri fundamentalist phenomenon has existed for a thousand years and has been contained by moderate forces like the Ba'ath Party and the Green Movement, and before them the imperial House of Osman. In 1980 Hafez al-Assad explained the problem lurking in the desert -

Your homeland is where oppression, anger, hatred, and unjustness is. Where ignorance is. A country of ignorance is a moving country. It has no borders. It will swim over all the people of the world. It will kill values and ruin humanity wherever possible. It will crush skulls. This is a country of ignorance. But we know the individuals who support it are very small in number. The people here are stronger than them and stronger than their financiers.

The institutions designed to contain this phenomenon were destroyed by the United States, that's why Saif al-Islam, in 2011, said -

You people have no idea what you have just unleashed.

The U.S. could have picked SL[I]H, and kept the Salafist forces bottled up. It didn't because of Israel. It is because of Israel the U.S. interfered in Syria - to force it to get rid of its chemical weapons - and in doing so it weakened the institutions keeping the phenomenon under control. Israel is taking human civilization to the brink of oblivion.

See, I don't get the Israel angle, sax. You may be right, I just haven't been able to find concrete evidence to lead me to that conclusion exactly. The pipeline and proxy energy war is pretty clear. I have no doubt that Israel is involved in it all as well.

I know there are nuts in Israel that are all about trying to bring about their equivalent of the Mahdi Caliphate, but I'm not very familiar with those players at all. They've done a better job of hiding the truth than with trying to hide the energy angle. US companies have to comply to shareholder and due diligence so those numbers are readily available to be studied and applied to the geopolitical scene to give a nice clear picture.

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out. Maybe you can PM me or show some stuff ITT for me to get into to try and see that picture for myself.

[patches70]

These Sunni terrorists aka killers are no longer advancing, regardless of what you have been seeing on CNN.

Shiittes have stopped their advancement and the Sunnis will be running for their lives soon.

please try to limit the number of racist posts per day (RPPD) to one

You should probably make allowances for kuthoer, in this case at least, Saxi. It's always been a propaganda blitz to get people to see the situation like kuthoer sees it. To keep people from seeing the real picture.

Granted, it's pretty easy to see through that propaganda, but it's effective on some people none the less. Talking heads keep repeating lies and eventually lots of people see those lies as truth.
It's not kuthoer's fault he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

[Dukasaur]

It puts the US in a bind. We can't let these guys over run Iraq, and especially can't let anyone into our Iraq embassy. There is some major shit going on in there that we (the US) can't let anyone know about. At the very least it is the major listening post in the region. Lord knows what else is going on there but there is a lot of sensitive shit going on there.

On the other hand, these guys that are over running Iraq are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the fight against Assad. So we can't outright crush them because that would hamper the effort in Syria.

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Or we could just self destruct the billion dollar embassy in Iraq and cut out completely and let the Salafists fight it out with moderate Sunni and Shia sects.

The solution was always simple. The U.S. could have recalibrated its foreign policy away from a bellicose approach toward Libya, Syria, [Iran], and Hezbollah. ISIS didn't emerge out of the blue, the Takfiri fundamentalist phenomenon has existed for a thousand years and has been contained by moderate forces like the Ba'ath Party and the Green Movement, and before them the imperial House of Osman. In 1980 Hafez al-Assad explained the problem lurking in the desert -

Your homeland is where oppression, anger, hatred, and unjustness is. Where ignorance is. A country of ignorance is a moving country. It has no borders. It will swim over all the people of the world. It will kill values and ruin humanity wherever possible. It will crush skulls. This is a country of ignorance. But we know the individuals who support it are very small in number. The people here are stronger than them and stronger than their financiers.

The institutions designed to contain this phenomenon were destroyed by the United States, that's why Saif al-Islam, in 2011, said -

You people have no idea what you have just unleashed.

The U.S. could have picked SL[I]H, and kept the Salafist forces bottled up. It didn't because of Israel. It is because of Israel the U.S. interfered in Syria - to force it to get rid of its chemical weapons - and in doing so it weakened the institutions keeping the phenomenon under control. Israel is taking human civilization to the brink of oblivion.

See, I don't get the Israel angle, sax. You may be right, I just haven't been able to find concrete evidence to lead me to that conclusion exactly. The pipeline and proxy energy war is pretty clear. I have no doubt that Israel is involved in it all as well.

I know there are nuts in Israel that are all about trying to bring about their equivalent of the Mahdi Caliphate, but I'm not very familiar with those players at all. They've done a better job of hiding the truth than with trying to hide the energy angle. US companies have to comply to shareholder and due diligence so those numbers are readily available to be studied and applied to the geopolitical scene to give a nice clear picture.

