Syrian war thread - Page 203 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15120151
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/1305944473424269313?s=20



This is why I for a long time believed that ISIS had permanently changed the entire world, by returning the Middle East essentially to what it always has been, destroying the artificial borders of the Colonial Sykes-Picot and treaty of Lausanne agreements. Punched a hole right into the consensus ''reality'' and destroyed it.

I also thought that ISIS would survive and even eventually be victorious, because it's enemies hate and fear each other more than they hate and fear ISIS, and would never do enough to administer a death blow to ISIS permanently.

But then things started looking bad for them, and I lost sight of what I had perceived before. Now I read your post, and I think that I was right then and maybe wrong now. Trump isn't making these peace deals between Israel and the Arab states for peace, but for war, war against Iran when he gets re-elected (so yes, he will definitely be re-elected), the biggest war maybe of our lifetime. So ISIS will not be destroyed completely and for good, no, that would be foolish apparently if one is intent on checking Iran's ambitions.

So ISIS gets a new lease on life, and won't be stopped until after this situation with Iran is resolved.
By skinster
#15120283
annatar1914 wrote:This is why I for a long time believed that ISIS had permanently changed the entire world, by returning the Middle East essentially to what it always has been


It wasn't ISIS's intention to turning the region back to what it was, but to create an extremist and sectarian state all over the multi-religious region. With the help of its Western funders.

I also thought that ISIS would survive and even eventually be victorious, because it's enemies hate and fear each other more than they hate and fear ISIS, and would never do enough to administer a death blow to ISIS permanently.


Considering the enemies of ISIS for the most part succeeded against them, I'm not sure what the above is based on.

Trump isn't making these peace deals between Israel and the Arab states for peace, but for war, war against Iran when he gets re-elected


The peace deals are not about peace at all. Anything that the U.S. talks about when referring to peace in the middle east is the exact opposite of what they're saying. Still, those recent peace deals are absurd since a) there hasn't been war between the states that I know of and b) the people in those states oppose them anyway and have been protesting against them. It's just some make-up for the Trump team to wear during election season and ultimately, meaningless.

So ISIS gets a new lease on life, and won't be stopped until after this situation with Iran is resolved.


There is no situation to resolve with Iran rather than stopping the war on the country that's been repeatedly attacked by the West for decades. If ISIS is given a new lease of life, it will be due to West, but I doubt it.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15120341
@skinster ;

It wasn't ISIS's intention to turning the region back to what it was, but to create an extremist and sectarian state all over the multi-religious region. With the help of its Western funders.


ISIS and groups of that sort idolize the period of the initial Islamic conquests and the first four Caliphs as normative and righteous. And, I'm sure they get more than Western funding, from Muslim sympathizers too.


Considering the enemies of ISIS for the most part succeeded against them, I'm not sure what the above is based on.


Success would mean their utter destruction, since this seems to be impossible given the nature of those arrayed against them, they will make comebacks until they are utterly destroyed or triumph.


The peace deals are not about peace at all. Anything that the U.S. talks about when referring to peace in the middle east is the exact opposite of what they're saying. Still, those recent peace deals are absurd since a) there hasn't been war between the states that I know of and b) the people in those states oppose them anyway and have been protesting against them. It's just some make-up for the Trump team to wear during election season and ultimately, meaningless.


It's a formal lining up to stay out of the way when Iran is attacked.


There is no situation to resolve with Iran rather than stopping the war on the country that's been repeatedly attacked by the West for decades. If ISIS is given a new lease of life, it will be due to West, but I doubt it.


Don't doubt, war between the US and Iran or Iran and Israel would be the best thing that ever happened for groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida.
By skinster
#15121737










annatar1914 wrote:ISIS and groups of that sort idolize the period of the initial Islamic conquests and the first four Caliphs as normative and righteous. And, I'm sure they get more than Western funding, from Muslim sympathizers too.


Most oppose them, which is why they haven't been too successful in Syria. But you're right about them getting support from Western governments, if that's what you meant. The U.S. has a history of arming/funding extremists.

It's a formal lining up to stay out of the way when Iran is attacked.


Or just theatre to make Trump look good, despite other actions of his all over the ME.

Also, I doubt Iran will be attacked in the way that Iraq was, because of how that would threaten Israel.

