This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary "Rebels" Revealed

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

Needless to say, the official spin on events has no mention of this ulterior motive, and the popular, propaganda machine, especially from those powers supporting the Syrian "rebels" which include Israel, the US and the Arabian states tries to generate public and democratic support by portraying Assad as a brutal, chemical weapons-using dictator, in line with the tried and true script used once already in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is Russia (and to a lesser extent China: for China's strategic interests in mid-east pipelines, read here), which has been portrayed as the main supporter of the "evil" Assad regime, and thus eager to preserve the status quo without a military intervention. Such attempts may be for naught especially with the earlier noted arrival of US marines in Israel, and the imminent arrival of the Russian Pacific fleet in Cyprus (which is a stone throw away from Syria) which may catalyze a military outcome sooner than we had expected.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.

From the FT:

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

 

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

 

In dozens of interviews with the FT conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.

Just as Egypt and Libya had their CIA Western-funded mercenaries fighting the regime, so Qatar is paying for its own mercenary force.

The small state with a gargantuan appetite is the biggest donor to the political opposition, providing generous refugee packages to defectors (one estimate puts it at $50,000 a year for a defector and his family) and has provided vast amounts of humanitarian support.

 

In September, many rebels in Syria’s Aleppo province received a one off monthly salary of $150 courtesy of Qatar. Sources close to the Qatari government say total spending has reached as much as $3bn, while rebel and diplomatic sources put the figure at $1bn at most.

 

For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels who overthrew Muammer Gaddafi in 2011.

That, sadly, is not even close to half the story. Recall from Qatar: Oil Rich and Dangerous, posted nearly a year ago, which predicted all of this:

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested?  A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.

 

It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets.  In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.

 

Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG.  The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.

 

A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe.  The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income.  Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas.  Only Al-Assad is in the way.

 

Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood.  It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime.  Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.

 

A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad.  Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center.  “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.

 

The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term.  At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields.  In any case, Al-Assad must go.  There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.

Some more on the strategic importance of this key feeder component to the Nabucco pipeline, and why Syria is so problematic to so many powers. From 2009:

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

 

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

 

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

 

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study. It recently extended the ban for two years to 2013.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the green part of the proposed pipeline: as explained above, it simply can't happen as long as Russia is alligned with Assad.

So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

As for the Syrian "rebels", who else is helping them? Why the US and Israel of course. And with the Muslim Brotherhood "takeover" paradigm already tested out in Egypt, it is only a matter of time.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

Perhaps it is Putin's turn to tell John Kerry he prefer if Qatar was not "supplying assistance to Syrian mercenaries"?

What is worse, and what is already known is that implicitly the US - that ever-vigilant crusader against Al Qaeda - is effectively also supporting the terrorist organization:

The relegation of Qatar to second place in providing weapons follows increasing concern in the West and among other Arab states that weapons it supplies could fall into the hands of an al-Qaeda-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusrah.

Yet Qatar may have bitten off more than it can chew, even with the explicit military Israeli support, and implicit from the US. Because the closer Qatar gets to establishing its own puppet state in Syria, the closer Saudi Arabia is to getting marginalized:

But though its approach is driven more by pragmatism and opportunism, than ideology, Qatar has become entangled in the polarised politics of the region, setting off a wave of scathing criticism. “You can’t buy a revolution,” says an opposition businessman.

 

Qatar’s support for Islamist groups in the Arab world, which puts it at odds with its peers in the Gulf states, has fuelled rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Qatar’s ruling emir, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, “wants to be the Arab world’s Islamist (Gamal) Abdelnasser,” said an Arab politician, referring to Egypt’s fiery late president and devoted pan-Arab leader.

 

Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition. Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.

 

Recent tensions over the opposition’s election of an interim prime minister who won the support of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has also driven Saudi Arabia to tighten its relationship to the political opposition, a job it had largely left in the hands of Qatar.

What Saudi Arabia wants is not to leave the Syrian people alone, but to install its own puppet regime so it has full liberty to dictate LNG terms to Qatar, and subsequently to Europe.

Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar’s state minister for foreign affairs, who handles its Syrian policy, dismissed talk of rivalry with the Saudis and denied allegations that Qatar’s support for the rebels has splintered Syria’s opposition and weakened nascent institutions.

 

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said every move Qatar has made, has been in conjunction with the Friends of Syria group of Arab and western nations, not alone. “Our problem in Qatar is that we don’t have a hidden agenda so people start fixing you one,” he says.

