• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shifting strategic alliances

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE

Religion, in its broadest context, can be described as the framework in which we sense reality. In revelatory religions, this framework is imparted from a supernatural source -- either individually, as in various forms of meditation, dreams and visions, or second-hand, through writings and oral traditions. In historically revelatory religions such as Christianity, Judaism and, to some extent, Islam, historical events are predicted before they happen; and as these events happen, the predictions become better understood.

The Bible probably contains more specific predictions concerning what, to this generation, are historical events, than any other source I am aware of. Besides this, Zoroastrian predictions of the apocalypse bear a close resemblance to the prophecies in Daniel -- with the main difference being that the protagonist in Daniel is the people of Israel, and the protagonist in the Zoroastrian prophecies is Iran. After the Zoroastrian authorities in Iran were replaced by Muslims, and the Iranians adopted Shi'a Islam, these prophetic motifs found their way into Shi'ite apocalyptic traditions. The Baha'i religion also has Messianic predictions similar to those in the Bible, as Baha'i is an intentionally synchretist religion with mainly Islamic and Christian influence. In light of the above, my concern with apocalyptic traditions focuses on those in the Bible; though the historical framework I lay out here can be adapted to the Iranian predictions as well, with modification.

The Book of Daniel contains two largely parallel prophecies of the end times, one in chapter 2 and one in chapter 7. Together, according to most interpreters, they describe a progression of world powers, each displacing the other in turn: first Babylon, then Persia, then Greece or Macedonia, then Rome. The Book of Revelation incorporates much imagery from Daniel, amalgamating the statue in Daniel 2 and the beasts in Daniel 7 into two isomorphic creatures: one, "the Beast", having seven heads that represent a succession of world empires, and the other "the Dragon", or "the Devil", which gives power to the Beast.

The historical outworking of "the Beast" has been interpreted many ways over the ages; and understandably so, because in no age were the interpreters sure whether or not they were themselves living in the apocalyptic generation. If we are to try to fit this prophecy into our own generation, we need to bear in mind one important fact: The heads of "the Beast" represent WORLD POWERS that have SUCCEEDED one another; and since the Roman Empire was the sixth of the seven heads in Revelation, there needs to be a clear, uninterrupted, logical connection between the current "head" and that empire.

The only reasonable connection I can see, between the current world order and Rome, is through the Holy Roman Empire. That empire truly succeeded and displaced the former; for up until the time that Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as the "Holy Roman Emperor", based on a forged but nearly universally attested to document called the "Donation of Constantine", the Patrimony of St. Peter, containing Rome, was nominally subject to the remnant of the ancient empire, based in Constantinople. No other continuous, uninterrupted path back to the empire of John's day exists; and as the seventh head in John's revelation is replaced by ten horns, so was the Holy Roman Empire replaced as the dominant power in the West by a number of world powers, each ruled ultimately by a descendant of Charlemagne.

There is no want of people who disagree with the above view, though it is the one avowed by the preponderance of contemporary Biblical scholars and has its advocates across the Internet. My main concern in this present thread, is to describe the present world situation as accurately as possible, so proper conclusions can be drawn as to the identity of the countries alluded to in the prophecies. Besides the Daniel and Revelation predictions of an end-times conflict that will usher in the Messianic reign, there is a prophecy in Ezekiel concerning an event, involving an attack on Israel by a handful of countries, to occur BEFORE the end-time battle. I hope that the framework I'm presenting here puts that prediction in perspective as well.

Lest we get lost in endless details, let us begin by considering who, exactly, ARE the great powers of today. There are many ways to categorize them:

I. SUPERPOWERS

There is only one, the United States of America

II. THE "P5"

These are the permanent members of the UN Security Council, each having veto power over matters concerning collective security: The US, the UK, France, Russia and China.

III. THE G-20

This economic summit includes representatives of 20 of the largest world economic powers. It includes the P5, plus 15 others.

IV. THE GLOBAL FIREPOWER INDEX

This is a list, prepared by a think tank, of the world's greatest military powers. I will list here those countries, in order, which are also part of the G-20:

  1. the USA
  2. Russia
  3. China
  4. India
  5. the UK
  6. France
  7. Germany
  8. South Korea
  9. Italy
  10. Brazil
  11. Turkey
These are followed by Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and Iran, which are not part of the G-20. After them comes G-20 member Japan, then non-member Taiwan.

MAJOR COLONIAL POWERS,
from the mid-18th Century through World War II


These are all still relatively important countries today; because the former colonies of many are either G-20 countries or members of the European Union. I will list them here, and their former colonies ( in parentheses):

  1. the UK (India, the US, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Burma, South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Canada, Iraq, Malaysia, Nepal, Malawi Afghanistan, Ghana, Australia, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, et al)
  2. Spain (Mexico, Philippines, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Cuba, Bolivia, Dominican Rep, Honduras, Paraguay, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, et al)
  3. France (Vietnam, Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Syria, Madagascar, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Cambodia, Senegal, Chad, Tunisia, Guinea, Haiti, Benin, Laos, Togo, Lebanon, Central African Rep, Rep of Congo, et al)
  4. Turkey (Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Romania, Tunisia, Greece, Israel, Bulgaria, Serbia, Jordan, Libya, Lebanon, et al)
  5. the Netherlands (Indonesia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, et al)
  6. Portugal (Brazil, Mozambique, Angola, et al)
  7. Russia (Ukraine, Poland, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Finland, Turkmenistan, Georgia, et al)
  8. Italy (Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Libya, et al)
  9. the US (Philippines, Cuba, et al)
  10. Japan (South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, et al)
  11. Germany (Tanzania, Cameroon, Rwanda, Burundi, Austria, Togo, et al)
  12. Belgium (DR Congo, Rwanda, Burundi)
  13. Austria (Czech Rep, Hungary, Slovakia, et al)
  14. China (Taiwan, et al)
  15. Thailand (Cambodia, Laos)
  16. Iran (Azerbaijan, Georgia, et al)
  17. Sweden (Finland, Norway, et al)
  18. Denmark (Norway, et al)
The vast majority of the Colonial Powers (those in red) were ruled by descendants of Charlemagne, making them candidates to be among the "horns" of the Daniel and Revelation beasts.

With the Gulf War of 1991 and the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, some modern-day prophets have identified either the heads or the horns of Daniel and Revelation with Muslim countries. While some of them were certainly "heads", or PAST world powers (Egypt, Iraq and Iran), none of them fits as being a "horn" -- except perhaps Turkey, which was a major colonial power in modern times (though I don't hold to this notion).
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
WORLD TRADE AND POLITICS

I plan, for the moment, to occasionally refer to Bible prophecy -- and to the predictions of other religions and irreligions, as folks may bring them up. For the most part, though, I will (1) continue to formulate my ideas about the "three-bloc" framework, and (2) relate the daily news to this.

I mentioned the Chinese angle a couple of posts ago. This is of particular interest to me, because most of my family is at this moment in China, but I think it's a peripheral issue. As it stands, it seems like events in the Middle East are the dynamic part of world politics. The rest of the world seems to be too busy, to quote Jesus, "buying and selling, marrying and being given into marriage" to bother. India, for instance, still has strong military ties to Israel; and Israel, on its part, is reluctant to trade with China in order to please its increasingly reliable friend, the US. Over the next few years, though, I think it's a safe bet that Israel will be more connected with China and less with India and the US than it is today. Meanwhile, political matters, which are existential for Israel, must needs take the front seat; and the same can be said for its neighboring leaders.

I have cobbled together a map of the flow of trade in 2012, so I might as well post it here:

2012%20trade-s.gif


The map shows principal trade partners in 2012. Violet is NAFTA, Red is the EU, Pink is Russia, Yellow is China, Blue is Japan, Teal is South Korea, Magenta is India, Deep Orange is Australia, Light Orange is Pakistan, Light Green is Thailand, Chestnut is the GCC, Dark Grey is South Africa, Dark Green is Brazil, Olive is Somalia, Lilac is Djibouti and Light Grey is Kenya, Brown is Venezuela. For the above hubs, their own major trade partners are shown in geometric shapes. Australia, for instance is colored deep orange because it is a major hub for Pacific trade. Its own foreign trade, on the other hand, is with China -- which is shown by the yellow patch in its center. My raw data is drawn from several sources, and I don't make any claim as to its accuracy. The capital letters in some countries indicate the country within the trading bloc that has the largest share of trade: G is for Germany, F for France, N for Netherlands, B for Belgium, I for Italy, U for UK, S for Spain.

You can see by my own map, that China is more connected with Iran than is India, and that Iran is more connected with Saudi Arabia than is China. As India becomes more dependent on Iran, though, as an access route to Central Asia; and as China is no longer needed by Iran as a sanctions-busting, veto-wielding political ally, I expect this situation to flip. I cannot predict that this will happen, because only God knows how Iran will behave; but every indication I can see is in this direction.