Oxymoron wrote:Will this war ever be over? :eek:


I thought you'd be on board here since the countries making war on Syria include the U.S. and Israel. Are you one of those Trump supporters that believed he was serious about ending the war on Syria?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15121749
@skinster , in response to my comment about militant Islam, you said;


Most oppose them, which is why they haven't been too successful in Syria. But you're right about them getting support from Western governments, if that's what you meant. The U.S. has a history of arming/funding extremists.


This is true, but almost beside the point that there are plenty of extremists from which to help arm and fund.

Now, regarding the recent spate of peace agreements in the Middle East, and my contention that it is really a clearing out to get out of the way of Israel and/or the US in preparations for a regional war (that is, these peace treaties are really ''non-aggression pacts/neutrality pacts''), you replied;

Or just theatre to make Trump look good, despite other actions of his all over the ME.


I go on the internet a lot, looking at various political chat boards and the like, and you'd be surprised at the animosity Dispensationalists/Christian Zionists have for these peace treaties, it really surprised me. Of course, I haven't looked into too much of the ''fine print'' as it were just yet either-it's possible that some Israelis/Zionists see a distinct disadvantage to them. So no, it doesn't confer too much of an advantage for President Trump.

Also, I doubt Iran will be attacked in the way that Iraq was, because of how that would threaten Israel.


Iran is going to be attacked in a manner of which kind and degree hasn't been seen since 1945, in my opinion. Not that I want war, I most emphatically do not.
By skinster
#15121760
annatar1914 wrote:Now, regarding the recent spate of peace agreements in the Middle East, and my contention that it is really a clearing out to get out of the way of Israel and/or the US in preparations for a regional war (that is, these peace treaties are really ''non-aggression pacts/neutrality pacts''),


They don't have a history of war.

Anyway, these deals are meaningless since they've been unofficial allies before these stupid peace deals. Saudi Arabia will probably be next in signing a "peace deal" with Israel and that won't be surprising either because we already know they work together.

I go on the internet a lot, looking at various political chat boards and the like, and you'd be surprised at the animosity Dispensationalists/Christian Zionists have for these peace treaties, it really surprised me. Of course, I haven't looked into too much of the ''fine print'' as it were just yet either-it's possible that some Israelis/Zionists see a distinct disadvantage to them. So no, it doesn't confer too much of an advantage for President Trump.


Not sure why you're telling me this.

Iran is going to be attacked in a manner of which kind and degree hasn't been seen since 1945, in my opinion.


What are you basing your opinion on?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15121765
@skinster;

About Israel and the countries who signed agreements with Israel, you said;


They don't have a history of war.


They are part of the trend of peace agreements, leading up to those countries that have had a past of war with Israel.

Anyway, these deals are meaningless since they've been unofficial allies before these stupid peace deals. Saudi Arabia will probably be next in signing a "peace deal" with Israel and that won't be surprising either because we already know they work together.


Right, and Iran and those allied to Iran knew that as well.


Regarding political advantage to Trump out of these agreements, and my contention that Trump's die-hard base isn't happy with them, you commented;


Not sure why you're telling me this.


Because the ''Christian Zionists'' are already in Trump's camp as far as voting him back in for re-election goes, and so it confers no real political advantage for him unless it means war with Iran eventually.


What are you basing your opinion on?


Iran will in a matter of months have a national native means of enrichment of weapons grade nuclear material and the means to launch such weapons long ranges. Also, Iran has sworn revenge for the assassination of General Suleimani, that an American official of at least equal importance will be assassinated. This means war.
By skinster
#15121787
annatar1914 wrote:They are part of the trend of peace agreements, leading up to those countries that have had a past of war with Israel.


They haven't "had a past of war with Israel" though. They belong to the US/UK, like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Right, and Iran and those allied to Iran knew that as well.


Exactly, they likely consider them to be meaningless too.

Because the ''Christian Zionists'' are already in Trump's camp as far as voting him back in for re-election goes, and so it confers no real political advantage for him unless it means war with Iran eventually.


The "peace deals" are just marketing for the election.

Iran will in a matter of months have a national native means of enrichment of weapons grade nuclear material and the means to launch such weapons long ranges.


Citation needed.

Also, Iran has sworn revenge for the assassination of General Suleimani, that an American official of at least equal importance will be assassinated. This means war.