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out. Maybe you can PM me or show some stuff ITT for me to get into to try and see that picture for myself.

You're absolutely right. As I've posted, Isreal has nothing to do with it. Don't mind ol' Saxi, his jew-baiting always gets the better of him. Hasn't quite shaken off the spell of the Volkischer Beobachter, after all these years.

You're more on the right track. It's about the money. It has always been about the money.

In World War II, when Britain was on the ropes, Roosevelt smiled his benevolent smile upon Britain and lent them some rusted out destroyers. Meanwhile, OSS agents were in the Persian Gulf, actively persuading local Sheiks to cancel their centuries-old alliances with Britain and sign up with the new world power. They laid the ground for ARAMCO, and in the process almost broke Britain's back. That's what America's oil-money elites do to their allies.

American foreign policy is about first, making sure that the cabals in Dallas and New York continue to control the flow of energy on the planet (whether oil or gas or coal or nuclear or solar, the details change but the song remains the same) and second, about making sure that the energy is as expensive as possible, to keep the common man in a state of struggle to pay his basic bills, so that he's a good employee and doesn't think too much about things got to where they are. All other priorities can hope for a place somewhere on the priority list, starting with a distant third and going down.

[saxitoxin]

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out.

Que? This is the only thing that's cut and dry. This isn't some conspiracy about pipelines and caliphates and Dan Brown novels. This is just mainstream history.

Israel has always been at the leading edge of supporting Islamic extremism. The entire policy of Israel has been to break-up secular Arab movements and support the emergence of religious radicalism in its place as a way of dividing its enemies. This is how Hamas came to be; after the Israeli takeover of the Gaza strip in 1967 it hunted down Fatah partisans while repealing all of Egypt's laws against religious organizing.

There's not like "a link" I can provide. This is just mainstream history. I mean, I guess I don't really understand what the question is?

You're absolutely right. As I've posted, Isreal has nothing to do with it. Don't mind ol' Saxi, his jew-baiting always gets the better of him. Hasn't quite shaken off the spell of the Volkischer Beobachter, after all these years.

oh good lord

making sure that the cabals in Dallas and New York continue to control the flow of energy on the planet

... and the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group, and the Salvation Army, etc., etc. Yeah, okay.

[Metsfanmax]

And so, we find ourselves in this spot. The US unable to force a war with Syria because of Russian and public opinion, turned to the next choice. Hire Salafists to do the work of removing Assad, with assurances that the power that takes over after Assad will allow the Qatar pipeline through and protect that pipeline. No one cares about what happens to the people of Syria, just so long as the pipeline is protected and built. Hell, we'd be just fine with Assad in power if only he'd play ball.

What steps have been taken by the US to assist Syrian rebels?

I'm glad you asked, Mets, I assumed everyone knew about all this. I encourage you to research for yourself. Just remember, you'll have to dig, because there is no way anyone in power can admit "Yeah, we are doing it for a pipeline".

While this is a possibly consistent narrative, that doesn't make it the truth. It sounds like something any realist nation might do -- indirectly assist one side of a war because of potential monetary interests -- but how could one be certain that this is what's going on here?

[Dukasaur]

And so, we find ourselves in this spot. The US unable to force a war with Syria because of Russian and public opinion, turned to the next choice. Hire Salafists to do the work of removing Assad, with assurances that the power that takes over after Assad will allow the Qatar pipeline through and protect that pipeline. No one cares about what happens to the people of Syria, just so long as the pipeline is protected and built. Hell, we'd be just fine with Assad in power if only he'd play ball.

What steps have been taken by the US to assist Syrian rebels?

Really? Have you been doing a long stretch in solitary confinement the last three years?

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out.

Que? This is the only thing that's cut and dry. This isn't some conspiracy about pipelines and caliphates and Dan Brown novels. This is just mainstream history.

Israel has always been at the leading edge of supporting Islamic extremism. The entire policy of Israel has been to break-up secular Arab movements and support the emergence of religious radicalism in its place as a way of dividing its enemies. This is how Hamas came to be; after the Israeli takeover of the Gaza strip in 1967 it hunted down Fatah partisans while repealing all of Egypt's laws against religious organizing.

There's not like "a link" I can provide. This is just mainstream history. I mean, I guess I don't really understand what the question is?

I guess maybe it's not as "mainstream" as you think.

You're absolutely right. As I've posted, Isreal has nothing to do with it. Don't mind ol' Saxi, his jew-baiting always gets the better of him. Hasn't quite shaken off the spell of the Volkischer Beobachter, after all these years.

oh good lord

making sure that the cabals in Dallas and New York continue to control the flow of energy on the planet

... and the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group, and the Salvation Army, etc., etc. Yeah, okay.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say with that last bit, but the rest is sound. You consistently blame Isreal for developments like the rise of jihadist governments which, in fact, Israel is opposed to. So who is living the dream?

