Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DeWitz

Islamic State in the Levant Advances

278 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk

You probably lying to yourslef, or you are so ignorance to know that there was nothing called Israel until the british belford gave them the power to settle there and divided Palestine.

Perhaps you need to educate yourself first. It’s the Balfour Declaration (and no, that is not what an umpire says). It was the best solution to the problem of an unorganized territory the British had. The Brits created many reports on the subject. It was all about land ownership. When the Ottomans controlled the land, most of it was state owned. The private lands were owned by mostly absentee owners. Very few land owners were from the conglomeration that would later be known as Palestinian. In 1909, Jews started to legally purchase land first in the Jezreel Valley. The British had no say in Ottoman territory. And this is probably the crux of the animosity between the two. These semi-nomadic tribes would squat on the land and the Ottoman owners either were not capable or had no desire to evict these peoples. The Jews on the other hand had both the legal right and the desire to remove them and that is what happened. The regular Dhimmis pogroms turned into massacres. The Jew began to fight back because Zionism was rising.

After WWI, control of the region transferred to Britain by treaty. The British began the daunting task of confirming land ownership and returning it to the rightful owners. They were successful for about 99% of the territory. Except for in the Palestinian Mandate where the British were inundated with bogus deeds. There was no way to confirm rightful ownership. There was a solution and that was to declare two states but the Palestinian rejected that because of their belief system. The day before the Mandate ended, Israel declared independence and the Arab League attacked. When they lost, the Grand Mufti had spread the fear that the Jews were going to visit upon the Palestinian the same treatment that the Arabs had subjected to the Jews for hundreds of years, so they fled and abandoned the land. International law stipulates that there are no do-overs. You abandon the land and it’s free for the taking by anyone. But all the state land controlled by the British went over to Israel because Israel was the only state there. Can you say “Palestinian” – “foot” – “shoot”?

Israel considered itself a state in 1948 and many countries around the world do not consider it as a country or state. It is called the occupied palestine . Go learn please and stop spreading ignorance.

Perhaps you should go learn. As to date, some 140 nations recognize Israel. About 25 do not and most of those are Muslim nations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

From the latest news I have heard that US wants Al Maliki to go away.

What you know what a perfect opportunity to replace a US stooge with the Iranian stooge

LOL. yup. And I think the Iraqi people should seize the opportunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The US will never allow Iraq to settle down, it has been the policy of the West to destabilize every government in Iraq for over a hundred years (as part of the great game) in order to prevent a strong stable power block developing in the region and demanding higher prices for their oil. If a stable government ever developed the CIA would be back meddling within the year.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeWitz

The US will never allow Iraq to settle down, it has been the policy of the West to destabilize every government in Iraq for over a hundred years (as part of the great game) in order to prevent a strong stable power block developing in the region and demanding higher prices for their oil. If a stable government ever developed the CIA would be back meddling within the year.

Br Cornelius

Brother, What do you think the current interest of Russia/Putin is in the continuous Great Game? Is Russia a player in the Game and, if so, how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Brother, What do you think the current interest of Russia/Putin is in the continuous Great Game? Is Russia a player in the Game and, if so, how?

Russia is the main target. They are still recovering from the carpet bagging of the west after the fall of the soviet union.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Russia is the main target. They are still recovering from the carpet bagging of the west after the fall of the soviet union.

Br Cornelius

So you would say most of the changes (in Russia) post USSR have been negative? Ot is it that you think the positives should have been more? It's difficult to imagine that Russians are worse off today than during, say, Brezhnev's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

He had 8 years and look what his results are. If you were an Iraqi citizen wouldn't you want a better leader also? The Shia (majority) were ill treated and controlled by the Sunni minority for decades under Saddam. Maliki was just returning the favor but if Iraq was to have any chance of remaining a unified country he could not do this. He should have given truly equal rights to all and shared power equally.

