BS: The New World Order

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 09:52 AM

Ukraine President Poroshenko has also requested help from the US but Obama has so far failed to act.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:25 PM

Teribus, the Us campaign against IS has been completely ineffective, because there are no "boots on the ground"

Putin knows, that to defeat IS he has to use Assad's army, that is why he is attacking the anti -Assad rebels, they are at the moment performing as a buffer between the Syrian Army and IS.

This is war, bad things happen civilians get hurt and killed, the best thing is to get the mess sorted out Quickly and Putin seems to be the only guy fit to do the job.

If we liquidate Assad, his army and his civilians{he retains a lot of support), the "rebels" will immediately join the fundamentalists or one of the tribal militias.

I remember you saying that IS should be dealt with by opening a free fire zone.....that would mean even more civilian casualties.

Another point, in tribal politics, are there any real civilians, other than very small children?

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:48 PM

"I remember you saying that IS should be dealt with by opening a free fire zone.....that would mean even more civilian casualties."

Assad has been attacking civilian targets from Day One, entirely with weapons supplied to him by the Russians. Absolutely no point at all in deploying US troops this mess has to be sorted out by the "locals". Even Putin is not stupid enough to put Russian boots on the ground apart from the specialist teams of advisers (the US have done the same in Iraq). In Iraq boots on the ground are the Iraqi Army which is getting better and Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Shia Militias and the Kurds.

Turkey got hit and shouted to the world that they were going to crack down on IS then promptly used their airforce to hit Kurdish positions.

Russia shouted to the world that they were going to hit IS then promptly struck at any target but IS in their drive to help Assad. Now Russia's approach will be basically the old Soviet style if it is civilian casualties that you are concerned with the Russian tactics will massacre them in their thousands. If Russia starts hitting Kurdish positions I sincerely hope that US Coalition aircraft start knocking Russian planes out of the sky.

Obama is not daft enough to pour fuel on the fire - Putin basically couldn't give a F**K. And sorry Ake Putin is not going to sort anything out it can only get worse.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:53 PM

"other than very small children?
Assad's snipers were betting packets of cigarettes to any of their number who managed to achieve a 'two with one bullet' on the streets of Homs - ie- a mother carrying a babe-in-arms.
These appear to be the people you are suggesting should be supported.
Strange 'socialism' indeed!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:22 PM

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/317521-russia-us-confrontation-syria-islamic/

The above is a very interesting view. Where is the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 01:35 PM

"Where is the truth?"

Definitely not at Putin's propaganda organ RT.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:01 PM

I wish I could believe the content of the western mainstream media. If I could I would be a rabid supporter of the tooth fairy as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:13 PM

Ha, ha....yes all mainstream western media is in the hands of governments. Have you tried a tin foil hat?

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 06:07 PM

Teribus strangely you don't seem to get the point of my last post.

To allow Assad's troops to move forward to engage IS fighters hopefully weakened by Russian air strikes, the anti Assad terrorist have to be defeated.

What is the point of striking against IS positions if there is no ground attack to follow up? .....That is what the US was doing and it failed miserably.
Why would President Putin wish to defend IS. Russia is in grave danger from Islamic fundamentalism

I would be interested to hear YOUR views on how these fundamentalist maniacs are to be stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:17 AM

"Ha, ha....yes all mainstream western media is in the hands of governments. Have you tried a tin foil hat?"

A bit of an extreme response and indicative of how successful the brainwashing has been.
I would recommend Fox, CNN, RT, Al Jazeera, the Times and any other sources. The truth is somewhere in amongst the respective garbage but to take one source in isolation as being the absolute font of truth would be extremely reckless. Safer to think and draw your own conclusions.
    I also draw your attention to the following quote that is very apt for our times:

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
― Benjamin Franklin

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:06 AM

1: "To allow Assad's troops to move forward to engage IS fighters hopefully weakened by Russian air strikes, the anti Assad terrorist have to be defeated."

The whole thing started in Syria due to Assad failing to listen to the calls within his country by Syrians for reform. Assad's response to what he saw as challenges to his Ba'athist Party's rule was exactly the same as his late father's - violent and bloody repression. When will the wishes of the Syrian people be considered if Assad is given leave to destroy them before his forces and the Russians get round to taking on a movement (ISIL) formed inside Syria by former Ba'athist supporters and insurgents who fled from western Iraq to Syria and were welcomed in in 2007?

2: "What is the point of striking against IS positions if there is no ground attack to follow up?" .....That is what the US was doing and it failed miserably.