[saxitoxin]

What steps have been taken by the US to assist Syrian rebels?

Sanctions against the legal government of Syria to limit its access to cash to prosecute the war:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... /syria.pdf

Provide more than $300 million in military aid (hilariously called "non-lethal aid") to the Syrian "rebels" including body armor, land nav gear, etc.:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 0220130421

Legally recognized the so-called Syrian opposition, allowing it to establish a legal presence in the U.S. and process private donations:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/us- ... pposition/

[patches70]

What steps have been taken by the US to assist Syrian rebels?

We've assisted with supplying, money, weapons, materials and training. There was a BBC special not a couple weeks ago where the BBC uncovered the CIA training program and followed a bunch of Syrian rebels through some of the process. The training camps are located in Qatar, BTW. Qatar has the vested interest in Syria.

While this is a possibly consistent narrative, that doesn't make it the truth. It sounds like something any realist nation might do -- indirectly assist one side of a war because of potential monetary interests -- but how could one be certain that this is what's going on here?

How can anyone know and truth in geopolitics?

You are a smart fellow, research the Qatar pipeline plans. Research Qatar's involvement in Syria (Qatar is the principle player, providing the most money and material), research the US companies that have invested in Qatar natgas.

Look for yourself and decide on the truth for yourself. You already seem to question what national interest we have in Syria, so go ahead and look to see why we have an interest. Then decide if that's really in the national interest or in the interests of some naturals.

I would assume you'd have a problem with one but not the other. I have no problem with the US acting in her national interests. But don't give me lies and call it "national interest".
If you recall we had to go into Iraq to get rid of their WMD's and it was part of our national security. That was a lie, complete and utter bullshit. So if the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first place are lies, then wouldn't it be prudent to take a few minutes to try and figure out why we went?

Look into the US relationship with Qatar the last few years. You'll see the connections if you look.

Or don't, believe what you are told, it matters not. Except you'll always be scratching your head wondering "what the are we doing?".

[saxitoxin]

And so, we find ourselves in this spot. The US unable to force a war with Syria because of Russian and public opinion, turned to the next choice. Hire Salafists to do the work of removing Assad, with assurances that the power that takes over after Assad will allow the Qatar pipeline through and protect that pipeline. No one cares about what happens to the people of Syria, just so long as the pipeline is protected and built. Hell, we'd be just fine with Assad in power if only he'd play ball.

What steps have been taken by the US to assist Syrian rebels?

Really? Have you been doing a long stretch in solitary confinement the last three years?

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out.

Que? This is the only thing that's cut and dry. This isn't some conspiracy about pipelines and caliphates and Dan Brown novels. This is just mainstream history.

Israel has always been at the leading edge of supporting Islamic extremism. The entire policy of Israel has been to break-up secular Arab movements and support the emergence of religious radicalism in its place as a way of dividing its enemies. This is how Hamas came to be; after the Israeli takeover of the Gaza strip in 1967 it hunted down Fatah partisans while repealing all of Egypt's laws against religious organizing.

There's not like "a link" I can provide. This is just mainstream history. I mean, I guess I don't really understand what the question is?

I guess maybe it's not as "mainstream" as you think.

I'm not going to recap the last 40 years of Middle East history in a Conquer Club post. You are disputing that Israel repealed Egypt's ban on Hamas in 1967? I mean, I don't know what to say - read a book or something? In the meantime, I don't even know where to start because to do something like post links for established, consensus history marginalizes it by presenting it as something that needs to be proved by piecing a puzzle together through scattered news reports; this is not the Dan Brown novel of petrodollar intrigue that can only be interpreted on a full moon if you look at a special message board under invisible ink. But, against better judgment, here ...

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution . They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/a ... 96344.html

You consistently blame Isreal for developments like the rise of jihadist governments which, in fact, Israel is opposed to. So who is living the dream?

No. Syria and Libya is/was not jihadist governments. Israel's PR machine in the U.S. has conflated all parties committed to the termination of Israeli occupation as Muslim extremists, when the religiously motivated have only ever accounted for a tiny, historically impotent fraction of opposition to Israel. It's easier to rile-up American Christians in support of Israel if you front a dumb-down version of Arab nationalism that assumes this cartoonish quality of everyone running around praying five times a day and dancing dervishes. Technocratic, secular governments are more difficult to whip-up opposition to.

This is why people like you and American Republicans are so confused about the situation in the Middle East. As I mentioned in a previous post even, the Syrian Regional Command of the Ba'ath Party was founded by an atheist (Arsuzi), who was the ideological mentor to government until his death.