Good point And then but as I said it is not the decision of the US it is the decision of the Iraqi people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Russia is the main target. They are still recovering from the carpet bagging of the west after the fall of the soviet union.

Br Cornelius

I think you're probably right there. Yeltsin (the only professional clown to ever be the leader of a major nation) was engineered into place by "Interests" in the West [ (despite scoring considerably fewer votes than his pro-Communist rival] because he would be "friendly to the west" (i.e. do what the West wanted him to do, just like the new regime they "engineered" into place in Ukraine), and then NATO gradually recruited more and more countries in Eastern Europe into the flock until they were right up against Russia's borders, despite a "gentleman's agreement" that had been made post-the fall of the Wall that they wouldn't expand to the east. And Russia still has some sensitivity in that respect, perhaps understandably. And NATO can hardly be called a "defensive" alliance now, can it. And then more recently, of course, along comes Putin, who hardly makes much effrort at trying to pretend to be "democratic", and begins to rebuild Russia's strength, which Yeltsin had run down to a frankly criminal extent, and then he goes and spikes the Neocons' carefully drawn up plans for extending their sphere of dominance in the Middle East by overthrowing Assad and bringing Syria into the fold of nations that they've brought Freedom to ( :blush: ), so the Neocons have been working hard to get back at him, hence their "influencing" events in Ukraine.

So you would say most of the changes (in Russia) post USSR have been negative? Ot is it that you think the positives should have been more? It's difficult to imagine that Russians are worse off today than during, say, Brezhnev's time.

Well, see above, for an incisive analysis of the situation. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

for the decade after the fall of the soviet union the standard of living and life expectancy of most russian fell by at least 15years. russia was considerably worse post the fall of the wall up until putin started to bring back some order. i am no fan or defender of putin but he was a natural consequence of the wholesale damage caused by western intervention in russian affairs. russia has a long way to go before life expectancy rises back to soviet levels.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLionsHunter

Perhaps you need to educate yourself first. It's the Balfour Declaration (and no, that is not what an umpire says). It was the best solution to the problem of an unorganized territory the British had. The Brits created many reports on the subject. It was all about land ownership. When the Ottomans controlled the land, most of it was state owned. The private lands were owned by mostly absentee owners. Very few land owners were from the conglomeration that would later be known as Palestinian. In 1909, Jews started to legally purchase land first in the Jezreel Valley. The British had no say in Ottoman territory. And this is probably the crux of the animosity between the two. These semi-nomadic tribes would squat on the land and the Ottoman owners either were not capable or had no desire to evict these peoples. The Jews on the other hand had both the legal right and the desire to remove them and that is what happened. The regular Dhimmis pogroms turned into massacres. The Jew began to fight back because Zionism was rising.

After WWI, control of the region transferred to Britain by treaty. The British began the daunting task of confirming land ownership and returning it to the rightful owners. They were successful for about 99% of the territory. Except for in the Palestinian Mandate where the British were inundated with bogus deeds. There was no way to confirm rightful ownership. There was a solution and that was to declare two states but the Palestinian rejected that because of their belief system. The day before the Mandate ended, Israel declared independence and the Arab League attacked. When they lost, the Grand Mufti had spread the fear that the Jews were going to visit upon the Palestinian the same treatment that the Arabs had subjected to the Jews for hundreds of years, so they fled and abandoned the land. International law stipulates that there are no do-overs. You abandon the land and it's free for the taking by anyone. But all the state land controlled by the British went over to Israel because Israel was the only state there. Can you say "Palestinian" – "foot" – "shoot"?

It was the best solution ??? where do you read this crap ??

The land of palestine was populated by 80% of muslims, 10% of christians and 4% of jewish. It's the zionists (not the British nor the UN) who decided to divide that country into pieces and gave the jewish people the great part. Israel wasn't a state even in old history and even in their Old testament, there is no mention of land of Israel.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

Perhaps you should go learn. As to date, some 140 nations recognize Israel. About 25 do not and most of those are Muslim nations.