Sadly, when it comes to the US (and of course Israel), it does have a very hidden agenda: one that involves lying to its people about what any future intervention is all about, and the fabrication of narrative about chemical weapons and a bloody regime hell bent on massacring every man, woman and child from the "brave resistance." What they all fail to mention is that all such "rebels" are merely paid for mercenaries of the Qatari emir, whose sole interest is to accrue even more wealth even if it means the deaths of thousands of Syrians in the process.

A bigger read through of the events in Syria reveals an even more complicated web: one that has Qatar facing off against Syria, with both using Syria as a pawn in a great natural resource chess game, and with Israel and the US both on the side of the petrodollars, while Russia and to a lesser extent China, form the counterbalancing axis and refuse to permit a wholesale overthrow of the local government which would unlock even more geopolitical leverage for the gulf states.

Up until today, we would have thought that when push comes to shove, Russia would relent. However, with the arrival of a whole lot of submarines in Cyprus, the games just got very serious. After all the vital interests of Gazprom - perhaps the most important "company" in the world - are suddenly at stake.

Finally, one wonders just what President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan were really talking about behind the scenes.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:17 | Link to Comment kill switch
kill switch's picture

I should be shocked????

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:26 | Link to Comment quintago
quintago's picture

There's a historically relevant reason we support rebels which have proven to be savages and whose execution style killings are well advertised. Natural Resources. Unfortunately for the men and women of our armed forces, Syria will not fall under the leadership of the idiotic Arabs and Turks.

The Israelis see the writing on the wall, and not surprisingly don't want the extremists in power. That's why they attacked the Syrian military base; they didn't want those weapons falling into the hands of the rebels.

Ironic how Israel and Iran are on the same side on this one. They have common interests here, along with the Russians who don't need competition for their gas product.

This is one conflict that is extremely underestimated with regards to its potential to turn into a regional conflageration of epic proportions.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:00 | Link to Comment RMolineaux
RMolineaux's picture

Quintago  -  I believe you are mistaken in your analysis.  Israel's air attacks so far have been against sophisticated weapons temporarily stored in Syria in transit to Hezbollah, the Shiite force in southern Lebanon which fought Israel to a standstill in a recent conflict.  Hesbollah has been supporting the existing Syrian government.  Israel's intentions are not clear, as they may prefer to support the "known devil" Assad rather than unknown islamist rebels.  Israel knows it can never occupy Syria, but may be attempting, along with the US, to install a new government on the Jordanian model.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:27 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

FTFM.  Follow the fucking money.  Or gas/oil which is usually one and the same.  The rest is propaganda for the sheep.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:03 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

same as it ever was

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:49 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This is not my beautiful oil field!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:29 | Link to Comment MeMadMax
MeMadMax's picture

There's a religous aspect to this that is guiding the pawns on the ground as well. The general population in quatar and syria are predominately Sunni. But however, syria is led by the shiites, and quatar has a sunni kingdom like saudi arabia.

The sunni and shiites kill each other more than what the americans, russians or any other country have, combined...

I say let them kill each other off.......

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:39 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

That makes slightly more sense than the pipeline theory.

What all the pipeline theory affectionados and follow-the-money argumentation seems to forget is that massively destabilizing a region like this leads to one thing;

A massively destabilized region (Libya is just a foretaste of much worse that would occur in Syria).

Now try building and operating a pipeline economically and efficiently and reliably in the aftermath, and see what happens.

Sorry to complicate such a pretty thesis.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:31 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

How much geopolitical expertise do the Qatarians, Saudis, et al really have? How much nation building and counter-insurgency have they dealt with? You may be overestimating the competence of some of the players involved.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:10 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

But that is the very point I made above (and see further down the thread).

The Qataris and Saudis would not be able to deal with the destabilization and damage they created, let alone build and operate a pipeline amid it to supply gas or oil reliably to Europe through it, and protect it and its workers.

At least not for a very long time.

So why would they or are they spending $3 billion defeating their own alleged aim and economic/greed motivation?

They aren't, it makes no economic sense, unless their aim is not (at least not initially) about building a pipeline.

So can we look at the full range of motives, because there is at least one.

[I also don't for one second think its humanitarian sympathy for the Syrian people in operation, have you seen the videos of what their mongrel freedom fighters are doing to people?]

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:39 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

I also don't for one second think its humanitarian sympathy for the Syrian people in operation, have you seen the videos of what their mongrel freedom fighters are doing to people?

