Real World Event Discussions

Russia invades ...

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 05:41
VIEWED: 21925
PAGE 4 of 20

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:58 PM

Quote:
Again, not a trick question, G. _SIGNY
No, it's just a really, really dumb & obvious question

Which you have had a remarkably hard time answering, and STILL haven't answered. So maybe it's not so "obvious" after all!

Quote:
and you're following assumptions are sooooo naive it's hard to have a serious response. Would you even understand if I gave one?

I dunno. When you answer my question, maybe I can tell.

Quote:
Would you even care? No, you've shown little interest in understanding what other people have to offer.

And you've shown ZERO interest in what I've had to offer, and frankly, I've brought a lot more to the table. When I posted this very thread, you were convinced ( convinced, I tell you!) that it was a mere "distraction" from Ukraine! You were ready to ignore and dismiss it. If I hadn't brought it up, it would have taken you two weeks to realize that it was a significant event. And amazingly, that's about how long it took for you to figure it out. (The dates on the various threads prove my point.)

For comparison, in this thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60015 you and your friends do EXACTLY what I predicted. Even my prediction didn't dissuade you from fulfilling your internally-driven mandate: you laughed like hyenas in a trash dump. But, did you bring one insight, one idea, one fact to the table?

No.

In two weeks you and your friends have failed to add one insight, one fact, one piece of relevant information. Failed.

Quote:
You've been ignoring my questions for over a year.

Liar.

Quote:
Go China!

Since you have done everything possible to ignore the very question that you, yourself posed on the topic of Syria - trailed every red herring and thrown every insult possible, I'm going to ask it again ...

IF THERE ARE "NO OPTIONS" IN SYRIA (OR THE MIDEAST IN GENERAL) ACCORDING TO YOU, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?

I put it in caps so maybe you'll answer the question this time. Don't forget, I'm just asking you a question based on your very own assumptions.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:06 PM

G, I see you nipped in for a moment to post a distracting thread, and ducked out again. And once again failed to answer the question that you yourself posed: If there is "no" solution to the Mideast (according to you) should ANY non-Mideastern intervene in the form of invasions, bombing, no-fly zones, "safe" zones, etc?

I may seem harsh, but I credit you with good intentions. But you have one fatal flaw, which I've been trying to point out over and over (and over and over): You think that anything western politicians and media propose, by definition, is good and for your (our) benefit.

You have not applied the appropriate mistrust that's required to evaluate ALL politicians and media - western, eastern, middle, what-have-you.

MOST politicians, and NO media, are devoid of any moral sense whatsoever. If TPTB think there is money to be made in jihadism, they'll go wherever the money is. I hope you keep that in mind for the future.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:58 PM

Quote:
Again, not a trick question, G. _SIGNY
No, it's just a really, really dumb & obvious question

Which you have had a remarkably hard time answering, and STILL haven't answered. So maybe it's not so "obvious" after all!

Quote:
and you're following assumptions are sooooo naive it's hard to have a serious response. Would you even understand if I gave one?

I dunno. When you answer my question, maybe I can tell.

Quote:
Would you even care? No, you've shown little interest in understanding what other people have to offer.

And you've shown ZERO interest in what I've had to offer, and frankly, I've brought a lot more to the table. When I posted this very thread, you were convinced ( convinced, I tell you!) that it was a mere "distraction" from Ukraine! You were ready to ignore and dismiss it. If I hadn't brought it up, it would have taken you two weeks to realize that it was a significant event. And amazingly, that's about how long it took for you to figure it out... about as long as the MSM harped on it, plus a couple of days of denial on admitting its significance. (The dates on the various threads prove my point.)

For comparison, in this thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60015 you and your friends do EXACTLY what I predicted. Even my prediction didn't dissuade you from fulfilling your internally-driven mandate: you laughed like hyenas in a trash dump. But, did you bring one insight, one idea, one fact to the table?

No.

In two weeks you and your friends have failed to add one insight, one fact, one piece of relevant information. Failed.

Quote:
You've been ignoring my questions for over a year.

Liar.

Quote:
Go China!

