Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

Arming the "rebels" in syria

114 posts in this topic

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

 

Thats a very blind, one sided view.

 

If i were to take the opposite view point it would be a long winded post about closing the crossing stopping people who want to blow up Israeli babies crossing over and their arms etc. 

The peace deal effectively ensuing there was little chance of a large scale war involving the two powerful neighbours. 

Also the gas deal being a simply business transaction which is agreeable for both parties.

 

See easy to be totally one sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not defined "client state", you've just said that Egypt is one.

 

If "client state" means "takes orders from the US" then Jordan clearly isn't one because it resisted all attempts by the US to sign it up for the first gulf war (even Egypt was a member of the US-led coalition).

 

If "client state" means "screws over the Palestinians" then the vast majority of Arab states aren't.

Name the Arab countries that lift a finger for the Palestinians and who fought along side them during operation "cast lead"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name the Arab countries that lift a finger for the Palestinians and who fought along side them during operation "cast lead"?

I see so "cast lead" defines once and for all which countries are "client states"?

 

That rules out all non-Arab countries for starters - you seem to put them immediately out of the definition.

 

And for the record no Arab state fought Israel ergo by your odd definition even Syria is a "client state" even though you claim they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a very blind, one sided view.

 

If i were to take the opposite view point it would be a long winded post about closing the crossing stopping people who want to blow up Israeli babies crossing over and their arms etc. 

The peace deal effectively ensuing there was little chance of a large scale war involving the two powerful neighbours. 

Also the gas deal being a simply business transaction which is agreeable for both parties.

 

See easy to be totally one sided.

Of course Israel blows up many Palestinian babies in gaza, the "peace" deal allowed Israel to do exactly that without retaliation from Egypt. Also Egyptians survive on something like $1 or $2 a day while their government was selling gas to a country that wiped Palestine off the map and continues to occupy the west bank and east Jerusalem at a knocked down price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see so "cast lead" defines once and for all which countries are "client states"?

 

That rules out all non-Arab countries for starters - you seem to put them immediately out of the definition.

 

And for the record no Arab state fought Israel ergo by your odd definition even Syria is a "client state" even though you claim they aren't.

"cast lead" doesn't define what countries are client states, you're the only one that is saying it does, it was just one example in egypts case along with cheap gas sold to Israel, US military and economic support/aid and the closing of the rafah crossing. The oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc wouldn't need to fight Israel, all that they'd need to do is threaten to stop oil production unless the US reined in Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Israel blows up many Palestinian babies in gaza, the "peace" deal allowed Israel to do exactly that without retaliation from Egypt. Also Egyptians survive on something like $1 or $2 a day while their government was selling gas to a country that wiped Palestine off the map and continues to occupy the west bank and east Jerusalem at a knocked down price.

You seem to think that Egypt actually has any interest in going to war against Israel. They don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're paying cash, give 'em whatevere they like.

And to hell with the consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"cast lead" doesn't define what countries are client states, you're the only one that is saying it does, it was just one example in egypts case along with cheap gas sold to Israel, US military and economic support/aid and the closing of the rafah crossing. The oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc wouldn't need to fight Israel, all that they'd need to do is threaten to stop oil production unless the US reined in Israel.

I didn't ask you for an "example", I asked you for a definition. You seem to define and redefine the term to suit your own ends.

 

E.g. the US doesn't intervene in "client states" and "client states" are the countries that the US doesn't intervene in. The conclusion of which is that Syria wasn't a client state until 2013 and now it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think that Egypt actually has any interest in going to war against Israel. They don't.

They did in 48', 67' and 73'. I can assure you that every man, woman and child supports the Palestinian struggle and resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did in 48', 67' and 73'. I can assure you that every man, woman and child supports the Palestinian struggle and resistance.

I'm trying to control my laughter at this point. It's impossible. Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states and that's nothing to do with being "client states", it has to do with the way that they have dragged Arab states into wars in '48, '67 and '73 as well as their tendency to get involved in internal politics - e.g. Palestinians in Kuwait supported the Iraqi invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you for an "example", I asked you for a definition. You seem to define and redefine the term to suit your own ends.