BRICS

A few years ago, I heard a lot of talk about BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) as a counterweight to the US and EU. The Russians were especially promoting this idea. It hasn't panned out. Look at the map: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa all trade mainly with the EU, and the EU trades mainly with the US. Like it or not, world trade revolves around the EU-US axis, and will for some time in the future. Geography dictates this, because alternatives such as BRICS are too far-flung to form a cohesive center. If the Russians want a "multipolar" world, they will have to pry North America from Europe. Even the Shanghai Cooperation Council, consisting of Russia, China and some intervening countries, shows little prospect of drawing its members together. To the contrary, Russia depends on Europe as the main market for its natural resources, and China is getting more tied in with Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America. Here is how the "ten toes/horns" (Daniel 2/7) of Europe stack up against the others in nominal Gross Domestic Product:

EUROPE-NORTH AMERICA

  1. USA $16,244 billion (NATO member)
  2. Germany 3,426 " (NATO)
  3. France 2,611 " (NATO)
  4. UK Britain 2,418 (NATO)
  5. Italy 2,013 " (NATO)
  6. Canada 1,821 " (NATO)
  7. Spain 1,322 " (NATO)
  8. Mexico 1,184 "
  9. Turkey 788 " (Turkey has made overtures to both the EU and the Shanghai Cooperation Org. (SCO). It is a NATO member)
  10. Netherlands 770 " (NATO)
  11. Saudi Arabia 711 "
PACIFIC (US-ALIGNED)

  1. Japan 5,960 billion (NATO partner)
  2. Australia 1,564 " (NATO partner)
  3. S. Korea 1,130 " (a US ally occupied by US troops, it nonetheless has good relations with China. NATO partner)
  4. Indonesia 878 " (officially nonaligned, Indonesia's trade is mostly with Japan, Singapore, S. Korea, EU, US and Malaysia combined. China is important, and India less so; but the BRICS relations in aggregate are dwarfed by relations with US and allies. Indonesia's military ties are also primarily with the West.)
BRICS (no cohesive center)
  1. China $8,358 billion (SCO)
  2. Brazil 2,254 "
  3. Russia 2,030 " (SCO; NATO partner)
  4. India 1,875 " (SCO observer)
If the Chinese and Japanese could ever get together, they would form a powerful bloc (about the size of the EU or the US). Don't anyone hold your breath until that happens, though.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
WASHINGTON-TEHRAN AXIS EXTENDING TO SYRIA

Western officials in Damascus discuss combating al Qaeda with Assad

DEBKAfile January 15, 2014, 5:27 PM (IST)

-- Western officials in Damascus discuss combating al Qaeda with Assad

The piece is too short to cite here according to our rules, so here's a paraphrase: British, French, Spanish and German intelligence officials have been secretly meeting with Bashar al Assad's government to discuss mutually beneficial actions. In other words, the Unholy Alliance I've been talking about has been extended to the Demon of Damascus.

The BBC piece is here:

15 January 2014 Last updated at 10:18 ET
Syria says West talks to Damascus about Islamist rebels

"...Asked if Western intelligence agencies - including British intelligence - had recently visited Damascus, [the Syrian official] said: "I will not specify but many of them have visited Damascus, yes."...

"On Tuesday, French President Francois Hollande told a press conference in Paris that 700 French nationals had joined the ranks of foreigners fighting in Syria. The growing numbers of foreign Islamist fighters from Europe means there are common concerns, our correspondent says, but it is not clear how far the West is prepared to make common cause with a regime it holds responsible for the Syrian civil war..."

-- BBC News - Syria says West talks to Damascus about Islamist rebels

In Turkey, meanwhile, a picture is worth a thousand words:

erdoganangry_headlinenew.jpg


Turkish PM Erdogan, apparently not happy. (Photo: Reuters)

Reactions snowball after PM likens Hizmet members to Hashishin
15 January 2014

"Many people from various circles, including politicians and historians, have leveled harsh criticism at the prime minister after he likened members of the Hizmet movement, inspired by Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, to a shady group that carried out politically motivated assassinations in the past..."

-- Reactions snowball after PM likens Hizmet members to Hashishin - Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news

You needn't scurry to do lookups on this one. The "Hashishin" are the "Assassins of Alamut" of old, whose English name, "assassins", describes their favorite tool of warfare (such as our own lynching Qaddafi, or taking out Osama bin Laden). Its Turkish form shines light on the fact that, yes, this cult (the A of A) did smoke hashish a lot. This headline is about a leadership struggle between two Islamist sects -- the one, akin to Egypt's now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, is the Prime Minister's party. The other is a cultish group, orchestrated by an exiled Turk in Pennsylvania. The feud between the two is penetrating all levels of government, and really wreaking havoc. Both parties, to my knowledge, hate Israel and secretly support Al Qaeda in Syria (or worse).

The article I was looking for is here:

West opens security contacts with Damascus, minister says

15 January 2014 /DUBAI, REUTERS

"...[Deputy Syrian Minister] Mekdad said that the contacts appeared to show a rift between the political and security authorities in some countries opposed to Assad..."

-- West opens security contacts with Damascus, minister says - Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news

So much for Turkish interest in the matter... In Iraq, meanwhile,

Iraqi cabinet passes budget bill with Kurdish rejection and withdrawal
Passing the budget is a deliberate step to convert the crisis to Erbil, Kurdistan Alliance said.

January 15, 2014

-- Iraqi cabinet passes budget bill with Kurdish rejection and withdrawal

The gist of that item, is that the Shi'ite-controlled Iraqi central government, which has been accused by outsiders of marginalizing Sunnis in the country (most of the Kurds are Sunnis, as well as Arabs in the N and W of the country), has turned a deaf ear to such criticism and is further marginalizing Sunnis -- and, I might add, opponents of the ruling clique in general. The jihadist group ISIL, a few days ago, took advantage of public reaction to the government's dictatorial tendency and occupied two major cities in Anbar Province. Obama and America have been backing the pro-Iranian, Shi'ite regime; and now that they're alienating the Kurds as well, I don't expect this situation to improve any time soon.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
A FLURRY OF FLIGHTS; CHINA-BRICS RELATIONS

The major news of strategic concern today, focusses on two airplane flights. On the one, Israeli PM Netanyahu is flying to Jordan in order to find out what the Iranian FM said to the Jordanian king. On the other flight, that Iranian FM is flying together with the FM of Syria, to tell their Russian boss, Vladimir Putin, what they had been discussing with Syrian President Assad. Both these flights are spin-offs on the recent pact made in Geneva, between the Americans, British, French, Germans, Chinese, Russians and Iranians. The two flights, of course, neatly divide along the lines I've been presenting in this thread: (1) The Israelis and Jordanians are allies of Saudi Arabia, in the "Chinese" bloc, and (2) The Iranians, Syrians and Russians are all part of the "American" bloc. First, the article:

Same plane delivers Iranian and Syrian foreign ministers in Moscow to meet Putin
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 16, 2014, 11:59 AM (IST)

"Thursday, Jan. 16, Iran’s Javad Zarif and Syria’s Walid Moallem flew together to Moscow aboard the same flight and went straight into a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zarif caught the flight in Damascus after a consultation with Syrian President Bashar Assad and a government-building exercise in Beirut..."

-- Same plane delivers Iranian and Syrian foreign ministers in Moscow to meet Putin

What particularly interests me in all this, is the fact that the Syrians and Iranians reported to the Russians, not the Chinese. Up until now, the preponderance of articles I've seen about the Middle East situation show that the Chinese and Russians were co-equal in their support of the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah Axis. The Chinese were in Geneva along with all the rest, yet even the photo ops showed very little interaction between the Chinese and Iranian delegates -- while others, such as the French FM, were pictured giving bear hugs to their Iranian counterpart. Let me see if the Chinese press shines any light on this...

I didn't see anything in Xinhua about Geneva; but I did notice the following picture stories:

U.S. and France hold joint naval drill (2014-01-15)
China, Brazil holds joint naval drill (2013-10-29)
China, Russia to hold joint military drills (2013-07-02)
China-Pakistan to hold joint military drill (2011-11-15)

-- U.S. and France hold joint naval drill - Xinhua | English.news.cn

It's interesting, that of all the joint exercises taking place in the past three years, those three got the photo ops. They show the US allied with France; and the Chinese allied with "BRIC" (Brazil-Russia-India-China), except that the Pakistanis are represented rather than their Indian rivals.

As I've said earlier, it looks as though Russia is drawing much closer to the US than to China in practical matters, especially since US President Obama made his grand rapprochement with them last September. Let's see how Chinese-Brazilian relations are going, vs. their relations with the West:

Last updated: December 19, 2013 3:57 pm
EU launches trade dispute against Brazil

"The EU has launched a potentially explosive trade case against Brazil, filing papers in the World Trade Organisation against the Latin American giant for the first time in almost a decade over what it claims are protectionist taxes levied on cars and other imports..."