Yeah sure, I'm aware of this, it's just because of the US pressure and the british. there are approximately the same number of nations that they do recognize palestine as a nation.

Israel is only exsiting because of the USA. Palestine is existing without the USA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

It was the best solution ??? where do you read this crap ??

The land of palestine was populated by 80% of muslims, 10% of christians and 4% of jewish. It's the zionists (not the British nor the UN) who decided to divide that country into pieces and gave the jewish people the great part. Israel wasn't a state even in old history and even in their Old testament, there is no mention of land of Israel.

http://www.ifamerica...ew.org/history/

Yeah sure, I'm aware of this, it's just because of the US pressure and the british. there are approximately the same number of nations that they do recognize palestine as a nation.

Israel is only exsiting because of the USA. Palestine is existing without the USA.

The Palestinians excavated around the Temple mount for some construction and threw away the debris which Israelis then sifted and found thousands of pieces of evidence of a Jewish culture from 3 thousand years earlier. Lying about it doesn't make it so :) Hopefully they will soon be praying again on said Temple mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLionsHunter

The Palestinians excavated around the Temple mount for some construction and threw away the debris which Israelis then sifted and found thousands of pieces of evidence of a Jewish culture from 3 thousand years earlier. Lying about it doesn't make it so :) Hopefully they will soon be praying again on said Temple mount.

We don't say that there is was no Jewish culture there, but this land wasn't there .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLionsHunter

The US will never allow Iraq to settle down, it has been the policy of the West to destabilize every government in Iraq for over a hundred years (as part of the great game) in order to prevent a strong stable power block developing in the region and demanding higher prices for their oil. If a stable government ever developed the CIA would be back meddling within the year.

Br Cornelius

Well said, For the benefits of the US, this region must be always under war and chaos.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

A thread about an Arab terrorist group stated in Syria, funded by Saudi Arabia, attacking Iraq results in an Israel debate and claims that the US is behind everything, logic be damned. UM never changes it seems.

Unless Iraq can bring in a new government that actually tries to include all ethnic groups and thinks military talent and training is better than just being a buddy then things will just kept getting worst. ISIS is having their way at the moment due to the Iraqi officers being useless and army morale being in the dumps but they're not going to be able to advance much further. Taking Sunni territory is one thing but moving into Shai land is quite another. Plus seems like the honeymoon with the Sunni might be coming an end soon so they'll need to worry about that too. If this drags on much long the Kurds might throw up their hands and just declare themselves to be an independent nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLionsHunter

A thread about an Arab terrorist group stated in Syria, funded by Saudi Arabia, attacking Iraq results in an Israel debate and claims that the US is behind everything, logic be damned. UM never changes it seems.

a claim ?? it is a fact that USA is behind everthing, who goes there for fake claim about chemical weapons ? .

The only claim here is what you made accusing Saudi arabia of funding the ISIS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Ok, time to calm down a bit. Going at one another throats isn't going to make things any better. So, please do not make the discussion personal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Ok, time to calm down a bit. Going at one another throats isn't going to make things any better. So, please do not make the discussion personal.

My apologies to all.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

a claim ?? it is a fact that USA is behind everthing, who goes there for fake claim about chemical weapons ? .

The only claim here is what you made accusing Saudi arabia of funding the ISIS.

No the US is not behind everything. The Arabs are quite capable of making mistakes without an America telling them what to do and how to think. The US spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to build up and stabilize Iraq and yet people think this ISIS is some evil America plot. Because anything bad that happens has the CIA involvement or something.The US does plenty of underhanded stuff but blaming them for every bad thing in the world, which is what some UM members do, cheapens the whole thing and distracts from matters that the US should be called on.

