Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Middle East Thread


Red Phoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

What? Theresa May doesn’t give a solitary fuck about the Syrian citizens, neither does Donald trump.

I don't see why their personal feelings for Syrians are at all relevant. Syria has broken the rules of warfare quite egregiously, so here comes Mr Policeman with his truncheon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why their personal feelings for Syrians are at all relevant. Syria has broken the rules of warfare quite egregiously, so here comes Mr Policeman with his truncheon.

Presumably Israel and Saudi Arabia are slaughtering innocent civilians within the rules of warfare? That’s about as poor a justification as I’ve heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well call it the ‘Russia vs USA’ thread.

 

Every single modern conflict in that region is based on oil pipelines and those two countries supplying arms.

 

I’m sure this debate has been rehashed myriad times since the thread was started 4 years ago, but nothing changes.

 

Not long ago it was vogue to call Iran a threat to world peace, now you’d be forgiven for thinking Iran didn’t exist.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well call it the ‘Russia vs USA’ thread.

 

Every single modern conflict in that region is based on oil pipelines and those two countries supplying arms.

 

I’m sure this debate has been rehashed myriad times since the thread was started 4 years ago, but nothing changes.

 

Not long ago it was vogue to call Iran a threat to world peace, now you’d be forgiven for thinking Iran didn’t exist.

 

They will again soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is good apart from Europe being ruined. 

 

Peter Hitchins

 

Why do so many people in politics and the media want to start wars? Since I toured a sordid hospital full of wounded people in Bucharest at Christmas 1989, and even more after I saw for the first time (in Vilnius in 1991) what a human head looks like after a bullet has passed through it, I have seen it as an absolute duty to warn against armed conflict. It is a filthy thing.

No doubt there are times when we must fight. But there are plenty more when we should not. 

Any fool can kill a man in a second and ruin a city in a week. But it takes long years of nurture to raise a child to adulthood, and centuries to build a civilisation.

Yet I look around me and see the mouths of intelligent people opened wide, yelling for an attack on Syria, when the only certain outcome of that will be blood and screams and ruins, and the deaths of innocents in 'collateral damage'. What good will this do? 

What is wrong with them? They are not cruel and stupid, yet they call for actions which are both.

Haven't we got enough misery in Syria already? The place is a mass of ruins, graveyards and refugee camps. To what end? The only mercy for Syria will come when the war ends, yet we seek to widen and extend it.

Don't we have more than enough of such disaster in Iraq and Libya, where state-sponsored panic and emotional claims of atrocities excused the launching of wars so stupid and dangerous that I wonder if these places can ever recover? 

Perhaps worse, by creating an unending river of migrants through the Middle East and the Mediterranean, I suspect they have ruined Europe for good.

Why are we even taking sides in Syria? As Julian Lewis MP, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, rightly pointed out last week, President Assad is a monster. But his opponents are maniacs. 

The Syrian jihadi gangsters which our Government crazily helps and backs – the Al-Nusra Front and Jaish al-Islam – are the sort of fanatics we would arrest on sight if we found them in Birmingham.

Anyway, Boris Johnson's Foreign Office is firmly pro-monster in all parts of the world where it suits it to be so. 

British Royals and Ministers literally bow down as they accept medals from the head-chopping fanatics of Saudi Arabia, now engaged in a bloody, aggressive war in Yemen.

Britain maintains a naval base in Bahrain, whose rulers in 2011 crushed protests with severe violence followed by torture. 

As Amnesty International puts it, 'using an array of tools of repression, including harassment, arbitrary detention and torture, the government of Bahrain has managed to crush a formerly thriving civil society and reduced it to a few lone voices who still dare to speak out'.

Britain daren't even admit that our 'friend' Egypt is ruled by a military junta that seized power illegally in defiance of elections which we had supposedly supported but which produced the wrong result.

Field Marshal Sisi's August 2013 Cairo massacre, in which almost 600 peaceful protesters were killed and thousands more wounded, is politely forgotten. 

So is the Chinese communist regime's mass murder (1,000 are estimated to have died) in Peking in June 1989. 

The men whose power rests on that ruthless massacre are welcome to dine at Buckingham Palace. But surely we can't allow Assad to use chemical weapons? 

We would never tolerate that. Would we? Well, when Saddam Hussein was our ally against Iran back in 1988, he undoubtedly used poison gas against Kurds in Halabja. 