[danfrank666]

It puts the US in a bind. We can't let these guys over run Iraq, and especially can't let anyone into our Iraq embassy. There is some major shit going on in there that we (the US) can't let anyone know about. At the very least it is the major listening post in the region. Lord knows what else is going on there but there is a lot of sensitive shit going on there.

On the other hand, these guys that are over running Iraq are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the fight against Assad. So we can't outright crush them because that would hamper the effort in Syria.

So our choices are aid Iraq and by extension Iran with whom the two countries are allied in all but name and face a major set back in Syria, or side with the Salafists and sweep aside the Shia dominated government of Iraq and rebuff Iran. Which causes obvious problems of their own.

Or we could just self destruct the billion dollar embassy in Iraq and cut out completely and let the Salafists fight it out with moderate Sunni and Shia sects.

It`s to my understanding that israel flew a few bombing runs in syria , after the syrians gased the masses.

The solution was always simple. The U.S. could have recalibrated its foreign policy away from a bellicose approach toward Libya, Syria, [Iran], and Hezbollah. ISIS didn't emerge out of the blue, the Takfiri fundamentalist phenomenon has existed for a thousand years and has been contained by moderate forces like the Ba'ath Party and the Green Movement, and before them the imperial House of Osman. In 1980 Hafez al-Assad explained the problem lurking in the desert -

Your homeland is where oppression, anger, hatred, and unjustness is. Where ignorance is. A country of ignorance is a moving country. It has no borders. It will swim over all the people of the world. It will kill values and ruin humanity wherever possible. It will crush skulls. This is a country of ignorance. But we know the individuals who support it are very small in number. The people here are stronger than them and stronger than their financiers.

The institutions designed to contain this phenomenon were destroyed by the United States, that's why Saif al-Islam, in 2011, said -

You people have no idea what you have just unleashed.

The U.S. could have picked SL[I]H, and kept the Salafist forces bottled up. It didn't because of Israel. It is because of Israel the U.S. interfered in Syria - to force it to get rid of its chemical weapons - and in doing so it weakened the institutions keeping the phenomenon under control. Israel is taking human civilization to the brink of oblivion.

See, I don't get the Israel angle, sax. You may be right, I just haven't been able to find concrete evidence to lead me to that conclusion exactly. The pipeline and proxy energy war is pretty clear. I have no doubt that Israel is involved in it all as well.

I know there are nuts in Israel that are all about trying to bring about their equivalent of the Mahdi Caliphate, but I'm not very familiar with those players at all. They've done a better job of hiding the truth than with trying to hide the energy angle. US companies have to comply to shareholder and due diligence so those numbers are readily available to be studied and applied to the geopolitical scene to give a nice clear picture.

But in the case of the Israeli's, it's not quite so cut and dry, at least that I've been able to figure out. Maybe you can PM me or show some stuff ITT for me to get into to try and see that picture for myself.

[Dukasaur]

No. Syria and Libya is/was not jihadist governments.

Assad Junior seems to be secular and moderate. Assad Senior was a horse of a different colour. Secular-leaning, to be sure, but committed to pan-Arab nationalism, and from there it takes only one turn of the kaleidoscope to return to jihad.

The Taifa Emirates were almost secular in nature, cited by scholars everywhere as models of moderation and religious tolerance. It only took one generation to re-radicalize the population and turn them into jihadist extremists.

[saxitoxin]

Assad Junior seems to be secular and moderate. Assad Senior was a horse of a different colour. Secular-leaning, to be sure, but committed to pan-Arab nationalism, and from there it takes only one turn of the kaleidoscope to return to jihad.

Everything you've said so far is just ... I mean, I don't know where you're getting this stuff. (actually I do know, but whatever)

The entire Pan-Arab ideology originated with three men, one of whom was an atheist (Arsuzi), one of whom was Christian (Aflaq), and the third was Muslim (Bitar). The underlying purpose of Pan-Arabism was to provide an alternative to religious sectarianism and provide a basis for Arab unity centered on language and borders.

And Hafez al-Assad led Syria in a bitter, 8 year civil war against Islamic extremism. After which is when he made the speech I quoted previously, about continuing to remain resolute against extremism for the sake of human civilization generally ("It has no borders. It will swim over all the people of the world. It will kill values and ruin humanity wherever possible."). The fight against Israel has never had anything to do with religion; the religion angle is what is pumped out at a deafening roar by Israeli Hasbara because it gets picked-up by AIPAC-paid politicians, and then down the food chain to Hannity, FOX, etc. (who boil Israel's position down to a neat, 7 word question "does Israel have a right to exist?"), and then to Evangelical Christian voters in the U.S. See: the agenda-setting theory.