You mean the cannibalism, or have they further descended to depths of depravity which approach those of Vichy DC?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:16 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I understand what you're trying to say here, and I agree that on-face it doesn't make sense, BUT... I recall someone in the Bush administration claiming that they'd be fine if everything turned to crap vis a vis the Afghan war.  I believe that the underlying thought is that things are/were already tenuous and were likely only going to get worse, and that one is better to stir the chaos in the direction that is most beneficial for oneself.

Iraq was more about control than in freeing up oil for the markets.  That is, in the short-term oil flow wasn't a biggie; what mattered is that one had their hands on the valves and not some "other."  This is pretty much Russia's stance with Cyprus: it was more important to hold the Cyprus NG reserves off-line than to open up the valves.  If the Russians lose the Cyprus gambit their control over sales to Europe will, eventually*, drop significantly.  This is the same for Qatar.

* Sales are going to keep going down anyway because of continued contractionary forces.  Margins will get toasted.  You know, all the result of economies of scale in reverse.  All the reason why holding on to existing sales levels is SO important.

It's the battle for supremacy of the heroin dealers.  And when it comes down to only one?  And when everyone becomes an addict and then all start to teeter on the most probably outcome of collapse (the outcome for the heroin addict isn't good)?  Strength through exhaustion!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:44 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Good point Seer, the Machiavellian aspects may be part of it. Looking at it objectively, there's a huge sectarian element in what's occurring that is rapidly intensifying, but that of course can be a tool used to get the control you mentioned.

Thing is Hezbollah are clever and yet they've been drawn right into this, out of the need to protect their arms sources and routes and thus the Shia status-quo in Damascus. I'd love to fully know what Hezbollah really makes of who and what are behind this 'rebellion'. I've been monitoring their comments and so far they seem to be saying its firstly Israel, then the US/NATO money and training/support and political cover, then the Gulf-State Sunni and Lebanese sectarian fighters have moved in, already intent on wiping out all Shia and Christians from the country, with the Turks and Kurds ready to slice off whatever they can in the north and north east. And all the while, Turkey pretends to not be ratcheting-up and encouraging the violence, whenever it can. 

And this general Hezbollah view, is actually a lot like what RT have also been saying, for months. So are they wrong? Frankly, I have no trouble seeing Israel as being a major actor, instigator and enabler. Israel absolutely wants to eliminate Shia Hezbollah in both south and north east Lebanon, and how better to do that than to set up a full-blown sectarian mass-slaughter, to try and take down all the Shia in Syria and Lebanon, over the next few years of fighting?

I suspect that's how both Damascus, and Russians, and Iran view what's happening.

In which case, what are the Russians, and the Iranians, and potentially the Chinese, going to do about this?

I don't think anyone on the ground is thinking in terms of the geopolitics of pipelines. They all know that its coming down to an epic Shia verses Sunni slaughter, while Israel is set to gain massive strategic benefits from such an ultra-violent slaughter of Shia in Syria and Lebanon. For Israel, this is the next best thing to attacking Iran! And just like Hezbollah were inevitably sucked-in to Syria, the Iranians also will be sucked-in to Syria.

This is very dangerous, in my view.

Then the Russians and Chinese will draw a line, and anything can happen.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:25 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

It all comes down to survival, and the world currently depends on the "global economy," in which case nearly all negotiations are based on business dealings.

The folks holding shoulder-rockets are merely marketing fluff.  Oh, sure, they DO exist, but these folks, all this extraneous stuff, is about driving the best deal.

I don't think anyone on the ground is thinking in terms of the geopolitics of pipelines. They all know that its coming down to an epic Shia verses Sunni slaughter, while Israel is set to gain massive strategic benefits from such an ultra-violent slaughter of Shia in Syria and Lebanon. For Israel, this is the next best thing to attacking Iran! And just like Hezbollah were inevitably sucked-in to Syria, the Iranians also will be sucked-in to Syria.

It's not about the people "on the ground."  All have been programmed to do the deeds tasked by their overlords.  Think about Oliver North: the overlords were wanting to capture market in South America (keep the commies out); Ollie and Co. wold proclaim the fighting to be about fighting communism, which at one level WAS correct, but this was only the cloth used to cover the reality that it was not so much about discouraging communism as it was about opening up markets (and, yes, communism doesn't provide for good market opportunities).  This may seem subtle, but it is not.