It robs them of the opportunity to use heavy weapons and puts them on a level footing with the people they are trying to wipe out. It forces them to curb their activities and be far more circumspect in the scale of their operations. Has the intervention of US air support been such a failure? I don't think so. In Iraq no more helpless refugees from minority groups huddled on mountain tops being fired upon by IS artillery pieces. The town of Kobane in Syria no longer being blown to bits by IS in their attempt to kill the Kurdish population. The Kurds in Iraq are pushing IS back. Towns in Iraq have been liberated from IS control, Mosul is still under siege with IS very much on the back foot - No IS boasting about capturing Baghdad has been heard now for months.


3: "Why would President Putin wish to defend IS. Russia is in grave danger from Islamic fundamentalism."

Who said Putin wished to defend IS? I most certainly did not. What I did say was that Putin sees it in Russia's best interest to keep Assad in place - Putin could not care less about the Syrian people. The Islamic fundamentalism that "threatens" Putin's Russia is nothing new and it is entirely "home grown" there are no vast numbers of foreign jihadis trekking across borders into Russia to threaten the peace, since 1990 they have been in place in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan, nursing religiously fueled grievances dating back to the time of Stalin.

Oh and by the way Ake Putin's plan for Syria as far as defeating the "terrorists" go is identical to those of the USA's plans for defeating "terrorists" in Iraq and in Syria, as clearly demonstrated as follows:

Russia in Syria:
(a) Russian supplied arms
(b) Russian "special advisors"
(c) Russian air power
(d) Use of local proxies to provide the "boots on the ground" - Hezbollah, Syrian Army, Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

USA in Iraq:
(a) US supplied arms
(b) US "special advisors"
(c) US air power
(d) Use of local proxies to provide the "boots on the ground" - Shia Militias, Iraqi Army, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

My views?

In general realise and recognise that Islamic fundamentalism did not just spring up in response to the west's reaction to 9/11 or from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - Islamic fundamentalist terror organisations have been attacking the "west" since 1970.

There will be no peace possible in Syria until Assad has been removed from power - he has killed far too many of his own people for them ever to forgive him or his repressive ruling Alawite faction.

The so-called "terrorist" groups and the civilian populations that support them currently being targeted by Russian aircraft pose no threat to anyone other than Assad - they are fighting IS and have been constantly under attack by both IS and Assad yet neither IS or Assad seem capable of defeating them. The "big bad west" should therefore do much more to help those groups inside Syria in much the same way as the Mujahideen were helped in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians and Najibullah's PDPA regime.

In Iraq it has taken time and will take yet more time to make good the damage done to Iraq's armed forces during the stewardship of Nouri al-Maliki. That is work in progress, but even at this point IS successes in Iraq have been reversed and they are now on the defensive. Like most complex problems it takes time - there are no "instant" fixes or "silver bullets".

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:32 AM

Thanks for that measured post MrT, and I agree with more of it than you would suppose.....but we must be realistic, all commentators including some in the American govt agree that the bombing campaign has been an abject failure....and I certainly don't blame Islamic terrorism on the "big bad West".   We did of course aid its development by our ill considered interventions in Iraq and Libya.

Islamic Fundamentalism as been bubbling away for years and at one time the lid was kept on the cauldron by "our despots"
As "our despots" began to look East, we decided that "boots on the ground" would be the best option.....with disastrous results.

Our best option is to assist in the defeat of IS by joint action with Russia as Putin is the only person who is politically capable of using the Syrian Army as a ground force

The Syrian people can either accept or reject President Assad after the major danger to the world is contained.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:32 AM

To allow Assad's troops to move forward to engage IS fighters hopefully weakened by Russian air strikes, the anti Assad terrorist have to be defeated.

The deployment of the Russian forces in Syria indicates beyond doubt that the main concern of the Russians is to defend Assad against the rebels. The proclamations against Islamic State are a feint to add moral authority to the defence of the dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:47 AM

Guest, look at Syria, how many Syrians do you think find themselves in a "better place" now than under the Col?

If Assad and the legitimate government of Syria and his army are allowed to be butchered in the same manner, in all probability we shall see the same conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 08:23 AM

If Assad is allowed to be returned to power, he will have no hesitation to returning to the systematic torture and mass murder - why wouldn't he, having been granted a reprieve and total immunity for his crimes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 09:37 AM

I would recommend Fox,

Yeah, right.

Abandon truth, all ye who enter here.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:06 PM

"The Syrian people can either accept or reject President Assad after the major danger to the world is contained."