Iran hasn't threatened to assassinate any American official, nor does it want war. If one happens it won't be them starting it, it'll be the usual suspects.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15121796
@skinster ;

They haven't "had a past of war with Israel" though. They belong to the US/UK, like Saudi Arabia and Israel.


The point I was trying to make was that it'll lead up to the other nations that have been at war with Israel, to make a clear if technically obscured choice to stay out of the coming war with Iran and it's allies in the M.E.


Exactly, they likely consider them to be meaningless too.


Sure; ''treaties are like pie crusts, made to be broken'', and that's part of the Islamist worldview too with Non-Muslims


The "peace deals" are just marketing for the election.


The whole point of marketing is to have something to sell, and what Trump is offering is peace, and possibly to an ardent Zionist, a peace that is worse than war. Again, I haven't looked at all the details yet of these agreements. Could be Israel is being played for a sucker, you never know.

Edit; hardcore Zionists hate these agreements between Israel and the Arab Muslim states, and a couple reasons is pretty sound from their point of view;

https://jtf.org/bahrain-deal-gulf-arabs ... new-video/



Citation needed.



https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/r ... mb-n896422

Admittedly a American Zionist source, but likely one of the few that would run the story.


Iran hasn't threatened to assassinate any American official, nor does it want war. If one happens it won't be them starting it, it'll be the usual suspects.


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... on-n929797

Admittedly again, same bunch, but likely one of the few to carry that sort of story. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

And as you say, if they need a pretext, even to invent one, war might happen.

Edit; in light of what I just had said there, comes this report that the Iranians want to kill President Trump whether he is re-elected or not;

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... ent-trump/

So, it seems that the United States and Iran are headed on a collision course.
By skinster
#15121874
annatar1914 wrote:The point I was trying to make was that it'll lead up to the other nations that have been at war with Israel, to make a clear if technically obscured choice to stay out of the coming war with Iran and it's allies in the M.E.


The states that are part of the peace deals were already allies with Israel. Bahrain sold it weapons in the past. This is all marketing for the election.

Sure; ''treaties are like pie crusts, made to be broken'', and that's part of the Islamist worldview too with Non-Muslims


What a weird thing to say when we know that the Islamist or sectarian-run states in the region have had decades-long running deals/alliances with non-Muslims, i.e. the UK, US & Israel.

The whole point of marketing is to have something to sell, and what Trump is offering is peace, and possibly to an ardent Zionist, a peace that is worse than war. Again, I haven't looked at all the details yet of these agreements. Could be Israel is being played for a sucker, you never know.


Trump is not offering peace. :lol:

Basically what happened was Kushner the son-in-law of Trump went around to his mates in those gulf states asking to make official what was already a thing about their alliances with Israel, trying to make them look like they're about peace in the region when their actions under Trump's presidency where they've joined forces with Nethanyahu in denying Palestinians their own state, shows they're clearly not interested in peace there. But it appears that some people fall for this shit.

And also, I'd recommend you stop trusting reports that cite anonymous officials or US intel. The Russian-bounties-in-Afghanistan made-up-story recently should be a good reminder why you don't trust what they say, not to mention the four years of Russiagate nonsense. It was U.S. officials making the claim about Iranian threats to assassinate the South African ambassador and South Africa has discredited these claims as you can read all about in the article below.

Edit; hardcore Zionists hate these agreements between Israel and the Arab Muslim states, and a couple reasons is pretty sound from their point of view;


Again, the agreements mean nothing and sure extremists Zionists might oppose them but that just shows how ignorant they are since they don't already know these states have been allies with Israel for quite some time already.

Admittedly a American Zionist source, but likely one of the few that would run the story.


:lol:

That article is not evidence for anything. Although it does remind us that Iran is still in the JCPOA with European states, which would prevent it from building nuclear weapons anyway, something the leaders of the state have always opposed too. You should know better about WMD claims at your age.

Admittedly again, same bunch, but likely one of the few to carry that sort of story. Doesn't mean it isn't true.


Yes it does. I recommend you stop looking at dodgy Zionist media sites, no wonder you're all over the place here. The Iranians don't run around attacking American or other officials, that's not their MO, despite the US and Israeli assassinations on Iranian military leaders, scientists etc.