The POINT is NOT about eliminating others so much as it is about having and controlling resources.  Yes, if one takes resources away from someone else then that clearly leaves the "someone else" in a (more likely) subjugated position.

That tensions are centered in the Israeli/Palestinian struggles cannot be denied.  Further, if one were to really look under the hood one would find that this is all based on resource issues: go ahead, google "Israel water Palestinians"; and we already know that there are tussles for land (also a "resource").

We all get the noise from TPTB and start believing what we hear.  We do NOT get to hear what TPTB are actually saying/planning.  Secularism doesn't have the market cornered as far as a need for resources: ALL power must be able to deliver resources necessary to keep its subjects pacified/controlled.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 15:25 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

Element,

Syria is a perfect demonstration not of geopolitical wrangling but what happens when a tiny minority religious sect gains secular control over the other 90%.   It was a storm waiting to erupt and is only a continuation of the Shia-Sunni slaughter that has continued for centuries.  Neither considers the other to be true Muslims and have acted accordingly.  Islam has yet to undergo a Reformation / rise of religious tolerance.  In fact, in most areas it is getting worse. 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 07:23 | Link to Comment Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

Time to take over Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Their population can join the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia needs toppling before the Fanatics get control. It is tiresome letting The Family finance Fanatics in The West to keep them away from Riyadh and Jeddah and buying up Western politicians as their patsies.

We should offer Iran and Iraq to Russia and China and take The Gulf and Saudi Arabia into The New Empire

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 15:27 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

Look for Saudi Arabia - indeed the entire Middle East - to drop in influence and importance as the US oil comes on line.  What possible reason would we care about primitive, tribal religious fanatics in the desert other than their oil.  I see zero contributions to medicine, engineering, finance, science or entertainment from that part of the world. 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:35 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Element said:

Now try building and operating a pipeline economically and efficiently and reliably in the aftermath, and see what happens.

Sorry to complicate such a pretty thesis.

Yes, rationally it appears to be a foolhardy plan. Fortunately, the murderous emirs that run Gutter, the apostate shayks that run Arabia, and the soulless ghouls that run the US and Israel would never let greed cloud their good judgement.

Every day, the governments of Gutter, Israel, Arabia, and the US work diligently (and successfully) at making themselves objects of hatred for increasing numbers of people around the world. With so many people justifiably motivated to seek revenge, and so many miles of pipelines passing through remote areas, and so many different weapons being gifted to "freedom fighters" in the region, those pipelines will make some juicy targets of opportunity.

I'd be surprised if the net delivery over ten years surpassed the uninterrupted equivalent of what could be delivered through a garden hose.

And that's only half of it. Gutter has been a gleeful participant in the GCC (Gulf Criminal Caliphate) war against Iran for abiding by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When the co-caliphs (US and Israel) decide to attack Iran openly, Iran will respond.

The Iranians have no doubt ascertained that the Liquefied Natural Gas terminals in Gutter, if struck by missiles, would blow up real good.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:54 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I can't argue with what you say, because I can't think of any 'rational' reason for what they're doing, except maybe that they're religious extremist kooks on a crusade to wipe-out apostates and wayward Shiite blasphemers, and maybe some hazy pretension about destiny and virgins, or something. But more likely just scads of $$$, and bragging-rights at the Mosque.

For sure Iran is going to smash the Gutter economy and state at some point given what they are doing. And if we had any decency we'd stop them right now, but our Govts are playing the ultimate game of divide 'n conquered, and the average Arab is not bright enough to realize they have bought into a lethal mixture of BS, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:27 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I think that you're shouldering WAY too much of this on religious divides.

The world is finite.  Because of this there is a limited amount of natural resources.  Most in the ME are one-trick-ponies, in which case their fossil fuels are VERY precious.  The rest of the world which is addicted to fossil fuels, and is broke, is doing what most junkies in need of a fix do- attempt to rob others.  When these reserves drop the one-trick-ponies collapse: the riders/heroin junkies move on to other one-trick-ponies, until, that is, there are no more.

Yeah, there's greed; there's religious views; there's a variety of sub-plots going on.  But, these ALL ride on top of the MAIN DRIVER: we all live on natural resources; our current model DEMANDS fossil fuels.

Be careful of the images that are sewn into minds, as they are fabrications to weave you into a deception, a deception that one is never aware they are part of.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:06 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Sure, I know that's correct, no question, nevertheless, it is being organised and expressed, at this point, along clear lines of a sectarian conflict (for now). That can certainly change.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:51 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Maybe it's me, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the players here...