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 27, 2015 10:26 PM

And now for a different POV. (No representation is made of the author's accuracy)

Quote:
It must be said that with all the stories, rumours and misinformation that have been spread around throughout the “War On Syria”, Al-Manar has been a benchmark of credibility.

In order of reliability, there are four Arabic media outlets that have been reporting and “leaking” news. Al-Manar had been the most reliable, followed by the Lebanese daily Assafir, then the Lebanese online daily Al-Akhbar, and Al-Mayadin.

Al-Manar has broken many news, and in our role as pro-Syrian activists, Intibah (my wife) and myself have taken upon ourselves the task of translating some key Arabic reports and relevant articles for the English-speaking world.

One of those stories was about the “secret visit” of Bandar to Moscow and his attempts to both bribe and threaten President Putin. Our translation of the story was initially snubbed until it became widely accepted as public knowledge.

Another big story, perhaps the biggest of them all, was a translation of an Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar report that explained the events following the false flag chemical weapons attack that accused the Syrian Army of using chemical weapons in East Ghouta. ... The justification for intervention therefore had to be very substantial and convincing; a scenario worthy of a false flag, and that false flag was the East Ghouta chemical attack.

Let’s recap those nail-biting days of August 2013. A chemical attack on Syrian civilians was conjured up by Bandar with the help of Mossad. The Syrian Army was accused of the massacre. Photos of dead children were reminiscent of the chemical massacres of Saddam against the Kurds. The Western media news became fixated on the subject, replaying it repeatedly in order to generate a global wave of anti-Assad hostility. ... For the USA, it was THE big opportunity it had been waiting for, and for so long, in order to justify bombing the hell out of Damascus with or without a UNSC mandate. America was finally ready to blast Syria with an unprecedented ferocity that would reflect its hatred, anger and the impatience it exercised in the waiting process.

But again, this was not to happen.

After missing out on being able to bomb Syria in February 1991, in April 2003 (after the invasions of Iraq), and again in October 2011 and February 2012 (after the UNSC Russian/Chinese Vetoes), America was still unable to bomb Syria even after the whole Eastern Ghouta kerfuffle of August 2013.

In fact, in September 2013, America did attack Syria, but this attack ended as soon as it started. When Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar published the news and we translated it into English (1), it was widely discounted. It is still not taken very seriously by everyone, but all evidence on the ground and the changes in the stands of America and its European allies are all indicative that this story holds ground.

America fired two missiles at Syria over the Mediterranean. [This was when Russian ships were athwart the Syrian coast- SIGNY] They were spotted by Russia, and one missile was intercepted and destroyed, and the other was hacked into and diverted into the sea.

Russian diplomacy was quick to report the action of its military to the Americans in an attempt to keep this story hush hush, to prevent further escalation, and to avoid needless embarrassment. [To the USA- SIGNY] As an outcome, Russia brokered the Syrian chemical weapons disposal deal as a face-saver for America, so that America did not seem like it backed down about bombing Syria.

... What is ironic is that even some friends of Syria are unaware of the fact that America has actually been unable to bomb Syria for over two decades...

... No one is claiming that America is yet serious about fighting ISIS, and this has been said before and needs to be said again. The only effective way to fight ISIS militarily is to cut off its supply lines first, and then to work in conjunction with the Syrian Army.

... The Russian role has been extremely significant in avoiding an all-out American

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Monday, September 28, 2015 12:04 AM

G, you ask stupid questions. I didn't want to bother answering them, but here are my answers:

Quote:
1. I wonder how free they feel about giving their honest opinion?

Actually, that's not a question, it's a statement. Putting a question mark at the end of statement doesn't make it a question. "I wonder what the whether is going to be like tomorrow" is not a question, it's a statement that I wonder about something. AM I supposed to answer your questions (to yourself) for you?

Quote:
2. I wonder if they feel it matters even having an opinion?

Ditto

Quote:
3. Or if having an opinion openly expressed is dangerous to them and their family?

Ditto

Quote:
YOU NOT ONLY DON'T ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS, YOU DON'T ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION MORE THAN ONCE.

If I DON'T answer "direct questions", then how can I possibly not answer them more than once? Doesn't that imply that I've answered them once already?

