Arakan Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 As for the broader picture, Qatar-Rest of Gulf proxy conflict in Libya wasn't unknown to US intelligence prior to this, and the objective of a westward flight path wouldn't be hard to guess. This happens when some people simply have too much money to spend. They start a life version of "Game of Thrones"... We should remind ourselves that the UAE has ~900,000 citizens and Qatar ~300,000 citizens (in both cases excluding work immigrants without citizenship)... Their proxy conflict now officially affects Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Gaza... As far as I remember, the US is an ally of both, so what about putting a leash on those two Chihuahuas? I mean, that's like Austria and Switzerland fighting it out who the big boss in Europe is... Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Yeah, facts matter.And those facts are that settlements are expanding in Palestinian territory. So another fact is that what you said, doesn't matter, as I pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 More on IS's funding picture The looting of Libya - starring Gaddafis, hedge funds, treasure hunters and the present "government" the conundrums of bombing IS in Syria - suggestions the admin could "balance" strikes on IS with strikes on Assad we're told Hamas=IS so Bibi just did a deal with IS Saudi and Iran get together and chat about one or two things that might be going on right now Guardian ME editor on the UAE's adventurous turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 On hindsight, it's probably a good thing that obama failed to garner enough public and congressional support to take down assad after chemical weapons were used in syria last year because it seems like those chemical weapons might be needed to take on isis.Who would had thought the isolationists at the time were right ........ Mea culpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I really don't get the cries for intervention against isis here vs. the cries not to intervene in the syrian civil war when chemical weapons were used back then.Did a video of one american getting beheaded really changed people's stance against foreign entanglement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 Even if Obama had received enough support from Congress to strike Assad, was there ever going to be an invasion? And if not but strikes weakened Assad and weapons were given to the so-called moderate rebels, might not this have just allowed an even easier advance for ISIS? No, and the strikes weren't likely to damage Assad seriously. I don't think there'd have been much impact on IS one way or the other. I really don't get the cries for intervention against isis here vs. the cries not to intervene in the syrian civil war when chemical weapons were used back then.Did a video of one american getting beheaded really changed people's stance against foreign entanglement? The video created a favourable political climate, the rationale was already there when the US started bombing IS in Iraq - no logic to bombing them on one side of the border and not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 So was all that talk about maybe striking Assad just a bunch of the "do something bias" hitting the DC world? That and Obama had boxed himself into action by declaring chemical weapons use a red line. At the time everyone was bemoaning the deal as a diplomatic disaster (even yours truly didn't think it would be seen through to completion) but it's resulted in a pretty thorough dismantling of a mature, sizeable chemical weapons capability - far more than would have been achieved by airstrikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I really don't get the cries for intervention against isis here vs. the cries not to intervene in the syrian civil war when chemical weapons were used back then.Did a video of one american getting beheaded really changed people's stance against foreign entanglement? ISIS has limited ability to harm the US or its interests, but it potentially could and its hard to say if it has the interest or not, Assad has no ability and no interest; ergo, ISIS is a threat, whereas Assad is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 a vigorous defence of Qatari foreign policy US generals reviewing Israeli Gaza operations "astonished" by disproportionate, indiscrimate shelling reminder: beheading is fine if you use a green flag instead of a black one, only kill petty criminals and wizards who you've tortured confessions out of first... and sit on a massive pile of hydrocarbons -- shit, you can even get a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 a vigorous defence of Qatari foreign policy What a disgusting piece of filth. The dude is some sort of (extremely well paid) consultant for the qatari military?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 What a disgusting piece of filth. The dude is some sort of (extremely well paid) consultant for the qatari military?? Military consultants tend to be well-paid. Mind sharing what disgusts you about the article? ---------------- Speaking of Qatar, they might be on the verge of getting kicked out of the GCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 So this seems like some really bad news. The United Nations says 43 peacekeepers have been detained by an armed group in Syria during fighting and 81 other peacekeepers are trapped.The office of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the peacekeepers were detained early Thursday on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights during a "period of increased fighting between armed elements and the Syrian Arab Armed Forces." The statement says another 81 peacekeepers are "currently being restricted to their positions in the vicinity of Ar Ruwayhinah and Burayqah." Yesterday it was being reported that it was ISIS that took the Syrian checkpoints on that side of the Golan Heights and that it was unknown what happened to the peacekeepers in the area. I assume these are the same peacekeepers, but since this report just says "armed group" I'm hoping that means that it was a different rebel group than ISIS. Them having 43 foreign hostages would be...problematic, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 It isn't IS, they don't have a lot of friends down south; not that Jabhat al-Nusra would be my first-choice for rebel captors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Seems Israel has made the biggest land grab in the West Bank in over 30 years. Israel Radio reported that the move was in response to the kidnapping and murder of the three teens earlier this year. Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 What is Likud thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What is Likud thinking?That they no longer give a shit?? It is a bit of a shocker. An interesting piece by Jeffrey Sachs on what needs to be done in the ME. He makes some fair points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What is Likud thinking? That they want Israel to have the land and that no one will stop them. Same thing they've always been thinking on this subject. That they no longer give a shit?? It is a bit of a shocker. How is it a shocker? This is business as usual for Israel. They've never stopped with the settlement expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 That they want Israel to have the land and that no one will stop them. Same thing they've always been thinking on this subject. How is it a shocker? This is business as usual for Israel. They've never stopped with the settlement expansion. I was surprised because it was such a large land grab and came right on the heals of the conflict with Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Thursday Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I was surprised because it was such a large land grab and came right on the heals of the conflict with Gaza. I imagine it's a way of saving face with the electorate. As I understand it there were strong sentiments within Israel that accepting the ceasefire made them look weak/like they'd lost. By annexing some West Bank land as to 'settle the score', the government can make it look like they have actually made some gains with all of this. Suspect it might not be the best idea in the long term, since it will only add fuel to the grievances the Palestinians already harbour, but since when to politicians think about the long term? ST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Thursday Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Interesting piece about reporting bias in Israel: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide While I don't necessarily agree with the author's points (in particular, I disagree that it is irresponsible to portray the issues in the West Bank and Jerusalem as 'Israel vs Palestine' rather than 'Israel vs The Arab World', or that the scope of other atrocities in somehow makes it irresponsible or 'anti-semitic' to cast judgement on the parties involved in the current conflict. It is clear this is not an unbiased piece in and of itself), he does raise some interesting issues about the way that reporting from Israel is framed by the major news agencies. I know very little about the internals of Palestinian politics or how the Palestinian Authority (which =/= Hamas, after all) conducts its business. With so many reporters on the ground, it feels as though it should be possible to get a more rounded view of the conflict than is currently being portrayed. Am I just not reading around the issue enough and the information is there if you care to look, or is there genuinely an information deficit in this area? ST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.