And next, Syria?

[Casually Red]

<cough>

ah..choking on a sour grape.

 

[seventh bullet]

Yes, you are ... Can't you respond?

 

[Casually Red]

What about responding on another thread. With something political, like.

the debate here is on this thread not one from a long time back on a completely unrelated issue, but fuck off to the other one by all means if the debate here is beyond you

 

[Pickman's model]

anyways, as things stand at the minute it looks like Syria will eventually defeat these fucks , but at a massive human cost . The Iranian nuclear deal seems to have completely sucked whatever appetite was left for war out of the western powers. Its sidelined the war mongers not only in the western capitals but among the saudis, kuwaitis, Qataris and zionists. The manipulated uprising has failed,the nerve gas provocation has failed, attempts by the British, French and US leaderships to get their own states to go to war have miserably failed
...the saudis and their mates are commiserating over their utter failure to get a western war machine on the move and the zionists are on the verge of getting the international cold shoulder if they even try and fuck this one up .

The attempts by the former British and French colonial powers and their jihadist surrogates to make preconditions to negotiations that Assad be removed from power is being openly scoffed at as delusional. That will never happen now. Those are major defeats on all fronts for Syrias enemies.

fyi: britain has never been the colonial power in syria.

 

[seventh bullet]

the debate here is on this thread not one from a long time back, but fuck off to the other one by all means if the debate here is beyond you

Stop copping out. I linked to something which might be of help.

To you, that is.

 

[Casually Red]

Well, dickface.

now now violet elizabeth...little tantrums like that are unbecoming for a young gentleman.

 

[seventh bullet]

Just respond. Defend it. I'll try not to laugh. Some of the decent stuff was put up by me ages ago, anyway. If you want to google it and skim-read it.

 

[Casually Red]

fyi: britain has never been the colonial power in syria.

fyi i never said it had been . However through sykes picot it played a major role in determining syrias future from afar and carving up the local entities . And its been trying to do the same again .

 

[Casually Red]

Just respond. Defend it. I'll try not to laugh. Some of the decent stuff was put up by me ages ago, anyway. If you want to google it and skim-read it.

your still slabbering on about a long dead thread on an unrelated issue when this one is live and ongoing. ive no interest in resurrecting that thread to help you out of this one. If you cant debate the issues here either stop derailing this thread and this issue or go onto ignore, all the same to me.

 

[Pickman's model]

fyi i never said it had been . However through sykes picot it played a major role in determining syrias future from afar and carving up the local entities . And its been trying to do the same again .

The attempts by the former British and French colonial powers and their jihadist surrogates to make preconditions to negotiations that Assad be removed from power is being openly scoffed at as delusional. That will never happen now. Those are major defeats on all fronts for Syrias enemies.

post #2544. at the time of the sykes-picot agreement the land from anatolia to suez was ottoman territory.

 

[seventh bullet]

your still slabbering on about a long dead thread on an unrelated issue when this one is live and ongoing. ive no interest in resurrecting that thread to help you out of this one. If you cant debate the issues here either stop derailing this thread and this issue or go onto ignore, all the same to me.

Not at all. Just that, with your unnecessary attack before, I thought I'd remind you.

So, you were just bullshitting, then?

 

[Casually Red]

post #2544. at the time of the sykes-picot agreement the land from anatolia to suez was ottoman territory.

In fairness it was Arab territory which britain and france decided to carve up amongst themselves after the Ottoman defeat.

 

[Pickman's model]

In fairness it was Arab territory which britain and france decided to carve up amongst themselves after the Ottoman defeat.

if you look at the chronology i think you'll find it was turkish territory which they decided to carve up among themselves before the ottoman defeat, 1916 being traditionally understood to be before 1918. but you'll also find that britain never colonised syria.

 

[Casually Red]

if you look at the chronology i think you'll find it was turkish territory which they decided to carve up among themselves before the ottoman defeat, 1916 being traditionally understood to be before 1918. but you'll also find that britain never colonised syria.

what i meant was it was Arab territory controlled by the turks which Britain and France decided to carve up between them as the spoils of war. Naturally enough the decision to carve it up between them occurred prior to the actual physical carving up .
I never suggested at any stage Britain colonised syria . What I did state however was that as a former colonial power in the region Britain played a major role in determining syrias future alongside france. And both countries are still trying to play the same shitty game. But it looks like that plan has failed now.