Americans always project their actions on those they're attacking. Israelis are even more popular for this. Don't believe the hype.

Edit; in light of what I just had said there, comes this report that the Iranians want to kill President Trump whether he is re-elected or not;


:lol:




https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/breaking-representative-iranian-regimes-supreme-leader-claims-irgs-will-kill-president-trump/


This is a far-right website that's been repeatedly called out for its lies, hoaxes etc. I recommend you stop getting your info from dodgy websites.

So, it seems that the United States and Iran are headed on a collision course.


That seems like wishful thinking. Israel would almost definitely be attacked in response to any attack on Iran and I doubt the Israelis or Americans would risk this.

The Neocons believed war on Iran would be easy after Syria fell but the latter didn't happen, which has kinda fucked up their plans since that state borders Israel.


Maybe the article here can help clear up that fog in your mind.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#15121914
skinster wrote:

I thought you'd be on board here since the countries making war on Syria include the U.S. and Israel. Are you one of those Trump supporters that believed he was serious about ending the war on Syria?


He is doing a better job of it then Obama, that is for sure. I think the destabilized state is not in the US or Israelis' interests. So the quicker this ends the better.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15121919
@skinster, you replied;

The states that are part of the peace deals were already allies with Israel. Bahrain sold it weapons in the past. This is all marketing for the election.


I wouldn't say ''allies'', but they have mutual threats against them, and those Muslim states are playing a smarter long-term game. This actually has little to do with the American Presidential election, as President Trump is pretty well understood as being a ''shoe-in'', running against a man in clear cognitive decline and with a overtly ambitious running mate who is unlikable to almost all.



What a weird thing to say when we know that the Islamist or sectarian-run states in the region have had decades-long running deals/alliances with non-Muslims, i.e. the UK, US & Israel.


Not weird at all, when they have examples from the Koran of the temporary alliances and periods of peace (in order to gain strength) with Non-Muslims.


Trump is not offering peace. :lol:


He's offering them peace in the sense of preparation for war which delineates who the non-combatants are, and who are in defensive alliance.

Basically what happened was Kushner the son-in-law of Trump went around to his mates in those gulf states asking to make official what was already a thing about their alliances with Israel, trying to make them look like they're about peace in the region when their actions under Trump's presidency where they've joined forces with Nethanyahu in denying Palestinians their own state, shows they're clearly not interested in peace there. But it appears that some people fall for this shit.


That's the Iranian take on this, for sure.

And also, I'd recommend you stop trusting reports that cite anonymous officials or US intel. The Russian-bounties-in-Afghanistan made-up-story recently should be a good reminder why you don't trust what they say, not to mention the four years of Russiagate nonsense. It was U.S. officials making the claim about Iranian threats to assassinate the South African ambassador and South Africa has discredited these claims as you can read all about in the article below.


This isn't about ''trusting reports'', it's about seeing a war brewing in the not too distant future. I'm not one to trust the Iranians exactly on what they say and do either.


Again, the agreements mean nothing and sure extremists Zionists might oppose them but that just shows how ignorant they are since they don't already know these states have been allies with Israel for quite some time already.


They're not ''allies'' with Israel. They have a common problem that they are trying to deal with and are organizing to reflect that common threat. So from the extremist Zionist side, their conundrum remains.


:lol:

That article is not evidence for anything. Although it does remind us that Iran is still in the JCPOA with European states, which would prevent it from building nuclear weapons anyway, something the leaders of the state have always opposed too. You should know better about WMD claims at your age.


Iran has capabilities, and Iraq did as well until much of it was removed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to avoid it falling into the hands of US military forces and make a propaganda coup against the US as an added bonus. I was against the war in any case, even with my suspicions.


Yes it does. I recommend you stop looking at dodgy Zionist media sites, no wonder you're all over the place here. The Iranians don't run around attacking American or other officials, that's not their MO, despite the US and Israeli assassinations on Iranian military leaders, scientists etc.


I'm not going to sideline this discussion into a history of terrorism in the Middle East.


Americans always project their actions on those they're attacking. Israelis are even more popular for this. Don't believe the hype.


American and Israeli actions in the Middle East are not always intelligent, but it remains that their enemies aren't exactly boy scouts. I don't believe ''hype'' at all, nor do I absolve one side when the other is engaged in nefarious activities also.