Quote:
4. SECOND ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO ANSWER:
You also conveniently ignore the question of just how free people in Assad controlled areas feel about expressing themselves honestly. Maybe it's the "honest" part of that you have trouble with?

Not at all. That's my answer!

Quote:
5, 6. You asked one person? What if that person is the equivalent of a Syria's Auraptor?

It's more than you managed!

Quote:
7. Again, I think you only prove why your pov can't ever be trusted. Having said that, yes, without Assad there will be a vacuum and more deaths. Maybe that's why we haven't ever stepped over that line and wiped him out?

Despite the fact that the USA has reiterated over and over that "Assad must go"? Ginned up a chemical attack to provide the USA with the rationale to start bombing, and backed off only when Russian ships intervened?

Quote:
8. I’m not seeing one thing I've said that flatters the US - please clarify (or make something up).

I could point to the immediate statement above, which implies a heretofore unseen foreign policy wisdom.

Quote:
9. No it isn't - it's never as simple as that, not in the ME - or maybe you hadn't noticed any history?

I noticed history. That's my answer.

So, based on the history that YOU noticed, which leads you to conclude there are NO options in the Mideast, what is your proposal? What should happen next?

Quote:
YOU NOT ONLY DON'T ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS, YOU DON'T ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION MORE THAN ONCE.

I think I pointed out the logical flaw to that already, because
(1) If I answered a question once, why should I answer it again, and
(2) If I answered a question once, clearly I've answered it and can't be accused of not answering your questions. Maybe I'm being way too literal, but this sentence, which you capitalized and repeated more than once, clearly means something to you but makes no sense to me.

Quote:
10. SECOND ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO ANSWER::
Also:

"I'm not seeing one thing I've said that flatters the US - please clarify (or make something up)."

I just responded to your statement, which BTW was not a question.

Quote:
I see you have chosen deflection from your worn out bag of tricks. Any little bit of truth or honesty hidden away in there?

Yep, there IS truth and honesty "in there"! That's my answer!

Quote:
As to your question, I did answer it, here it is again:
Only an idiot thinks there are actual answers and solutions in the ME. The political landscape shifts as much as the sands of the desert (omg what great metaphor). You're pretty much screwed whatever you do if you are there.

And so what is your suggestion?

Quote:
Maybe, as you have shown over and over, you just can't understand the answer?

If I assume what your answer is, you'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth. So instead of me ASSUMING t

SIGNYM

Monday, September 28, 2015 12:28 AM

And I point out again, neither you nor your friends have brought much insight or news to the discussion, and the one point that you HAVE made (there are no options in the mideast) is the one point you refuse to clarify. You've spent all of your time and capital letters reacting to my posts and attacking me directly.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:01 AM

"You've spent all of your time and capital letters reacting to my posts and attacking me directly."

Well, at least G lost the capital letters.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:53 PM

Quote:

G, you ask stupid questions. I didn't want to bother answering them... - SIGNY

I say you don't answer my questions and you call me a liar. So I prove you wrong ten times in this thread alone - GSTRING

Liar.

Six of the "questions" weren't even questions, they were statements. In two of those (non-questions, repeated) you didn't even BOTHER to use a question mark:

(1)I wonder how does "...please clarify (or make something up" rates as a question?
Oh, BTW- According to you, I just asked you a question.

(2) Please clarify, or make something up!
That was another GSTRING-style "question", in case you hadn't noticed.

Three of those "questions" were of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety, which people around these parts used to be smart enough to realize were invalid.

Quote:
"Maybe it's the "honest" part you have trouble with?"
"maybe you hadn't noticed any history?"
"Any little bit of truth or honesty hidden away in there?"

(3) Say, GSTRING, do you have a problem asking honest questions?

Another "question" of th GSTRING variety.

So, out of those ten supposed questions, two of them were real questions (and one of them was actually TWO questions) but I wonder about that third question ... Saying "maybe" and then putting a question mark at the end, it's a little like "I wonder"...

(4) Maybe it could be interpreted as a statement?
Lookit that! Another GSTRING-style "question"!