 

E.g. the US doesn't intervene in "client states" and "client states" are the countries that the US doesn't intervene in. The conclusion of which is that Syria wasn't a client state until 2013 and now it is.

But the US is intervening in syria on the side of the "rebels" who want to overthrow the Assad regime not the other way round whilst backing the bahraini government and the Saudi forces that came to the rescue of the Bahraini royal family against the democracy protesters in bahrain. A clear example of which countries are and are not US client states if ever there was one. Also have you anything to say on the Arab oil producing countries who could threaten to cut off oil production and supply to the "west" to help the Palestinians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to control my laughter at this point. It's impossible. Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states and that's nothing to do with being "client states", it has to do with the way that they have dragged Arab states into wars in '48, '67 and '73 as well as their tendency to get involved in internal politics - e.g. Palestinians in Kuwait supported the Iraqi invasion.

Well your mask has finally slipped, parroting neocon and Zionist propaganda in which you'd hear on fox news "Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states." where they not considered "parasites" in 48',67' and 73' then? The fact that you can claim that the people from the land of the 3rd holiest site in Islam, the al qasa mosque in occupied Jerusalem(al quds) are "parasites" shows that you are either ignorant or dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What consequences?

First off they aren't paying cash, we the US and UK are giving them money and weapons gratis, secondly a large portion of these "rebels" are al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliated groups, you know 9/11, the twin towers and all that and the throat slitters of Christians, Shias etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the US is intervening in syria on the side of the "rebels" who want to overthrow the Assad regime not the other way round whilst backing the bahraini government and the Saudi forces that came to the rescue of the Bahraini royal family against the democracy protesters in bahrain. A clear example of which countries are and are not US client states if ever there was one. Also have you anything to say on the Arab oil producing countries who could threaten to cut off oil production and supply to the "west" to help the Palestinians?

It's a clear example of realpolitik.

 

Assad is a brutal dictator and his people are trying to overthrow him. The US is generally supportive of democracy movements and is considering supporting them.

 

In Bahrain, there is a dictator (the King) who was not thought to be brutal until recently. There were protests by the Shi'ite majority in favour of more equality and perhaps some democratic reforms. The US did little to support them because Bahaini oil is quite important. I don't know how that makes them a client state. If anything they are dictating terms to the West.

 

The oil producing countries will not cut off oil to the West over Israel because they do not care about Palestinians. The vast oil wealth allows them to buy off their populace and continue their medieval style of government. They aren't going to risk that over people that they do not like very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your mask has finally slipped, parroting neocon and Zionist propaganda in which you'd hear on fox news "Palestinians are considered parasites in most Arab states." where they not considered "parasites" in 48',67' and 73' then? The fact that you can claim that the people from the land of the 3rd holiest site in Islam, the al qasa mosque in occupied Jerusalem(al quds) are "parasites" shows that you are either ignorant or dishonest.

I'm finding it very difficult to type at the moment but yes, they are treated as parasites, which is why they don't always have the citizenship of the territory in which they were born and lived their whole lives. They are even forced to live in refugee camps 65 years after the event. Certain professions are closed to them.

 

Meanwhile Saudi and the gulf states import labour from India and Pakistan. You don't see them giving a lot of work visas to Palestinians. Oddly enough Assad's Syria and Saddam's Iraq treated them better than anyone else but this is still relative.

 

Now if you want to call that Zionist propaganda then you are making yourself look very silly because these things can be googled (and no I don't need to use Fox to back this up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off they aren't paying cash, we the US and UK are giving them money and weapons gratis, secondly a large portion of these "rebels" are al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliated groups, you know 9/11, the twin towers and all that and the throat slitters of Christians, Shias etc.

That's Al Qaeda famous for trying overthrow "client states", you know.

 

We aren't giving weapons to Al Nusra, we are giving them to the FSA.

 

I don't think it is wise but why do you insist on repeating propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Israel blows up many Palestinian babies in gaza, the "peace" deal allowed Israel to do exactly that without retaliation from Egypt. Also Egyptians survive on something like $1 or $2 a day while their government was selling gas to a country that wiped Palestine off the map and continues to occupy the west bank and east Jerusalem at a knocked down price.

 

So Egypt should simply attack Israel at all times and at every opportunity?