As for ISIS funding it's been well know that the Gulf States, who look to Saudi Arabia as their leader, have been pouring cash into Syrian opposition groups which includes ISIS. Also they want to limit Iran's influence, who is offering support to the Iraq government. While the Gulf States may not be officially funding ISIS there's still a lot of cash from their nations are finding its way into ISIS pockets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

No the US is not behind everything. The Arabs are quite capable of making mistakes without an America telling them what to do and how to think. The US spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to build up and stabilize Iraq and yet people think this ISIS is some evil America plot. Because anything bad that happens has the CIA involvement or something.The US does plenty of underhanded stuff but blaming them for every bad thing in the world, which is what some UM members do, cheapens the whole thing and distracts from matters that the US should be called on.

As for ISIS funding it's been well know that the Gulf States, who look to Saudi Arabia as their leader, have been pouring cash into Syrian opposition groups which includes ISIS. Also they want to limit Iran's influence, who is offering support to the Iraq government. While the Gulf States may not be officially funding ISIS there's still a lot of cash from their nations are finding its way into ISIS pockets.

SPOT ON! I agree completely about the 'murica is to blame for EVERYTHING!! America IS to blame for a lot of tragic things - but NO ONE is responsible for it all and when so many pile on at every turn for every event it stops most Americans from even caring what others think. If blame were laid in true measure the complainers would get a better hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

No the US is not behind everything. The Arabs are quite capable of making mistakes without an America telling them what to do and how to think. The US spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to build up and stabilize Iraq and yet people think this ISIS is some evil America plot. Because anything bad that happens has the CIA involvement or something.The US does plenty of underhanded stuff but blaming them for every bad thing in the world, which is what some UM members do, cheapens the whole thing and distracts from matters that the US should be called on.

As for ISIS funding it's been well know that the Gulf States, who look to Saudi Arabia as their leader, have been pouring cash into Syrian opposition groups which includes ISIS. Also they want to limit Iran's influence, who is offering support to the Iraq government. While the Gulf States may not be officially funding ISIS there's still a lot of cash from their nations are finding its way into ISIS pockets.

Not an American plot specifically, in the sense of being planned from the start, perhaps, but a result of Americana policy, just as Al Q was. If you move into a region and destabilise it (even if a lot of that stability was brought about by force and fear), you're going to both create a vacuum for someone strong and determined to see the opportunity to take control, aren't you, and create a lot of resentment that's going to build up support for these people who fill the gap. And why doesn't America disown and stop military assistance to Saudi Arabia? Why are they still the most Valued Ally in the region?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

Remember when Assad in Syria said in his speeches that the west was backing terrorists inside Syria. It seems he was right. with the west funding and arming ISIS in Syria - It's simply given them (ISIS) the confidence and means to spread across the border into Iraq. this was always a risk when you fund and fight proxy wars. but it now seems Iraq will split up and borders will be re-drawn and making the middle east even more unstable. We are fast approaching the time when we'll have no choice but to intervene in this global world were everything is linked - you can only stand back so long before your drawn into situations not of your choosing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Not of your choosing, but certainly of your making. I suspect that will has always existed among certain quarters to "get more involved".

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I'm sure Br Cornelius is right. There will always be cynical businesses in the USA - as elsewhere in the developed world - who seek to interfere in the policies of other nations in order to maximise their profits.

However, to suggest that this is the driving force behind all US foreign policy is - in my opinion - oversimplstic to say the least, and very unfair on America.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Well said, For the benefits of the US, this region must be always under war and chaos.

Brother what a point you made.

People accuse Hitler for murdering innocent people and call him evil.Well that is correct technically.But the point is he didn't kill them all.He made policy which did.Now you see US policy has killed many people than Hitler's policy.This is really ironic that US is know as protector of democracy and human rights.There are many examples where we can find that US has sponsored for terrorist,fascist,dictators.Why US shouldn't be call evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

America fault ? We didn't over throw any of other dictator president's of the middle east, their people did. Isn this upset between the Sunnis and Shiites a old war that's really never ended?

Kerry is in Iraq to convince Maliki to start a new central government that is fair to everyone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/23/iraqi-leaders-seen-as-fearful-desperate-for-us-assistance/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.