Won't be an issue, by the time those 2 freedom fighters,Putin and Assad, finish with the Syrian people there won't be enough of them left to accept or reject your favorite butcher.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:05 PM

"The Syrian people can either accept or reject President Assad"
The Assad family have spent at least two decades proving that this is exactly what they can't do - this is what this was all about in the first place.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:25 AM

This time Jim, the West is with you in wanting Assad gone, and Russia and Iran against you, attacking the Free Syria Army and other rebel Syrian groups who are supported by the West.
That must be a strange feeling.
Even Israel and Hezbollah are on the wrong sides for you.
Will you share your feelings with us?

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:38 AM

"This time Jim, the West is with you in wanting Assad gone"
Pity it didn't happen while he was slaughtering the Syrian people (and no - the left certainly did not prevent them doing so)
It has now become a matter of self-interest for the West that he be removed - perhaps one day that will include the despots of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and we will stop selling them the means of oppression and honouring their leaders while they are handing out their 1,000 lashes.
Share their feelings - what - of me first?
No I will not.
These people need to be dealt with because they are mobsters, not because they are embarrassing boat-rockers.
Now that would be worth supporting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:46 AM

"mobsters,"
Monters - feckin' keyboard
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 09:39 AM

"Pity it didn't happen while he was slaughtering the Syrian people"

No "while he was" about it Jim, as far as I am aware, Assad along with his trusted allies, Hezbollah, Iran and Putin continue to slaughter Syrians.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 10:00 AM

Russia and China vetoed any action against him.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 10:43 AM

"Russia and China vetoed any action against him."
And if Syria had had any oil worth mentioning that veto wouldn'd have been worth the paper it was printed on - as shown by the present military action taking place.
Assad could have been stopped at the time you were shedding your crocodile tears for the people of Homs - the West wasn't interested then.
Defectors from the Syrian Regime were begging that Britain played on its influence (British wife, masses of investment in London) by bringing diplomatic pressure on Assad - nothing was done and his brother-in-law gofer came in an out of London as easily if it were Harrods front door.
You described stopping Assad with military force as "fascism" and the pair of you defended the sales of ammunition, anti-personnel equipment ad chemicals as acceptable - even suggesting that he might be provided with more.   
The Assad family had a track record of illegal imprisonment, torture and mass-murder stretching back a couple of decades, yet they remained Britain's valued friends and allies.
Whatever the outcome of all this, Britain and the West have to clean up their act in regard to dealing with military regimes - so far it has managed to fuel the rise of Isis and create a world crisis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 11:54 AM

so far it has managed to fuel the rise of Isis

ISIS is just one of many manifestations of militant Islam, whose agenda is the imposition of governance based on Koranic principles. It actually arose in the 1920's with the establishment of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna. Blaming it's rise on actions of the west is specious at best but it is what those with their own agenda are fond of doing.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 12:30 PM

Your first sentence is is blatantly untrue, troll.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 12:35 PM

You are wrong - educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 12:59 PM

"educate yourself."
Why not you educate us
ORIGINS OF ISIS
Now you show us yours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:32 PM

No matter whether they choose to call themselves ISIS, Al-Quaeda, Taliban, etc. they are all Islamist movements which began with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Makings of a Movement

In time, the Islamist vision crystallized. They not only rejected the influence of the West, they rejected the legitimacy of their own governments in the Arabic world, which they saw as subservient to the West. Thus, the overthrow of these regimes became an important part of the Islamist agenda.

The biggest push for this agenda came in 1928, with the founding of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This organization became the cornerstone for most of today's Islamist movements, advocating Islamic beliefs and values as expressed by the common Egyptian. The organization, founded by Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), rejected western rule and England's secular influence over Egypt. Without religious governance, al-Banna believed the Muslim world would be "a society of cultural mongrels and spiritual half-castes."

At War With Whom?
A short history of radical Islam

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:45 PM

ISIS is just one of many manifestations of militant Islam

ISIS is just one of the results of years of fuck-ups in the Middle East by U.S. and western foreign policy in general.

You got problems? Take 'em up with George Dumbya Bush, Paul Wolfowitz & Dick Cheney.

Now piss off.

And do keep your eyes open for clear and present danger of Militant Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:50 PM

Both of your links lead to Middle East Forum", an organization set up to protect American rights in The Middle East.
It is a pro-Israeli, Islamophobic organisation which seeks to undermine the position of lawful Muslims in the Middle East.
Its policy is:
"The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.
The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.
In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.
At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies."
None of this in any way alters the fact that Isis rose from the present conflicts in The Middle East and has SFA to do with traditional Muslimism
Try again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:51 PM

Now piss off.

You piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:55 PM

So, Carroll, you don't dispute anything I quoted just attack the source.

Ho, hum.

PS I won't mention the fact that you source is a former reporter with Fox news, GregF's favorite news source. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 02:54 PM

"!So, Carroll, you don't dispute anything I quoted just attack the source."
Your links are to opinions - not facts.
Those opinions come from a pro-Israeli, Islamophobic publication dedicated to undermining Muslims settled in the United States and stating openly it's objective is to further the interests of the U.S. in the Middle East -
If I wanted to underline the fact that Isis is the product of the West pursuing a self-interest policy in the Middle East, I could have chosen no better example.
As it was, you did the job for me - many thanks.
Why on earth should I bother my arse disputing unqualified opinions from an Islamophobic publication.
Sorry Bruce - no cigar - again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 06:11 PM

Sorry but the parts I quoted are historical fact.....live with it.

Here's some more facts from the link:

"The Muslim Brotherhood found further inspiration in the 1950s and 1960s from Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), a radical exegete who provided Koranic justifications for attacking secular Arab leaders that called themselves believers, but who did not run their governments according to the shari'a or Islamic law. In his most famous book, Milestones, he advocated jihad, or holy war, as a means to shake off the shackles of repressive secular regimes.

    "This movement . . . harnesses material power and invokes jihad for eliminating the Jahili [ignorant] order and its supporting authority, for they interfere with and prevent the efforts to reform the beliefs and ideas of humanity at large, and by dint of its resources and aberrant methods forces them to obey it and makes them bow before human lords instead of the Almighty Lord... The very purpose of this movement is to set human beings free from the yoke of human enslavement and make them serve the One and Only God."

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 06:59 PM

Facts? Those are not facts. They are tendentious Daily Mailisms. I find it odd that you can so boldly make a fool of yourself by demonstrating that you can't tell the difference. At least you don't need us to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 03:37 AM

Not facts? Do you deny the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood? Do you deny that the date of their founding predates by decades the start of the Second World War? Do you deny their clearly stated aims?

"The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state."[12] Its mottos include "Believers are but Brothers", "Islam is the Solution", and "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish. [13][14][15]"

[12] - Kull, Steven (2011). Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger at America. Brookings Institution Press. p. 167.
[13] - Helbawy, K., (2009) The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: Historical Evolution and Future Prospects, p.65
[14] - Ikwanonline, 2013
[15] - Yusuf, Khalil (19 December 2013). "Does the Muslim Brotherhood still have a role to play in Egypt's revolutionary politics?"

Don't see the Daily Mail featured or mentioned there once Mr Shaw.

What GUEST has provided you with ARE FACTS - Check them for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:12 AM

Jim,
You described stopping Assad with military force as "fascism"

Lie, as was your other claims against me and others.

Steve,
Your first sentence is is blatantly untrue, troll.

"ISIS is just one of many manifestations of militant Islam, whose agenda is the imposition of governance based on Koranic principles."

In what way is that untrue Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM

Checked - over and over again - Muslimism extremism is no more a part of being a Muslim than is extremism a part of being part of any other religion
Guest (Bearded Bruce) has sought to defend Israeli behaviour by claiming that to criticise Israel is to be Antisemitic, making him a bit of an extremist.
Here, he is using the writings of a pro- Israeli activist whose stated aim is to defend the United States' interests in the Middle East.
The West's behaviour towards the Middle East is the cause of the rise of Isis.
The Daily Mail and the right wing press in general have adopted the position of distancing Britain and the U.S. from any blame for what is now taking place - more or less your own position with your convoluted and contradictory arguments which change by the minute.
Every religion has its nutters - they shoot up schools, bomb family planning clinics, persecute pregnant women, gays......
They are nutters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 04:58 AM

Teribus, you of all people should be able to tell neutrally-presented facts from statements that contain information presented in a tendentious way. That should make you suspicious. If it doesn't, you've been reading too manly tabloids. That is exactly their style. What you presented, on the other hand, are facts, sort of. But what you omitted from your copy and paste was the next bit, which, er, sheds a slightly different light than what you and Guest have tried to bring. Lessee:

As a Pan-Islamic, religious, and social movement, it preached Islam, taught the illiterate, set up hospitals and business enterprises. The group spread to other Muslim countries but has its largest, or one of its largest, organizations in Egypt despite a succession of government crackdowns in 1948,1954, 1965, and 2013 after plots, or alleged plots, of assassination and overthrow were uncovered. Over the years it also developed branches in other Muslim countries.