 

So how would that save Palestinian babies?.

 

Or they could live in the real world like they do and deal with the reality that Israel is a neighbour and they will have to live together even if they are not comfortable with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a clear example of realpolitik.

 

Assad is a brutal dictator and his people are trying to overthrow him. The US is generally supportive of democracy movements and is considering supporting them.

 

In Bahrain, there is a dictator (the King) who was not thought to be brutal until recently. There were protests by the Shi'ite majority in favour of more equality and perhaps some democratic reforms. The US did little to support them because Bahaini oil is quite important. I don't know how that makes them a client state. If anything they are dictating terms to the West.

 

The oil producing countries will not cut off oil to the West over Israel because they do not care about Palestinians. The vast oil wealth allows them to buy off their populace and continue their medieval style of government. They aren't going to risk that over people that they do not like very much.

How many people have to die in Bahrain before the al Khalifa royal family become a brutal dictator rather than a plain old dictator? Thousands of Bahrainis have either been killed, wounded, tortured and jailed for protesting what you and I enjoy, democracy. Also bloggers, journalists and human rights activists in Bahrain have been jailed and tortured for speaking out against the bahraini dictatorship as have doctors who treat the wounded protesters. Not only is Bahraini oil important to the US but so is the annual tens of billions of $$$$$ worth of US arms that the al Khalifa family buy to stay in power, the oil money that is invested in US banks and on wall street and then there's the US naval base that houses the US fifth fleet that can threaten Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did in 48', 67' and 73'. I can assure you that every man, woman and child supports the Palestinian struggle and resistance.

 

Source for that stat please.

 

I would suggest a large number of men women and children in this country would support the death sentence for child killers. But we don't have it as we are civilised and miscarriages of justice happens so reality means we don't have something that lots of people support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people have to die in Bahrain before the al Khalifa royal family become a brutal dictator rather than a plain old dictator? Thousands of Bahrainis have either been killed, wounded, tortured and jailed for protesting what you and I enjoy, democracy. Also bloggers, journalists and human rights activists in Bahrain have been jailed and tortured for speaking out against the bahraini dictatorship as have doctors who treat the wounded protesters. Not only is Bahraini oil important to the US but so is the annual tens of billions of $$$$$ worth of US arms that the al Khalifa family buy to stay in power, the oil money that is invested in US banks and on wall street and then there's the US naval base that houses the US fifth fleet that can threaten Iran.

I do not agree with the policy towards Bahrain but there is no need to dress up by talking about "client states". The Bahraini repression had nothing to do with the US. The US condones this situation but did not create it.

 

It suited the Bahraini (and Saudi) government to portray protesters as Shi'ite extremists in the pay of Iran, which they were not. But you do the same of the Syrian rebels - Al Nusra exist but most Syrian rebels are just the same as Bahraini rebels. All the things you listed as being true of Bahrain are also true of Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Egypt should simply attack Israel at all times and at every opportunity?

 

So how would that save Palestinian babies?.

 

Or they could live in the real world like they do and deal with the reality that Israel is a neighbour and they will have to live together even if they are not comfortable with that.

No Egypt shouldn't attack Israel at every opportunity but if they supported the Palestinians then Israel would think twice before attacking the Palestinians at every opportunity they get. It's the fact that Israel goes unchallenged that they can get away with occupying Palestinian territory and annexing yet ever more land in east Jerusalem and the west bank without pressure or resistance from Egypt and other arab countries. Not to mention being armed to the teeth by the US and having the US wield their veto at the UN security council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if the Palestinians (and Hezbollah) would stop providing "the opportunity" then it would be better all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Egypt shouldn't attack Israel at every opportunity but if they supported the Palestinians then Israel would think twice before attacking the Palestinians at every opportunity they get. It's the fact that Israel goes unchallenged that they can get away with occupying Palestinian territory and annexing yet ever more land in east Jerusalem and the west bank without pressure or resistance from Egypt and other arab countries. Not to mention being armed to the teeth by the US and having the US wield their veto at the UN security council.

 

Attacking the Palestinians at every opportunity? 

Wow someone should report this. 

Suppose you have seen an online copy of Israel's plan 'operation: kill em all'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017