And in September 1988 the Foreign Office declined to get outraged, saying: 'We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. 

Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail.'

Which brings me to the final point. Do we even know that Assad used chemical weapons? 

I have actually read the reports of the last such alleged attack in Khan Sheikhoun a year ago, and they prove nothing. In fact, they are quite fishy.

At the time of writing, I have yet to see a British or US media report on this alleged attack from closer than Beirut, 70 miles from the scene. 

Many seemingly confident and graphic accounts come from Istanbul, 900 miles away, or from London or Washington. 

Where are they getting their information from? Here's a clue. The Saudi-backed faction in control of Douma at the time of the alleged attack, Jaish al- Islam (the Army of Islam), were themselves accused of using poison gas against Kurds in Aleppo in April 2016.

They are not especially nice. Their other main claim to fame is that they displayed captured Syrian Army officers in cages and used them as human shields. 

They have spent several years indiscriminately shelling Damascus from Douma, having taken the local inhabitants hostage, and then squawking about war crimes if the Syrian government hit back at them, which it did much as the Iraqi government (our friends) did to Islamic State in Mosul and Fallujah.

I would not look for any heroes in this cauldron. And if you want to watch war games on a TV screen, can I suggest that you buy your own virtual reality equipment? 

The real thing may look pretty and neat, but real people die as it happens and, if you supported it, their deaths will be on your conscience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the frottaging May and her wotsit with centrist cunt Macron turned us into a rogue state!.

 

 

Definition

 

 

 

 

A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a security threat to other nations.

Iraq, Libya and our middle eastern policy in general would certainly suggest so. We’re surely up there with the most immoral states on the planet; dropping bombs on civilians, selling bombs to be dropped on civilians, torture, war for profit. Etc. Etc. It’s not a good look for a country that likes to style itself as the upholder of international law.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq, Libya and our middle eastern policy in general would certainly suggest so. We’re surely up there with the most immoral states on the planet; dropping bombs on civilians, selling bombs to be dropped on civilians, torture, war for profit. Etc. Etc. It’s not a good look for a country that likes to style itself as the upholder of international law.

 

They don't care, and they don't need to care. We are the goodies. If we kill someone they were a baddie, if we sell weapons to someone they were a goodie.

 

We are goodies, the US are goodies. Saudis - goodies. Israel - goodies. Iran - BADDIES. Russia - BADDIES. Syria MORE BADDIES. China - Moderate baddies.

 

Or...all cunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why their personal feelings for Syrians are at all relevant. Syria has broken the rules of warfare quite egregiously, so here comes Mr Policeman with his truncheon.

Here comes Mr Bent-Copper to smash up all the evidence before CSI can go to work.

 

Also, of course, the USA (and its satellites) has no right to act as policeman. Legitimate police operate by consent. The closest thing to a "world policeman" is the UN. The US is just another gang in a turf war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here comes Mr Bent-Copper to smash up all the evidence before CSI can go to work.

 

Also, of course, the USA (and its satellites) has no right to act as policeman. Legitimate police operate by consent. The closest thing to a "world policeman" is the UN. The US is just another gang in a turf war.

 

Sadly the UN are rather like the police in Napoli.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Russian journalist critical of the war in Syria has 'fallen' out of his fifth floor apartment window.

 

Great bunch of lads.

 

 

He said the door to Borodin's apartment was locked from the inside and there was no sign of forced entry. He added that the keys to the apartment were found inside and no suicide note has been found.

Remember when that spy was dead in a holdall which was locked from the outside and yet the UK judiciary decided he had killed himself! Hahaha!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wrong here, it was classed as "accidental death". I misremembered.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

 

 

 

Police visited Williams's home during the afternoon of Monday 23 August 2010, as a "welfare check" after colleagues noted he had been out of contact for several days.[10] His decomposing naked remains were found in a red The North Face bag, padlocked from the outside, in the bath of the main bedroom's en-suite bathroom.[11][12] The police had gained entry into his top floor flat in Alderney Street, Pimlico at around 16:40.[13] His family believe that crucial DNA was interfered with and that fingerprints left at the scene were wiped off as part of a cover-up.[1] No fingerprints, palm-prints, footprints or traces of Williams's DNA were found on the rim of the bath, the bag zip or the bag padlock. A key to the padlock was inside the bag, underneath his body.[14]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...