There, four "questions", just like the ones you "asked". Now, please answer them.

BTW, I did ask you an honest, consequential, grammatically-correct question, which you still haven't answered. It's an important one too, and it simply follows on something you yourself said:

You said

Quote:
Only an idiot thinks there are actual answers and solutions in the ME.

My question to you ... and it was an honest, real question, with a question mark and everything ... was

Quote:
If that's the case, should the USA (or the EU, or perhaps anyone from outside of the region) be involved in any way? Should any foreign nation be involved in bombing/ invading/ creating no-fly zones/creating "safe zones"/sending arms and intel to any nation in the ME?

If you can manage to squeeze out an answer, it'll move the discussion forward. But you've been avoiding this train of thought like the plague and I'll bet you don't answer it this time either!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 4:49 PM

Ghassan Kadi on Syria

http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-1-the
-islamist-american-love-hate-quagmire-facts-and-myths/
http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-2-the
-plot/
http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-3-a-u
sa-unable-to-bomb-syria/

I know a real-life Mideast expert, a journalist who learned Hebrew and lived in Israel and Egypt for many years and who still maintains contacts there (both journalistic and regular citizens). Although I can't vouch for the accuracy of the above statements, HE said they were very accurate and complete, an excellent history and analysis of Syria, it's relationship with Lebanon, al Qaida, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, IS etc. So I recommend that you look into them, you may not agree with everything that is said but you will come away with a lot more information or at least a lot more questions. And, of course, if you have any information to the contrary (information, not opinion, allegations, or conjecture) please post it.

So like I said, a lot of this was unfamiliar.

But Kadi did touch on something I've been wondering about for quite a while, and that was how much IS was under USA control, and whether(or not) the USA and Saudi Arabia were truly done with IS.

As described, the real mastermind behind IS was Bandar ("Bush") bin Sultan, former head of Saudi Security. He thought (according to Kadi) that since he was bankrolling IS, he controlled them.

He even threatened Putin with an unleashing of terrorism against the Sochi Olympics (I even posted about that here). But somewhere along the way, Bandar bin Sultan was stripped of his title and power, and sent as a "Special Envoy" to Jordan, a distinct demotion from the inner halls of USA and Saudi Arabia. (I also posted about that here). So some of what Kadi talks about tracks with what I've previously read.

According to Kadi, you can bankroll IS, but they will never do what you say because they're not motivated by money, they really are religious fanatics. When the USA failed to bomb Syria (AGAIN) after the IS-prompted chemical attack on Ghouta (2013), IS got disgusted with American failure to support them with bombing attacks on Assad's forces. In addition, since they had developed their own source of money (oilfields in northern Iraq and northern Syria, laundered by Turkey) they felt free to tell Saudi Arabia to piss off. That's when Bandar was removed from his post: He had failed to keep control of his pet terrorists, which became a potential threat to the corrupt Saudi regime.

Saudi Arabia STILL thinks of al Qaida/ al Nusra as its friends. Apparently, so do some high-ranking ex- and present- military officers and State Dept officials. That's why you hear some high-ranking American military people (like Gnl Petraeus) calling for support of al Qaida:

Because al Qaida are the "friendly" Saudi terrorists who helped us in Afghanistan and Chechnya and potentially Syria (that was the plan, anyway. Not saying anything about Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan tho. Prolly considered acceptable collateral damage.) ...

But IS is the dangerous genie that Saudi Arabia let out of the bottle.

Anyway, what I got out of the articles is that there really is a split between Saudi Arabia and IS and between IS and the USA. Plus a lot of history and background. If you want to know more, read the articles.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:56 PM

Syria and Yemen may have been the "bridge too far" for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to some sources, there is a letter circulating among the Saudi royal family, some of whom are anxious to depose the current King Salman. They're unhappy with the plan to drive oil prices down plus the expenses of running a war in Yemen and Syria.

Between the lost revenues and the increased expenses, even the Saudi coffers are running bare. Apparently, you CAN overspend, even if you've got billions and billion in the bank!

Here is one source but there are many others which say the same thing

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/saudi-royal-calls-regime-
change-letters-leadership-king-salman

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.