-- EU launches trade dispute against Brazil - FT.com

That doesn't sound too friendly. Let's see who Brazil's trade partners are (2012):

  1. European Union 20.8%
  2. China 16.2%
  3. USA 12.9%
  4. Argentina 7.4%
  5. Japan 3.4%
  6. South Korea 3.0%
  7. India 2.3%
  8. Mexico 2.2%
  9. Nigeria 2.0%
  10. Chile 1.9%
-- http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113359.pdf
Those figures show a preponderance of Brazilian trade was with the West, at least in 2012. What has happened since then?

China, Brazil sign trade, currency deal ahead of BRICS summit
DURBAN, South Africa Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:02pm IST

"(Reuters) - BRICS members China and Brazil agreed on Tuesday to trade in their own currencies the equivalent of up to $30 billion per year, moving to take almost half of their trade exchanges out of the U.S. dollar zone..."

-- China, Brazil sign trade, currency deal ahead of BRICS summit | Reuters

Meanwhile,

Argentina-Brazil patch up on trade, look to Europe deal
By Guido Nejamkis
BUENOS AIRES Thu Dec 5, 2013 1:53pm EST

-- Argentina-Brazil patch up on trade, look to Europe deal | Reuters

The above article exposes difficulties between Brazil and Argentina, which seem to be on the mend; but it also notes that the economic pact Mercosur, which includes these two, has yet to come to an agreement with the EU after some two decades of trying.

All in all, it looks as though Brazil and China are moving toward a hand-in-glove relationship:

Brazil-China: A Growing Alliance
July 25, 2013 - 9:42am

-- Brazil-China: A Growing Alliance | World Policy Institute

The relationship is not without friction; but the same and more can be said about Brazil-US and Brazil-EU relations. Russia is not a major trading partner of Brazil, so it is largely out of the picture.

If we count Brazil as moving into the China orbit, we can replace "BRIC" (Brazil-Russia-India-China) with "BPC" (Brazil-Pakistan-China). It's more difficult to pronounce, but more in line with today's reality.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
MORE BRIC-A-BRAC

For those who've just tuned in, I've been working out which countries are connected with China. This is part of an understanding of the world that sorts the main actors in today's events into three categories:

1. The US Group (the vast majority of the world's major powers, plus their minions)
2. The China Group ("East Asia" in Orwellian terms -- the one we are supposed to believe we are in conflict with), and
3. The Jihadi Group (the bogeyman).

I'm working right now on #2. China is a member of "BRICS", a group of nations that share no common center and have little of practical value in common. Strategically, they have been the "Miscellaneous" group of strategic planners for a few years. In the previous post, I have established that "B" (Brazil) and "C" (China) are indeed strongly connected to each other; and that "C" has much more in common with "P" (Pakistan) than with "I" (India). "R" (Russia), meanwhile, is intimately intertwined with Europe, its largest trade partner, and has no strong ties to the other BRICS countries. In this post, I hope to see how "S" (South Africa) fits in with all this.

First of all, I'll do what I did with Brazil, namely, check out South Africa's "trade in goods" figures for 2012:

  1. European Union 25.5%
  2. China 13.2%
  3. USA 7.9%
  4. Japan 5.2%
  5. Saudi Arabia 4.8%
-- http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113447.pdf

By the above, I would say S. Africa is pretty much locked into partnership with the West, particularly with Europe.

Let me now check out the military angle of China-Brazil and China-South Africa:

South Africa's navy has four German-made "Valour" class frigates; and three "Heroine" class submarines, also German-made. Aircraft include 26 Swedish-built "Gripen" fighters and 24 UK-built "Hawk"s. Their helicopters are mostly S. African and EU-made. All in all, I would again say that South Africa is in the European sphere.

The Brazilian Navy has a French-built aircraft carrier, five submarines jointly-produced with Germany, and ten frigates jointly-produced with the UK. Their air force has 46 US-built F-5 fighters, which are to be replaced with Swedish Gripens; and 53 Brazilian/Italian co-produced A-1 attack aircraft.

The Chinese and other BRICS countries have very little presence in Brazilian defence, which uses mainly self-produced or EU-produced equipment. Weighing military and economic ties equally, I would tend to say that Brazil is mainly in the European sphere. Instead of reducing "BRIC" to "BPC", therefore, I would replace "BRIC" and "BRICS" both with "PC" (Pakistan-China), in practice.

China and Pakistan have such close and long-standing ties, I won't even go into the matter. Instead, I would like to consider their relationship with Saudi Arabia. I will begin, as with the BRICS countries, by considering their 2012 trade in goods:

  1. European Union 14.7
  2. USA 13.9
  3. China 13.6
  4. Japan 11.4
  5. S. Korea 8.9
  6. India 7.6
  7. Singapore 3.3
  8. Thailand 2.1
  9. S. Africa 1.7
  10. U. Arab Emirates 1.5
The Saudis certainly trade more to the East than to the West; but their Eastern trade is mostly with US allies Japan and South Korea. Militarily, I'll bet even money that the Saudis are strongly linked to the US... It is, and also to the British and French. The chinese are left out in the cold.

All of this points to the fact that Saudi Arabia USED TO BE a Western ally, with a so-so trade connection with China. Let's check recent developments...

The recent developments are, basically, that (1) China SHOULD be more involved with Saudi Arabia, (2) the link between the two will only increase, as the US becomes less dependent on Saudi oil while the Chinese become more dependent, and that (3) China doesn't WANT to get involved, mainly because the Middle Eastern mind makes no sense to them.

charlie-brown-argh1-150x150.jpg

HERE is an article on the matter.

In passing, I noted that North Korea may strangely end up in the American-Russian camp. Here's an article about that:

Kyodo News International January 16, 2014 1:46am
S. Korea to launch task force on economic cooperation with N. Korea, Russia

-- S. Korea to launch task force on economic cooperation with N. Korea, Russia | GlobalPost
 

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
Hello, s2a. I will try to take you seriously...
Oh my. I see it all soooo much more clearly now,

If only I had voted against my own interests, and had voted to regress our nation back into the happy and carefree days of the 1950's, everything would seem right and righteous now! Daddy really DOES know best, and shame on me for even questioning His intellect or capacities of understanding others!
Besides making no sense, none of this has anything to do with the OP
How did we ever lose faith in corporations to protect us from evil thoughts of independence and our greed for a living wage? Hiow could we allow ourselves not to build the largest military industrial complex ever seen in the world and NOT aim that power at every mouse that roars?
Nothing has been said about corporations. You seem to be on an irrelevant rant.
Like you, I blame that Communist/Socialist/Atheist/Furrin' guy... King Hussein Obama!
"Like me"??? I haven't mentioned communism, atheism, or anything of the sort.

I will simply stop here, and take appropriate action.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
THE SAUDI-CHINESE "NON-NON-" BLOC

I just watched an interview by Charlie Rose of the current Chinese Ambassador to the US, Cui Tiankai. When asked about the possibility of China's getting involved in other parts of the world, he mentioned only Afghanistan, noting that it was a "neighboring country". He also used that expression when talking about North Korea, again saying that China's abutting that country made it a foreign policy interest to the "Central Kingdom".

I got the distinct impression from this interview, as I did from the article I cited in my last post (the one that made Charlie Brown cry out in agony), that though China is an economic and military powerhouse, very much in the Twenty-first Century, its foreign policy resembles that of the Manchu Dynasty. Nevertheless, China HAS vital interests in the Middle East -- increasingly, more vital than those of the US -- and it must needs eventually get involved. When it does, if the current alignments continue (which we have no guaranty of), China will probably be on the side of Saudi Arabia.

Given Chinese reluctance to assert itself in the region, perhaps we should look at the situation from a different angle. I've been judging a country's strategic orientation so far, by considering what it has IN COMMON with other countries. Another way to approach the matter, is to see how much CONFLICT there is between the countries being considered. Let's list China's conflicts, starting with the most recent:

  1. Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)
  2. Sino-Indian War (1962)
  3. Tibetan Uprising (1959)
  4. Korean War (1950-53)
  5. Battle of Chamdo (Tibet, 1950)
  6. Chinese Civil War (1927-1950)
  7. Resistance against the Japanese (1931-1945)
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China;
Nationalist Government (China) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the extent that these conflicts still are not completely resolved, that would put China in a group that does NOT include Vietnam, India, adamant supporters of a "Free Tibet", South Korea & allies, Nationalist China (Taiwan) and Japan. Saudi Arabia and Israel get a pass, according to this reasoning, as do Russia, Iran and Syria. The United States does not; and certainly the resurgent nationalists now in power in Japan do not.