The Arab Spring brought it legalisation and substantial political power at first, but as of 2013 it has suffered severe reversals.The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was legalized in 2011 and won several elections, including the 2012 presidential election when its candidate Mohamed Morsi became Egypt's first democratically elected president. One year later, however, following massive demonstrations, anger at perceived discrimination and disenfranchisement against religious minorities, and anger at repressive religious policies, Morsi was overthrown by the military and arrested. As of 2014, the organization has been declared a terrorist group both in Egypt and by its erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia, and is once again suffering a severe crackdown in Egypt as well as pressure in other Arab countries. The Brotherhood itself claims it is a peaceful, democratic organization, and its leader "condemns violence and violent acts".

Tendentious means that you included the bits that seem to make your case but left out the rather awkward more moderate bits. I'm happy to supply them for you. I could suggest that instead of quoting "stated aims", which you can do for any organisation under the sun, you should more closely adhere to the biblical " by their fruits shall ye know them."

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 05:20 AM

Well, for a start, I don't believe for a moment that the "Anti Assad rebels" are "moderates", and I am certain that neither GUEST nor Teribus believe that either.

We all saw these "moderates" when victorious in Libya, and it was not a pretty sight.....more importantly their moderation disappeared and the country is now ungovernable, with a huge number of people displaced or seeking refugee status.

Lets get real here, the danger to the world is not President Assad, any more than it was Saddam Hussein or Col Gaddafi.
We used these people or people very similar, when it suited us.

The danger is the dark spectre of Islamic Fundamentalism. Madmen who will butcher everyone who refuses to accept their religion.
If Putin is worried enough to put aircraft and advisors into Syria, we should all bee worried.
A combined operation is required to contain these madmen "democracy"
can be postponed in the face of more important issues, as we do in the case of Saudi Arabia etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 06:17 AM

"The danger is the dark spectre of Islamic Fundamentalism."
No - the danger is from the clashes between religious fundamentalism (that being perpetrated in the name of the Jewish people included) and the interests of world capitalism, mainly in the shape of oil supplies.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 09:36 AM

Spectre? Guess we need James Bond to sort this then......

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 09:50 AM

"religious fundamentalism (that being perpetrated in the name of the Jewish people included)"
.,,.
Where, precisely, Jim? & of what nature? Jewish fundamentalism is far more politically & nationalistically, than religiously based. The religious parties in Israel occasionally hold a certain political balance, but they are by no means politically dominant as in so much of the Muslim world.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:02 AM

"Jewish fundamentalism is far more politically & nationalistically, than religiously based"
Is it?
The driving force behind what is happening in Israel appears to be extreme Zionism based on the idea of a chosen people having a right to territory defined in biblical times.
The moderates within the religious groups, such as Rabbis for peace seem to have been marginalised and vilified by the Israeli right.
I have never suggested that Judaism has ever been the cause of what is happening, but it certainly has become a rallying point for the right.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:27 AM

"The driving force behind what is happening in Israel appears to be extreme Zionism based on the idea of a chosen people having a right to territory defined in biblical times."

More antisemitic tropes from the usual suspect.

Israel is, indisputably, the historic, ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism is the recognition of that fact.

You have no idea what the term "chosen people" means to Jews. I suggest you look it up instead of using it to slander them.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:33 AM

It's also the ancestral homeland of many other people. And I'm not aware that chosen people, a term used by Judaism itself, is a pejorative term.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:47 AM

I thought it was the UN that gave Jews the right to the land of Israel, quite long after the bible was written.

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 10:59 AM

"More antisemitic tropes from the usual suspect."
If you haven't got the bottle to come out from behind the dead of Auschwitz please deal with the facts of Israeli behaviour
"Israel is, indisputably, the historic, ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism is the recognition of that fact. "
The territory Israel is claiming as its own has been occupied by Arabs for millenia - of course it is disputed - that's what the killing is about.
Nobody on this forum has ever denied the right of the Jewish People to a homeland and nobody has ever suggested that Israel is not that homeland - you have been challenged on numerous occasions to prove otherwise, and you never have.
The only people here to have earned the description of "Antisemitic" are those who equate the behaviour of the Israeli regime with being Jewish.
It is a despicable and cowardly defence made by people defending policies comparable to those which sent six million Jews and many others to their deaths.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The New World Order
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 15 - 11:03 AM

"I thought it was the UN that gave Jews the right to the land of Israel, quite long after the bible was written."
The U.N. has no right to give exclusive rights to land occupied by people for millenia.
Jim Carroll