:lol:






This is a far-right website that's been repeatedly called out for its lies, hoaxes etc. I recommend you stop getting your info from dodgy websites.


I cast a wide net in information gathering, from many sources, in order to assess and get a bigger picture. Even apparent lies are part of that, along with the truth. I know that since we are discussing this on the ''Syrian War Thread'' that you have a partisan set of opinions on all this, but I do not. I sympathize with those fighting under the Syrian government against the militant Sunni Jihadis, and apparently so too did the Russian government for example. Syria got help where and with whomever it could to resist being taken over, I get that, but that doesn't make some of those allies any prettier. And some alliances come at a cost even a cost in sovereignty.


That seems like wishful thinking. Israel would almost definitely be attacked in response to any attack on Iran and I doubt the Israelis or Americans would risk this.


There may come a time when they feel that they have no choice but to attack Iran.

The Neocons believed war on Iran would be easy after Syria fell but the latter didn't happen, which has kinda fucked up their plans since that state borders Israel.


Maybe the article here can help clear up that fog in your mind.


There's no ''fog'' at all, but an understanding of the overall snake pit that is the Middle East.. The Neo-Cons definitely screwed things up with their ambitious and foolish adventures in the Middle East, but I also recall that they created much the mess in their Cold War against the Soviet Union, including the Iranian Revolution. Oh yes, the Iranian Revolution, prior to which the CIA knew that the unpopular Shah was dying of cancer years before it came out publicly and the rest of the Pahlavi family were too weak and corrupt to take the helm after the Shah's death. Therefore they needed a new strong man in charge and brought him back out of his exile in a Western country... And not to mention the provocations of the CIA which led to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

And then there was the whole ''Iran/Contra'' thing.

It's a tangled web, don't assume anything about anybody involved in the Middle East.
By skinster
#15122387
Oxymoron wrote:He is doing a better job of it then Obama, that is for sure. I think the destabilized state is not in the US or Israelis' interests. So the quicker this ends the better.


No, he's not doing a "better job". American terrorist troops are still on the ground in Syria occupying its land and stealing its oil and Trump's sanctions on the country continue to kill Syrians. You think a destabilized state of Syria is not in the interest of Israel or the U.S.? Then explain why they're carrying on its destruction and making it difficult for the country to rebuild from the war that was made on it.

annatar1914 wrote:opinions


Let me know if you have any evidence for anything you say and maybe try not to use The Gateway Pundit for that evidence that Iran is building a nuke, that dumb lie you fell for again. :D
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15122391
skinster wrote:


Let me know if you have any evidence for anything you say and maybe try not to use The Gateway Pundit for that evidence that Iran is building a nuke, that dumb lie you fell for again. :D



Pure logic. Iran has nuclear weapons bought from somewhere, otherwise the Israelis or USA would have already attempted to destroy their nuclear reactors years ago like the Israelis did at Osirak to Iraq's program. We all know that Iran is at the top of the list for ''regime change'' for obvious reasons, but they don't do it. Why? Fear of retaliation because every nation that has nuclear weapons, doesn't get invaded; North Korea, Pakistan, Israel itself.
By skinster
#15122396


Sometimes the news is good.


annatar1914 wrote:Pure logic.


Your opinion isn't that. I don't know why you keep sharing your opinion with me.

Iran has nuclear weapons bought from somewhere,


Yep, they bought them at the fish-market last week. My aunt sold them the weapons. Anything I say is true just because I said so. This is me playing you. :D
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15122406
@skinster , you said;




Your opinion isn't that. I don't know why you keep sharing your opinion with me.


I gave rigidly logical reasons inferring from known facts;

1. They invade non-nuclear countries, not nuclear countries no matter how obnoxious to them and their geopolitical goals.

2. Case in point; Osirak. An Enemy of Israel was in the process of starting a nuclear program and it got destroyed. Iran has not been.


Yep, they bought them at the fish-market last week. My aunt sold them the weapons. Anything I say is true just because I said so. This is me playing you. :D


:lol:
  • 1
  • 200
  • 201
  • 202
  • 203
  • 204

Hubby was saying except for Havana, covid is mostl[…]

It's super fun infographic time. https://i[…]

Why does Europe not have Startup's

It's more to do with nepotism that favours heavy r[…]

Going by what you said, you're *dichotomizing* […]