TURKISH-SAUDI RELATIONS

I thought I would check to see how the Saudi-Turkish rift is going. So far, the two countries have not broken out in open conflict against each other; but they have been fighting a proxy war in Egypt, where the Turkish-backed HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood are waging a guerilla war against Saudi-backed Egypt. Another indicator is the following:

"According to a 2013 Pew global opinion poll, Turks hold the most negative view of Saudi Arabia out of any surveyed Muslim country, with 26% expressing a favourable view and 53% expressing an unfavourable view"

-- Saudi Arabia

In other Turkish news, there is an article at

Amid mounting political crisis, Turkey shifts policy on Syria - World Socialist Web Site

about the impact of domestic conflict on Turkey's foreign strategy. All I can gather from this at the moment, is that the scandals and cover-ups disrupting Turkey are causing a tug-of-war in Turkish policy toward its neighbors. Most significantly, there is a suggestion that bowing to US pressure (and therefore to Syrian and Iranian pressure) might ease Turkey's domestic problems. We'll see how this goes. If Turkey shifts from a pro-Al Qaeda foreign policy to a pro-Iranian policy, it may be on its way to fulfilling Ezekiel 38-39 (in which Turkey is allied with Iran). I don't see any significant move on Turkey's part, however, towards bringing about a reconciliation with the Saudis. If anything, they seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
EVEN MORE SHIFTING?

It just occurred to me, that what I'm trying to do here -- namely, to provide a simple, easy-to-understand framework for understanding world events -- is the opposite of what the mainstream media (MSM) seeks to accomplish. When something absurd, inexplicable and trend-breaking hits the press, the MSM are agog with excitement; but I shudder at the thought of having to change the paradigm and complicate things instead of simplifying them.

This is what is happening right now in Syria, where a major conflict, perhaps the largest conflict of the past few weeks, is erupting between two players who should be on the same side as each other. I am speaking, of course, about the internecine strife between rival rebel groups that has claimed more than 1000 lives in three weeks. Here is an example of the coverage:

Activists: 1,069 killed in Syrian rebel infighting

AP 4:44 p.m. EST January 17, 2014

"BEIRUT (AP) — Two weeks of fighting between an al-Qaeda-linked group and other rebel forces in Syria has killed more than 1,000 people, an activist group said Thursday, as clashes raged between the rival factions in a northwestern town.

"The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has a network of activists around Syria, said that the fighting in northern and eastern Syria killed 1,069 since the clashes began Jan. 3..."

-- Activists: 1,069 killed in Syrian rebel infighting

Let's see if and how we can fit the vying parties into the three-bloc framework:

1. The Mainstream Group, led by the US and including NATO, Russia, Iran and Syrian President Assad. This group is sitting on the sidelines, watching with glee as people none of them especially like go after each other.

2. The Saudi-Egyptian (and, in a rather stretchy sense, China) Group. These are countries which the US and others either find as convenient bogeymen (such as China and Israel), or have recently abandoned as not generating enough political profit to keep as friends (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

3. The Jihadi Group. I would put Al Qaeda of Sinai in this group, plus Hamas; because both groups are currently fighting against Egypt.

That leaves Turkey, Qatar and some Syrian rebel groups such as Al Nusri, the FSI, etc. I suspect that one or all of these have struck a deal with Assad & Co.

Al Nusra Front Suicide Bomber Attacks Hezbollah In Lebanon, 5 Killed…

January 17, 2014 10:55 am

-- Al Nusra Front Suicide Bomber Attacks Hezbollah In Lebanon, 5 Killed… | Weasel Zippers

That means Al Nusra is not with Group 1, so presumably they are with group 2 (because they are fighting both Assad and ISIS).

'We don't have long,' say Syrian rebels locked in battle with Al Qaeda, Assad

By Paul Alster FoxNews.com
Published January 17, 2014

-- 'We don't have long,' say Syrian rebels locked in battle with Al Qaeda, Assad | Fox News

That would put the FSA in Group 2, along with Al Nusra.

Syrian Rebel Conflict Raises The Fortunes Of One Al Qaeda-Linked Group

Posted: 01/10/2014 11:05 am EST | Updated: 01/10/2014 11:31 am EST

"BEIRUT -- The past week of clashes between a segment of Syria's rebellion and a gang of jihadist militants has benefited the only rebel faction there to be formally designated by the United States as a terrorist organization, experts say. The faction, Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, is chiefly known for its links to al Qaeda and was deemed a terrorist group by the State Department in December 2012. Nusra officially pledged loyalty to al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in April..."

-- Syrian Rebel Conflict Raises The Fortunes Of One Al Qaeda-Linked Group

Let's check this out, by finding where the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish connections are:

I want to start in Sinai, because Al Qaeda chief al-Zawahiri is definitely backing Al Qaeda of Sinai:

Militants blow up gas pipeline in Egypt's Sinai
Published January 17, 2014
Associated Press

"...An al Qaeda-inspired group called Ansar Beit al-Maqdis has claimed responsibility for most of the attacks."

-- Militants blow up gas pipeline in Egypt's Sinai | Fox News

If those "al Qaeda-inspired" insurgents are indeed on the same page as al-Zawahiri, to whom Al Nusra swears allegiance, then Nusra cannot be in Group 2. Rather, we should put ISIS in Group 2 and Nusra in Group 3.

Let's see what the Saudis have to say about this...

In Syria, US sides with local jihadists to defeat global ones
Posted January 7, 2014

"The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is the victim of a US-Saudi decision to get rid of the ISIS burden and rehabilitate the Islamic Front as a final substitute for the Free Syrian Army (FSA)..."

-- In Syria, US sides with local jihadists to defeat global ones - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

The US has been so thoroughly duplicitous in all its dealings the past six months, I don't take their part in the headline to be worth the pixels it's drawn with. I take the "Saudi" part seriously, though, and wonder why Saudi Arabia is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria while opposing it in Egypt. Let's see if we can find out what the Saudis themselves have to say...

"Arab News", a Saudi voice on the Web, says nothing about Syria; instead, they are attacking Israel. That's as fishy as a hatchery. Now, for Turkey...

'Mission impossible' for Turkey's ambassadors
Posted January 17, 2014

"...Erdogan saved his strongest ripostes for accusations that Turkey had been assisting al-Qaeda elements in Syria. As expected, he denied those charges outright, saying in his speech to the ambassadors, "The gangs of treachery are carrying out a dastardly campaign to spread the perception that Turkey is aiding international terror … with al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra or whatever. All of those are actually against us, and we are against them.”..."

Read more: 'Mission impossible' for Turkey's ambassadors - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

200px-Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg.png

Territory controlled by ISIL January, 2014
-- Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Turkey in Group 3, fighting both Assad and Al Nusra? Interresting... I notice on the map above, that ISIL aka ISIS controls the parts of Syria opposing Kurdish PKK-afiliated areas. As far as I can see, Turkey's main strategic interest in Syria is to defeat the PKK, and ISIS has been an ally in this endeavor.

The following is from a DEBKA analysis on 3 Jan., 2014, which has proved wrong: Al Qaeda did NOT join ISIL.

"...2. Al Qaeda’s fortunes in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula have received a major boost. The Sinai affiliates in particular are in close touch with Al Baghdadi.
3. The hook-up between them exacerbates the terrorist threat hanging over Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
4. The Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, has acquired strategic depth in Iraq. Its leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani (Golani) is expected to announce that his movement will join the new Islamist state.
5. A merger of the Iraqi and Syrian al Qaeda branches could draw in a host of sympathetic Middle East Islamist groups..."

-- Al Qaeda defeats a major Iraqi army offensive, invades Ramadi and Falluja

I especially noted "The Sinai affiliates in particular are in close touch with Al Baghdadi." If that is true, then there is a split between Al Nusra and (Al Baghdadi's) ISIL. That would explain the fact that the Saudis support the Egyptians (who are fighting against Al Qaeda-Sinai) and supports Al Nusra. This is a fast-moving situation, and that's the best guess I can come up with at the moment
 

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
WHY A THREE-BLOC FRAMEWORK?

Whenever a conflict arises in the world, there are two main ways in which people describe it in order to understand it. The most common response is probably the "good vs. evil" response. Ronald Reagan rallied American support during the Cold War, for instance, by calling the Soviet Union "The Evil Empire". With the Americans being, of course, inherently good, this was a "two-bloc" approach. Likewise, in the immediated aftermath of the Muslim attack on America on 11 Sep. 2001, US President George W. Bush proclaimed to the leaders of the world, "Either you're for us or against us!"

The problem with the "two bloc" approach, of course, is that there are many situations in which individuals, groups or countries are either caught in the middle of, or too far to be involved in, a conflict. The mountain kingdom of Bhutan, for instance, probably had little interest, one way or another, with the politics behind 9/11. Likewise, Saudi Arabia worked closely with the US in the 1980s in order to CREATE Al Qaeda, whose militant Islamic ideology struck a chord with the official Wahabbist religion of the country. The ruling family itself was threatened, however, by the puritanical fanaticism of the group, since that ruling family had a fondness for whiskey and other Western amenities. When their American allies now expected them to make a 180° correction in their policy, therefore, these allies now found that the monster they were expected to create was at war with the one they had just finished making.