 

[Pickman's model]

what i meant was it was Arab territory controlled by the turks which Britain and France decided to carve up between them as the spoils of war. Naturally enough the decision to carve it up between them occurred prior to the actual physical carving up .
I never suggested at any stage Britain colonised syria . What I did state however was that as a former colonial power in the region Britain played a major role in determining syrias future alongside france. And both countries are still trying to play the same shitty game. But it looks like that plan has failed now.

i wonder whether you recall some years ago the bbc describing france as the former colonial power in haiti. i was rather surprised that britain wasn't described in the same way wr2 the united states following the lamentable response to hurricane katrin. these things never die, they just go underground for a while.

 

[Casually Red]

the difference is though that imperialist powers arent responsible for hurricanes . They are responsible for wars though . And if theyd got their way thered be another direct western war in syria right now . It was what France and Britain both tried to secure .
From the very beginning the rhetoric from both powers was belligerent and warlike and aimed at paving the way for direct intervention. Events scuppered that and ever since the rhetoric has shifted markedly. The jihadists are a beaten docket as regards securing the wests vision for the regions future. Which was definitely another carve up. Even wee willie hague has stopped talking about partition. Aint going to happen.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

either address the issue at hand or fuck of out of the thread, pair of gobshites

Nice one.

 

[Casually Red]

according to this report the zionist military have been assisting the contras by electronically jamming the Syrian forces communications during a contra assault. Among other things .

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=123264&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=71&s1=1

 

[TomUS]

according to this report the zionist military have been assisting the contras by electronically jamming the Syrian forces communications during a contra assault. Among other things .

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=123264&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=71&s1=1

"This report" is from a Hezbollah affiliated source quoting a paper that is close to Hezbollah & Syria. Even if true, "the Zionists" helping to bump off some of Assad's SS isn't a bad thing IMO.

Wiki:

Al-Manar (Arabic: المنار‎[pronunciation?]; English: the beacon) is a Lebanese satellite television station affiliated with Hezbollah,[1] broadcasting from Beirut, Lebanon.[2]

Al-Manar was designated as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity," and banned by the United States on 17 December 2004.[3] It has also been banned by France, Spain and Germany,

As Safir (Arabic: السفير‎) meaning The Ambassador, is a leading Arabic-language daily newspaper in Lebanon.
It also focuses on Muslim interests, advocating Arab nationalism, and is close to Hezbollah and has a pro-Syrian stance.[8]

 

[Casually Red]

"This report" is from a Hezbollah affiliated source quoting a paper that is close to Hezbollah & Syria. Even if true, "the Zionists" helping to bump off some of Assad's SS isn't a bad thing IMO.

Wiki:

yes tom, it pretty much says that in the report..from al manar that i linked to. And your opinion on the middle east is a load of pro imperialist and zionist wank, generally .

 

[laptop]

the difference is though that imperialist powers arent responsible for hurricanes .

They do bear responsibility, however, for the lamentable response to hurricanes.

The harm attributed to "natural disasters" is largely down to inadequate responses: and ex-colonial powers have shaped that inadequacy.

For the Philippines, of course, the ex-colonial power is the US...

 

[Fuchs66]

Been a bit windy recently.

 

[DotCommunist]

Been a bit windy recently.

the wind of change?

 

[Fuchs66]

the wind of change?

I think it's all the hummus I've been eating

 

[Casually Red]

just been reading over the past few weeks Albania has refused to permit the CW to be disposed of on their territory, the yanks now talking about doing some of it aboard one of their ships . That sounds more like thinly disguised code for tossing it into the sea .

 

[teqniq]

Well they've sunk ships loaded with gas before so it is not like it's a new thing.

 

[Fuchs66]

just been reading over the past few weeks Albania has refused to permit the CW to be disposed of on their territory, the yanks now talking about doing some of it aboard one of their ships . That sounds more like thinly disguised code for tossing it into the sea .

Utter bollocks (to put it politely)

 

[Fuchs66]

Well they've sunk ships loaded with gas before so it is not like it's a new thing.

Not after 1 January 1985

 

[Casually Red]

Utter bollocks (to put it politely)

what is, that the albanians wont let the stuff in or that the yanks are considering doing it a board a ship

 

[teqniq]

Not after 1 January 1985

And? Here I presume you may be alluding to a treaty they may have signed though it would be nice if you would tell me what.