It is actually around this very conflict of interest, that I have crafted this three-bloc framework: The Main Bloc represents the United States and allies, either permanent or temporary. The Second Bloc represents Saudi Arabia and countries like it, such as Egypt and Israel, which are caught in the middle of the tug-of-war between the US and its presumed enemies. The Third Bloc is the Extreme Bogeyman, the Devil Incarnate as defined by the US Administration.

I said there were two responses by most people to events that happen. The one is to paint things either black or white, with a third group becoming the highly undesirable color of grey, in various shades. The other approach to events, is to assign a completely different color to each player, as in Chinese Checkers or the game of Risk. The big problem with this approach, is that one never knows where to stop with the splitting: As more and more differences are encountered, two groups become four, then eight, then sixteen, until finally, we find the worlds divided into 7.046 billion separate, opposing, interest groups.

The simplest way to deal with the "color" approach, of course, is to sort out the colors by the preponderence of red, blue and green in them; or alternatively into four groups representing red, green, blue and black. Since all colors except pure black, pure white and exact mixes such as pure yellow, etc. can be described as predominantly of one of three colors, and such "perfect" colors have only a transient existence in world politics, the three-bloc scheme is adequate for describing current events.

 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
SORTING OUT THE FACTIONS

One way of looking at a three-bloc framework, is with the analogy of atomic particles. Where particles are distant from one another, and the forces between them are therfore weak, it suffices to describe them as either "positive" (nuclei) or "negative" (electrons). As the particles get closer to one another and the forces become greater, the need for a third, "neutral" particle arises, the neutron. It is the presence of neutrons that allows protons to exist close to one another. Because of neutrons, our cosmic "chemistry set" consists of some 100 elements, give or take a few as some radioactive elements are transiently created, then transformed into other elements. Without neutrons, the only element possible in the universe would be a single isotope of hydrogen.

In political reality, the place where the forces are greatest are areas of active wars. Let's look first at a conflict close to home, the Drug War in Mexico:

A. Mexico where the major drug cartels are fighting each other and the government. The drug cartels can be separated from one another by their sponsors. The main cartels are:

  • Sinaloa
  • Gulf
  • Juarez
  • Knights Templar
  • Tijuana
  • Los Zetas
  • Jalisco New Generation
  • Acapulco Independent
  • La Barredora
"The birth of all Mexican drug cartels is traced to former Mexican Judicial Federal Police agent Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo ("The Godfather")... However, the Guadalajara Cartel suffered a major blow in 1985 when the group's co-founder Rafael Caro Quintero was captured, and later convicted, for the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena.[63][64] Félix Gallardo afterwards kept a low profile and in 1987 he moved with his family to Guadalajara... "The Godfather" then decided to divide up the trade he controlled as it would be more efficient and less likely to be brought down in one law enforcement swoop...

In early 2010 the Zetas made public their split from the Gulf Cartel and began a bloody war with Gulf Cartel over control of Northeast Mexico's drug trade routes.[71] This war has resulted in the deaths of thousands of cartel members and suspected members...

Research has asserted that most weapons and arms trafficked into Mexico are from gun dealers in the United States...

In May 2010 an NPR report collected allegations from dozens of sources, including US and Mexican media, Mexican police officials, politicians, academics, and others, that Sinaloa Cartel had infiltrated and corrupted the Mexican federal government and the Mexican military by bribery and other means. According to a report by the U.S. Army Intelligence section in Leavenworth, over a 6-year period, of the 250,000 soldiers in the Mexican Army, 150,000 deserted and went into the drug industry...

-- Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cast the drug lords, collectively, as a parallel to the "Islamists" of the Middle East, and you can see a similarity. Most notably, the in-fighting between the cartels resembles that between ISIS and Al Nusra at the moment in Syria. The war is not confined to Mexico, though; The US is the main supplier of both cash and weapons to the drug lords, yet allied with the Mexican government. Who's on who's side? The Mexican government, for its part, supplies most of the soldiers to the cartels. Again, the situation resembles the Middle East. In Syria, for instance, some 600-1600 combatant deaths were Palestinians; 47 were Iraqis, and 41 were Lebanese, in every case fighting on both sides.

The war's tentacles extend to Canada, South America, Africa and Europe:

Improved cooperation of Mexico with the U.S. led to the recent arrests of 755 Sinaloa cartel suspects in U.S. cities and towns, but the U.S. market is being eclipsed by booming demand for cocaine in Europe, where users now pay twice the going U.S. rate... U.S. Attorney General announced September 17, 2008 that an international drug interdiction operation, Project Reckoning, involving law enforcement in the United States, Italy, Canada, Mexico and Guatemala had netted more than 500 organized crime members involved in the cocaine trade. The announcement highlighted the Italian-Mexican cocaine connection...

In December 2010 the government of Spain remarked that Mexican cartels have multiplied their operations in that country, becoming the main entry point of cocaine into Europe...

At least nine Mexican and Colombian drug cartels have established bases in 11 West African nations...

The Mexican Army has severely curtailed the ability of the Mexican drug cartels to move cocaine inside the U.S. and Canada, prompting an upsurge in gang violence in Vancouver...

...Mexican drug cartels and their Colombian suppliers generate, launder and remove $18 billion to $39 billion from the United States each year...

-- Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...and just as in the Middle East, the most gruesome players were largely CIA creations (like Osama bin Laden & his ilk)
The Guadalajara Cartel was benefited by the CIA for having connections with the Honduran drug lord Juan Matta-Ballesteros, a CIA asset...

Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, known as the Godfather of the Mexican drug business and the first mexican drug lord, provided a significant amount of funding, weapons, and other aid to the Contras in Nicaragua...

-- Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Having said all that, is there an organizational link between the Mexican drug cartels and Al Qaeda? NO. Should the various warring cartels be grouped with the warring factions Al Nusra and ISIS in Syria? According to my "three-bloc framework", yes.

This points out a real shortfall in my system. I'm sure that if I dug deep enough, I could find that some cartels had more of an "Egyptian" or "Israeli", "Chinese", "Syrian", "Iranian" or "Afghan" connection.

Yeah, problems...
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
MORE THAN THREE GROUPS?

In reading about the Mexican Drug War, I have to confess to having learned something -- about the awesome power of non-state actors. What states are responsible for this war? The US? We supply the weapons and the money. Colombia and Afghanistan? They supply the raw materials. Mexico? Their very government supplies the manpower, lending most of their army to the cartels while the rest of the army fights them. Who are the victims? The Mexicans? Yes, they appear in the casualty lists -- both criminals and innocent bystanders, as well as government soldiers and police. How about the Americans and Europeans, who lose health and lives, and tens of billions of dollars every year to drugs, plus tens of billions more in seemingly futile law enforcement efforts?

In grouping the actors in the world's conflicts, I have lumped together actors who support one another and do not oppose one another. Who supports the drug cartels? Obviously, it's the United States and Mexico, among others. In Mexico, ordinary citizens supply cover and manpower to them. In the US, ordinary citizens pay a fortune in return for the emptiness of a drug high, just as they do for alcohol, tobacco and mindless television programs. Both governments are also involved, on both sides. The CIA produces the drug lords, and the DEA fights them. In Mexico, public officials, often from the President down, offer their services in return for bribes.

The problem with the situation in Mexico isn't in trying to find outside actors who abet the situation. There are plenty of them. In Afghanistan, the Taliban "enemy" and the "friendly" Afghan citizens join hands in supplying opium, which makes its way, often in the hands of religious zealots and politically-motivated rebels, to Mexico for trans-shipment. "Friends" of the drug lords can be found everywhere, and they have "enemies" in the form of border patrols, from US troops in Afghanistan, to Iranian border guards and so forth, all along the way. The most deadly enemies of the drug lords, though, are other drug lords; and they are helped in every case by pretty much the same helpers, and even descend from the organization of one godfather.

I first thought to describe the Mexican cartels as a fourth bloc, all to itself, that is continually at war with itself and all around it. It's a creature of hell.

A review of "Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars" seemed to agree with this treatment, saying,

"...Borderland Beat noted that Longmire's books focuses primarily on the "...national security optics, [and that the Mexican cartels are] closer to terrorists, of whom she cites al-Qaeda and Colombia's FARC in the same breath." Nonetheless, the review said that he cannot buy the terrorist appellation because the cartels do not have an ideology behind what they do, since their goal is making money"

-- Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On second thought, though, as can be seen in the following post, it would be better to lump these crime cartels with the Islamic terrorist groups; because their M.O. and impact on governments is virtually identical. The difference in ideological motivation separates the two; but in practical terms, they function as a single international network.

640x480_226100.jpg


Main areas of Drug War fighting
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
THE NEW "SATAN"

Saturday,January 18 2014, Your time is 8:56:59 PM
Syria's Assad slams Saudi ideology as 'threat to world'

DAMASCUS - Agence France-Presse

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad (R) meets Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Damascus January 15, 2014, in this handout released by Syria's national news agency SANA. REUTERS Photo
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned during a meeting in Damascus on Wednesday with Iran's foreign minister that Saudi Arabia's political and religious ideology is "a threat to the world," state television reported.

He was referring to Wahhabism...

-- MIDEAST - Syria's Assad slams Saudi ideology as 'threat to world'

Now that the "Great Satan" America is allied with Iran (and therfore with Assad), there must be a replacement "Satan". It is Saudi Arabia -- mark your Fatwa book. :D I say that in jest, of course: I do not consider either Assad or the mullahs of Iran to be qualified to say who is "Satan" (God's Adversary). God Himself knows those who are His, and those who speak and act and live against Him. What Assad's words mean to me, is that Syria and Saudi Arabia are mutual enemies; and that the mullahs, who shake our hands and pretend to be our friends, and to whom my President speaks as friends in private, hate us as much as Assad hates the Saudis, or more; but while we TALK of supporting Assad's enemies, we DO as though we are Assad's friend.

Meanwhile, while we are on the subject of the Satan, this note:

Killings of Christians by Islamists Doubled in 2013
Posted on Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:50:30 AM by Dqban22
By Majid Rafizadeh On January 17, 2014In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

"...According to the annual survey, the number of Christians killed in Syria in 2013 comes to more than the whole global total of 2012...

"In the list of nations with the highest number of killings of Christians, Syria was followed by Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt. In its 2014 World Watch List, Somalia comes in at the top of the list— moving from fifth to second place— followed by Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Maldives, Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Iran and Yemen... The survey conducted by Open Doors only counts the numbers of Christian who are killed, reported in the media, and confirmed. Some estimates by other surveys indicate the number exceeds 10,000 deaths...

The report revealed that “Islamist extremism is the worst persecutor of the worldwide church,” adding that in 36 countries on the report’s list, radical Muslims were the key source behind these persecutions and killings. Michel Varton, head of Open Doors France, told journalists in Strasbourg, “In Syria, another war is thriving in the shadow of the civil war – the war against the church...”"

-- Killings of Christians by Islamists Doubled in 2013

The article says that ISIL has "regained most of the territory it lost in the northeastern Raqqa province." The Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham (ideologically similar to ISIL) are listed as their enemies. Other than that, the article, which is editorial in nature, shines no great light on which powers support whom. For clarity,

"...On 11 December 2013, al-Nusra Front and Jaysh al-Islam fighters entered the industrial town of Adra and targeted minority civilians, killing at least 32 Alawites, Christians, Druze and Ismailites. Some were shot at point-blank range, while others were beheaded..."

-- Jaysh al-Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record also, the vast majority of the above-mentioned minorities in Syria support Bashar al Assad. In practical terms, it is the Russians, Iranians and Syrians who are the best friends of the Christians in the region. The Saudi-backed Egyptians have also protected Christian minorities against attack by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB, in turn, as well as the most active Islamist groups, are reportedly backed by Turkey and Qatar. More articles on these matters:

Al Nusra

The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.... According to former deputy Prime Minister Abdüllatif Şener, Turkey has supported al-Nusra with "a large volume of heavy weapons." At least one Arab government has accused Qatar of helping al-Nusra

-- Al-Nusra Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qatar has been accused, most likely with justification, of backing both Nusra and ISIL/ISIS. Also,

Battles rage in Aleppo, a new Egyptian militia group joins ISIL
16 November ,2013 23:45 PM

battalion of Usoud al-Khilafah ... mainly of Egyptian fighters... has pledge allegiance to Abu Bakher al-Baghdadi...

-- Battles rage in Aleppo, a new Egyptian militia group joins ISIL

That would put ISIS in the Egyptian ISLAMIST (~Muslim Brotherhood?) camp, and therefore aligned with Turkey and Qatar.

In view of what I have recently said of the Mexican drug cartels, calling them a single group that often teems with the bloodiest sort of in-fighting I think it would be reasonable to likewise lump Al Nusra and ISIS together; and because of the mutual help that the Islamist camp and world drug cartels give each other, I would also lump those two camps together. Turkey and Qatar are therefore grouped with all of these -- a charge they repeatedly deny publicly; but objective evidence points to their complicity. I will stop short, for the moment, of grouping Mexico with them as well.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
WHO IS BACKING WHOM? AND, WILL THE LOVER GET A DIVORCE?

Having decided that the fact that terrorist factions often turn viciously on one another is not a sign that the are not, in the big picture, really on different sides, I still want to sort out the Sunni groups to see which state actors support which non-state actors. This article looks promising:

Pushing Back Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: The Syria Revolutionaries’ Front and the Mujahideen Army
Posted by: Aron Lund Tuesday, January 7, 2014

"...Ahrar al-Sham and the Army of Islam, two groups that are members of the Islamic Front, an Islamist coalition formed in November 2013. The Islamic Front is the biggest of several recent alliances nurtured by a flood of money from private and public sources in the Arab Gulf states. These and other coalitions formed in the past months have excluded the jihadis of the ISIL and the al-Qaeda-backed Nusra Front...

"(The Syria Revolutionaries’ Front) alliance, which was created in early December, has member units scattered across Syria, but it is principally active in the Idlib-Hama region. Its main public leader is Jamal Maarouf, a Saudi-backed commander who rules a guerrilla fiefdom in the Jabal al-Zawiya region of Idlib. Apart from Maarouf’s fighters, the SRF includes several other small factions...

"...the SRF has had poor relations with the Islamic Front, which does not recognize the SMC...

"The other group that initiated the battle against the ISIL is the Mujahideen Army... Some of them have been aligned with anti-al-Qaeda Salafi factions whereas others have been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood... [I read "Turkey & Qatar??" when I see this] The fact that the Mujahideen Army was created just before clashes began all over northern Syria belies the idea that the attack against the ISIL happened without any previous coordination..."

-- Pushing Back Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: The Syria Revolutionaries

The gist of this, is that (1) the Saudi-backed Syria Revolutionaries' Front, and (2) the Qatari-backed Mujahideen Army are pulling together to defeat (3) ISIL and Al Nusra (which repudiates ISIL)

Frankly, I don't buy that the Mujahideen Army is all that separate from Al Nusra and ISIL. Look at the credentials of its members:

"The newly formed Al Mujahideen Army consisted of Division 19, Islamic Al Nour Movement, Istakem Kma Amart Gathering, Nor Al din Al Zinki Battalions, Islamic Al Horriya Brigade, Ansar Al Khelafeh Brigade (En: Islamic Caliphate Supporters), Islam Glories Brigade, Alal Ansar Brdiagde and Jond Al Haramein Brigade (En: Soldiers of the Two Holy Mosques)..."

-- https://www.zamanalwsl.net/en/news/3132.html

Rather, I look at the whole Sunni camp as a Koran-toting twin brother of the Mexican drug cartels: permeated by the smell of the CIA, and run by self-seeking tribal gangsters. Pardon me, if my words echo those of Bashir al Assad.

Speaking of Assad, the "Friends of Syria" which includes all the major anti-Assad players, seems to be able to agree on only one thing: doing in Assad (maybe because he's the closest thing to the truth we can find in this game)...

The Friends of Syria countries—the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt and Jordan—issued a statement after Sunday’s meeting. Asserting that “Assad and his close associates with blood on their hands will have no role in Syria,” the statement addressed the Syrian opposition: “We invite them to form, as soon as possible, a delegation of opposition forces to participate in the political process.”

-- Respect: Paris conference on Syria: US, European allies renew push for regime-change
The Syrian opposition rejects the invitation, because some of those extending it smell too much like the perfume of their lover, Iran. The Western leaders have been going to bed with her, all the while knowing she's married to Assad. The Geneva II Conference is based, therefore, on adultery. The biggest problem with adultery, is its effect on the children -- especially when the price of divorce is the father's head on a platter. (If heads on platters could solve problems, there would be peace today in Libya and Iraq)

THE TURKISH CONNECTION


Turkey is a key player in this mess is Turkey, which provides the physical supply route for all Sunni players in the north; and Turkey is being wracked by an internal crisis:

truck8.jpg


Turkish gendarmerie intercepts trucks at the southern province of Adana on Sunday. (Photo: Cihan)
20 January 2014 /TODAYSZAMAN.COM, İSTANBUL
Turkish gendarmerie forces intercepted three Syria-bound trucks on suspicion of carrying an arms shipment in the southern province of Adana on Sunday morning, the latest in string of similar incidents pointing to mounting concerns of unabated attempts to transfer arms to opposition fighters battling the Syrian regime for nearly three years.

According to news portal T24, the gendarmerie stopped and searched the three trucks on Sunday morning. The trucks were later set free. Later in the day, the gendarmerie stopped and searched four more trucks.

T24 reported that police detained three journalists, one each from the private Doğan news agency, the state-run Anadolu news agency and Başkent TV, who were trying to shoot video and stills of the incident. Police also confiscated the memory cards in the journalists' cameras, T24 said. The journalists later were released, but their memory cards were not returned.

-- Governorate says suspicious Syria-bound trucks belong to M
Did anyone catch the irony? The Turkish gendamerie (="Turkey"?) stopped a convoy of Syria-bound weapons, which it then let go because the weapons and drivers were authorized by Turkish Intelligence (="Turkey"). That script sounds like it was taken from the Mexicans.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
SOME GREY MATTER MISSING HERE...

US warns Syria conference “fluid” over UN invitation to Iran. Crisis in US ties with Russia, Iran

DEBKAfile Special Report January 20, 2014, 7:09 PM (IST)

"...debkafile’s Washington sources report that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were shocked into realizing that their outreach to Tehran and Moscow may have gone too far when they saw both acting off their own bat on the most critical and burning Middle East affair without bothering to consult or even inform the US administration..."

-- US warns Syria conference

dogchasingtail-300x203.jpg


Obama and Kerry want to get rid of a mad dog named Assad, so they're striking a deal with what they perceive as another dog, called Iran. The trouble is that Iran isn't a different dog, but only Assad's tail. When they grab this dog by the tail, to shake on the deal, the head turns 'round and bites them!

What DO they teach these guys in prep school?

The bottom line is that if the US wants to play around with Iran, it will have to accept Assad. Considering how weak and flabby Obama has been toward Assad this past five months, it should be taken as a "given" that we will. That's bad news for Israel, of course, and for the Saudis; because it means that not only will we be allied with their enemies, we will be taking orders from them.

PS. The last word, is that the Iranians have been disinvited to Geneva II. This still has not been enough to get the most extreme Islamists (read, "most of the fighters") on board; so basically, my "Group I", or "Main Group" is represented, plus "Group II" (minus Israel, of course), plus Qatar and Turkey, the main state players of "Group III". Left out are, as I said, most of the real fighters among the rebels, the Iraqi Kurds, the Iraqi Sunni Arabs, the Syrian government forces, Hizbullah and Iran. In other words, hardly anyone who's directly involved in the conflict is invited. That's like all your neighbors getting together to decide whether you and your wife should sleep together, without consulting you. I don't rate the chance of real success as very high. In the end, the conference will boil down to the fate of Assad. If the US allows him to stay on, as is VERY possible, the Saudis will be even further estranged from the US. The Russians and Chinese will not dump Assad, period. Unlike us, they have backbone.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION: CHINA'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AND POLICY AS AN EXAMPLE

China is one of six nuclear powers capable of striking anywhere in the world with nuclear weapons (The others are the US, USSR, Britain, France and India). I have detailed its capabilities and policies somewhat here, as a thumbnail sketch of what the world has to deal with in its 21st Century balancing act. During the Cold War days, before China had ballistic missile submarines and advanced ICBMs, the policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD), with the US and Soviet Union being the main players, dominated strategic thinking. Three things have drastically altered this thinking in recent years:

  1. The proliferation of world-reaching nuclear powers. Each of these could precipitate a world-wide nuclear exchange
  2. The ubiquitous use of microelectronics -- in aircraft, cars, air traffic control, gasoline pumps, practically everywhere. These could all be put out of commission in less than a second, with properly placed EMP devices; devices which will undoubtedly be the first nukes used in a war, beause they can quickly cripple an enemy's response capability.
  3. The possibility of a natural event, such as a powerful solar flare, causing an EMP pulse and triggering a response, and
  4. The possibility of a nuclear device of some second-string nuclear state such as North Korea or Iran being stealthily introduced (as on a container ship) and detonated -- with the victim having no idea who the perpetrator was. Retaliation must be swift -- but against whom?
These are the scenarios I ponder, in a world where even friendly countries like the US and the UK are engaged in mistrust and spying on one another. As this mistrust continues to build, we will all be more and more on a hair trigger. Meanwhile, more and more nations are throwing their hats into the nuclear ring; so that within perhaps ten years, we could have a dozen or more players.

Zechariah 14 speaks of a nuclear exchange:

Zech 14
[12] And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
[13] And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.
Now, about China...

"...China... has decided not to engage in new nuclear cooperation with Iran (even under safeguards), and will complete existing cooperation, which is not of proliferation concern, within a relatively short period. Based on significant, tangible progress with China on nuclear nonproliferation, President Clinton in 1998 took steps to bring into force the 1985 U.S.–China Agreement on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation.

"Beijing has deployed a modest ballistic missile force, including land and sea-based intermediate-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It was estimated in 2007 that China has about 100-160 liquid fueled ICBMs capable of striking the United States with approximately 100–150 IRBMs able to strike Russia or Eastern Europe, as well as several hundred tactical SRBMs with ranges between 300 and 600 km. Currently, the Chinese nuclear stockpile is estimated to be between 50 and 75 land and sea based ICBM's...."

640px-Medium_and_Intercontinental_Range_Ballistic_Missiles.png


-- People's Liberation Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...The Type 094 submarine is capable of carrying 12-16 of the more modern JL-2s[5] with a range of approximately 8,000-12,000 km, and is capable of targeting some of the Western Hemisphere from close to the Chinese coast..."

-- Type 094 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

chinese_jin_class_type_094_submarine.jpg


Chinese ballistic missile submarines

-- Asian Waters Crowded with Submarines… | laststandonzombieisland
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
NO, I DID NOT WRITE THIS ARTICLE

I do not agree with the implication of the headline, but it's interesting to see someone besides me noting that China and Iran have opposing strategic interests. Neither do I agree with strategic planners, that China is destined to become a threat to either Iran or the US. It does make a good scapegoat, though. To lift a note out of George Orwell's "1984", "We are at war with East Asia, and allied with Eurasia. We have always been at war with East Asia, and allied with Eurasia." "Eurasia", in today's context, is, of course, Russia; and "East Asia" is China.

asia-map.PNG

Chinese naval ports (red diamonds)

China and Iran: Destined to Clash?

An expanding Chinese presence in the Middle East could pose the greatest long-term threat to Iran.
By Zachary Keck
October 17, 2013

"Even as the U.S. considers Iran’s nuclear program as its most immediate threat, a consensus has emerged in the U.S. foreign policy establishment that China’s rise poses the biggest long-term strategic challenge to the country. There is little indication that a similar consensus has taken hold among Iranian elites. It will.

"Indeed, as Iran has been preoccupied with the U.S. and its allies over the past decade, China has quietly established a growing presence along all of Iran’s borders. In none of these places are Iran and China’s interests perfectly aligned. In some cases, particularly the Middle East, they are starkly at odds. Consequentially, should Iran avoid a conflict with the U.S. in the next few years, it’s likely to find China to be its most menacing threat in the future..."

-- China and Iran: Destined to Clash? | The Diplomat

The article notes the following lineup, some of which I also have noted previously:

CAMP I
Iran,India, Afghanistan-Kabul, Shi'ite Iraq, Central Asia Islamists

CAMP II
China, Pakistan, Afghanistan-Taliban, Secular Iraq, Central Asia Secularists, Saudi Arabia
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
THE KERRY AND BARRY SHOW -- AND MORE!

This has been a difficult week, for figuring out who's on who's side. First of all, we have the Geneva II talks, in which the US (in the form of Secretary of State John F. Kerry) appears to be digging in its heels against Syrian and Iranian demands. This is similar to a similar strong stand by Kerry last September, over the "red line" of Assad's use of chemical weapons -- a stance which Obama proceeded to pull the rug out from under, when he ultimately caved in and turned the matter over to the Russians. I expect something similar, this time around.

So much for the Geneva II talks. In other talks, Kerry was left high and dry by his Palestinian "partner", who abruptly and without warning dismissed Kerry's efforts to bring about "peace" in what is arguably already the most peaceful country in the region, namely, Israel. Abbas went to the Russians and signed agreements negating everything he had agreed to with the American Secretary.

BbJDp6DCYAAU7v1.png:large


Obama being friendly with Danish PM

By the way, I suspect that J. F. K. wants to supplant Hillary Clinton in more than the State Department, and is posturing for the 2016 election. In this effort, he is getting little support from Obama, who seems more embroiled in trying to explain his rumored infidelities to his wife than anything else (she's not taking it well).

hollande-e1390635263668.jpg


The French President and his two

Turkey is as deep into the tar baby as it can get right now, with President Erdogan seeing conspiriacies under every rock and wildly striking out at real and imagined enemies; and French President Hollande, who amazingly has an approval rating about half of Obama's, is troubled trying to explain HIS infidelity (to his steady lover rather than wife) to the French people who, also amazingly, are more concerned about such things than the Americans are.

LiveLeak-dot-com-620_1385048025-erdogan_2583293b.jpg.resized.jpg
erdogan_2583293b.jpg


Turkish President Erdogan, wary of conspirators

Shaky flaky is the name of the game. Nevertheless, I have gotten a confirmation on one point: Egypt (and therefore strong supporter Saudi Arabia) is definitely on Obama's list:

Egypt Says Not Invited to US Africa Summit
CAIRO January 22, 2014 (AP)
Associated Press

"Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday that a U.S. decision not to invite Cairo to a summit of African leaders to be held in Washington this summer was "wrong and short-sighted."..."

-- Egypt Says Not Invited to US Africa Summit - ABC News
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
TURKEY'S ISOLATION DILEMNA

Take a look at the two maps below. The first is a map of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, from which the modern state of Turkey descends, during one of its various phases of expansion.

318px-Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1481.jpg


The second map, one might imagine at first glance, shows this Turkish empire during one of its phases -- especially since I got a similar map from a website entitled, "History of the Turkic Peoples":

320px-Map_Byzantine_Empire_1025-pl.svg.png


Byzantine Empire 1025 AD

Actually, the second map isn't of Turkey or Turks at all, but of the "Byzantine" or "Eastern Roman" Empire, a few decades before the Crusades. Istanbul, Turkish for Constantinople, formerly known as Byzantium, was a part of the Roman Empire from 74 BC until 1453 AD. Since then, it has been ruled by the Turks. The Turkish LANGUAGE came from peoples who originally lived to the north of China, and advanced by stages to ultimately conquer the Iranians and rule the whole Middle East. Around the time of the Crusades, a small clan of these people conquered the plateau of central Turkey. Eventually, they conquered the entire Byzantine Empire (formerly called "Eastern Roman") and ruled from the same city the Byzantines had ruled from, namely, Constantinople (now called Istanbul).

The Turks imparted their language to the people living in the area, who converted to Islam; but ethnically, those people are descended from the Byzantine Greeks. The same ethnic group, therefore, has ruled Istanbul, Turkey and much of the Middle East, since 74 BC. Turkey itself, like China and Thailand, was never conquered by the Europeans during the great Colonial Era from the Eighteenth to Twentieth Centuries, giving it a sense of political independence and isolation unknown by other countries in the area. It "goes with the territory", so to speak.

Without going into great detail, let's just say that not much has changed. The following is a good article on recent events:

Erdogan's Foreign Policy Reset
World News 01.25.14

"A few years ago, Turkey was the rising power of the Middle East, content to turn away from closer ties with Europe towards its Sunni allies. But with chaos in Syria and Egypt, its fortunes have changed drastically.

"Following a string of setbacks that has left it increasingly isolated in Europe and the Middle East, Turkey has started a push to repair ties with key neighbors and partners..."

-- Erdogan

Just one note on the article: Turkey has been trying, on and off, to get into the European Union; and its chances now are probably even slimmer than they were a few years ago. The glaring, elephant-in-the-living-room, reason, is that Tukey is a Muslim nation with historical connections in the Middle East and the Balkans, not Western Europe; and until Europe becomes Muslim, the two have next to nothing in common.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
THE RELIGIOUS MAFIA

72045877-300x192.jpg


Ayman al-Zawahiri, Islamist Godfather

I noted before, how the Mexican drug cartels and the Islamist terrorists had similar MOs and impact on the countries they affect. The reason is that both are highly organized, extremely well-financed, thoroughly criminal outlaw groups. I came across the following about Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), the group which spawned Al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri:

"According to journalist Lawrence Wright, based on testimony given at the trial of the Albanian cell members in the late 1990s or early 2000s, EIJ membership had dwindled to 40 members outside Egypt, and none at all inside the country where "the movement had been eradicated".

"In 1998, three al-Jihad members were arrested in Albania, and the United States intervened to ensure they were extradited to Egypt to face charges. In Afghanistan Zawahiri wrote the 1998 fatwa for the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," calling for the killing of Americans and their allies, both civilian and military, which was signed by representatives of several jihadi organizations, including EIJ. In August 1998, Issam Abdel-Tawab was extradited to Egypt from Bulgaria.

"Dissent among EIJ members to this change of direction and abandonment of the taking over Egypt as the group's primary goal, was so strong that "in the end, Zawahiri pledged to resign if the members failed to endorse his actions. The organization was in such disarray because of arrests and defections, and so close to bankruptcy, that the only choice was to follow Zawahiri or abandon al-Jihad". One of those who did abandon al-Jihad was Zawahiri's own brother Muhammed, the military commander of EIJ.
Merger with al-Qaeda

"In June 2001, al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad merged into an entity formally called jamaa'at Qa'idat al-Jihad, with the leadership of EIJ having "the majority" – six of nine seats – "of al Qaeda's ruling council (shura)." However, Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif has claimed that only 9 people from the organization, including Zawahiri, actually joined Al Qaeda.

"Consequently it is often considered synonymous with Al-Qaeda (for example, by the U.S. Treasury Department), although some refer to it as a separate organization with al-Zawahiri as its leader and global jihad's main ideologist..."

-- Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's enough to curdle one's blood. Al-Zawahiri is a real, live bogeyman, worse than one's worst nightmares, responsible for at least tens of thousands of innocent deaths. In Orwellian terms, he is "Emanuel Goldstein"; but whereas the latter was a fictional character created by the State, Al-Zawahiri is throbbing flesh and blood.

The Mexican drug cartels all trace their beginnings to former Mexican Judicial Federal Police officer Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo -- who, in turn, was connected to Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar:

"...There were no cartels at that time in Mexico. Félix Gallardo was the lord of Mexican drug smugglers. He oversaw all operations; there was just him, his cronies, and the politicians who sold him protection. However, the Guadalajara Cartel suffered a major blow in 1985 when the group's co-founder Rafael Caro Quintero was captured, and later convicted, for the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena. Félix Gallardo afterwards kept a low profile and in 1987 he moved with his family to Guadalajara. According to Peter Dale Scott, the Guadalajara Cartel prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS), under its chief Miguel Nazar Haro, a CIA asset

""The Godfather" then decided to divide up the trade he controlled as it would be more efficient and less likely to be brought down in one law enforcement swoop. In a way, he was privatizing the Mexican drug business while sending it back underground, to be run by bosses who were less well known or not yet known by the DEA. Gallardo convened the nation's top drug traffickers at a house in the resort of Acapulco where he designated the plazas or territories..."

-- Mexican Drug War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tauregman.jpg


A Tuareg nomad

I mention the above not to say this religious-criminal super-network is part of some Illuminati plot, but to show that cutting off the "head" doesn't effectively kill the reptile. The development of the drug cartels is sickeningly similar to what we see happening today in Syria and Iraq, among the Jihadists. Together, the Religious and Drug Mafias are PART OF a world-wide network, linked by groups such as the nomadic "Blue People" (Tuaregs) of Mali. Here's an article about some of the tentacles of this network:

Selling Drugs to Fund Terror: al-Qaeda Linked to Cocaine Trafficking - ABC News

YUCK! I need to go.

Shalom shalom.
 
Last edited:

BlandOatmeal

Active Member
I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE...

Considering all the hoopla at the Geneva 2 conference, the following would be a surprising article if I weren't expecting something like it:

Phillip Pasmanick | January 27, 2014
Israel and the West are in no hurry to get rid of Assad

Israeli intel analyst feels that if Assad falls, the ever growing number of jihadists in Syria will take control over the country & attack Israel.
Europeans gov’ts worry that their Muslim citizens fighting alongside Islamists may carry out attacks at home after returning home.
By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON

-- Israel and Stuff » Israel and the West are in no hurry to get rid of Assad Israel and Stuff

115255-syria-assad.jpg


Really? No, just kidding ha ha... Bashar al Assad burned in effigy

Why was I expecting it? Because John Kerry's protestations at Geneva 2 were too great. He, and our whole entourage of allies with him, were insisting the Bashar Assad's head be handed over on a platter before we would agree to a deal on Syria. We all saw this behavior last September, when Kerry was making a forceful, convincing case about how we needed to hit Syria with cruise missiles in order to knock out their chemical warfared capabilities. Of course, Obama backed down then, undercutting his Secretary of State. This time around, having Assad for dinner will turn out to not be an issue after all, and we will -- lo and behold, surprise, surprise, come around to letting the Syrians and their Iranian backers have their way. The above article is just a lead-in, to prepare us for the inevitable. That's my call.

Interestingly, the Saudis have already written an obitiuary to Geneva II, BLAMING THE JEWS in advance, in case (as I have suspected) Obama caves in to the Russians, Iranians and Syrians:

Yet another dead end

Hassan Barari
Published — Monday 27 January 2014

"...Barring any surprise or last-minute behind-the-scene- agreement between Russia and the United States, the conference is doomed. Put differently, it may never convene again!
The regional implication of the failure of the conference could not be more obvious. Assad will go to the end to win. It should surprise no one if he opens channels with Israel to help him win over Washington...."

-- Yet another dead end | Arab News
 
Last edited:
Top