I am commenting based on what I see as the TRUE, rather than MARKETED, reason for these tensions.  There are tons of different marketing stories, but really only ONE true story.  By "true" I am implying that it passes the logic test.

TRUE: Food, Water and Shelter are fundamentals.

Beliefs: People Have to have iCrap

Under "Beliefs" we have what boils down to marketing propaganda.  I will certainly not dispute that many people "on the ground" will make assertions of beliefs and act upon them.  This, of course, does NOT make such assertions true (only thing logically true would be that they believe such, not that it IS such).

The MARKETED story was WMD in Iraq, and this resulted in people "on the ground" signing up to fight "ragheads."  George Washington (of ZH contributor fame) has clearly documented the stated TRUTH by MANY top leaders.

So, it is my contention that the "leaders," the ones who ultimately push the go-buttons (for war) are driven to do so based on strategic reasons having to do with resources and that they SELL such actions based on "beliefs" (marketing fluff, which may or may not be backed by long-running story-lines).

I'd be curious whether anyone could find an example of a war in which case the victor didn't partake of any of he spoils.  I suspect that this could happen, though I find it far more likely that any given war has the victor sucking up spoils.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 17:02 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Seer, you constantly make that point and has any one argued that it isn't so, at a fundamental level? Not that I've seen. To me the resources issue goes without saying, its obvious for all human beings. But it doesn't actually explain much of what happens, and why wars develop in the way that they do.

The Resources argument is much too simplistic and broad-brush to explain almost any of what is happening, day to day, what is actually motivating people to act. For instance, I could rightly say, "Don't you know that during a war the vital resources of life needed to keep one living often plummets, drastically, and stays low or at unsurvivable levels for extended periods?"

So where's the "resource-fight" logic now? So why even start, and then further intensify wars, in a step-wise fashion when it actually removes and eliminates the resources you need now to even live, and wrecks the people and places that you care about deeply?

So "resources", as an argument, does not explain the warfare event itself. It doesn't actually explain almost any of why the war is happening in the way that it does, but that's the understanding level you'd need to be a 'seer', of where it's going.

(BTW, TPTB's packaging and presentation is certainly not what I'm interested in, just the reverse)

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 06:45 | Link to Comment Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Humans don't ned any reason to want to kill each other.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:52 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Now you've done it, you've brought Ned into this thing.  Damn you!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:38 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

"Peak Oil" and so many scarcity memes are used to control people. Oil is the second most abundant liquid on the planet, second only to water. Research Russian abiotic oil and gas production. Research the fact that oil fields are 'popping up' in new places all over the world.

they destablize the Middle East and Central Asia in order to disrupt the flow of that on which they base their fiat money (the 'petro-dollar').  Its the reason why they tried to push the 'global warming' fraud.  If oill iisnt really scarce, you can try to limit its use by saying CO2, which we all breath out - is a poison.  They have dumbed down people in public schools long enough to have such an obvious lie be accepted by too many of them.

The West created Al Qeada and runs them. They are using Al Qeada in Syria now and made sure they got anti aircraft missiles. This is tied into the whole Benghazi affair and why their was a stand down. Hint:  missiles, ambassador, kill the messenger

Some people really need to get up to speed on this stuff. The information is all out there. Thats why they hate the internet.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:42 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Oil is the second most abundant liquid on the planet, second only to water. Research Russian abiotic oil and gas production.

Why yes, yes of course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQMpOIHzzw

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:02 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

lol   knee jerk reaction to what youve always been 'taught' ?

From USAF Col Fletcher Prouty - - - liason officer to CIA at highest levels of US government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stnMHgEUrnc

Do some further research on this topic including the recent work by F William Engdahl and the Russian research I mentioned.

Particularly amusing is the YouTube interviews of Col Prouty where he talks about a petroleum conference he attended with a scientific genius who smashed the arguments of the brain washed geologists who only knew how to parrot what theyd 'learned'

It doesnt take much brains to be a parrot.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:03 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Do some further research on flow rates and you might learn why abiotic oil doesn't need to be disproven to be rendered irrelevant.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:07 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

So what point are you trying to make ?  You believe the 'Peak Oil' meme ?  How about 'Global Warming' ?  How is abiotic oil 'irrelevant' ?  What are your sources ?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:21 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

It is not a matter of belief, (belief is for the desperate), it is a matter of evidence. (BTW, I've corresponded directly with Beloslav and Tassos long before all the lunatics on the internet got interested in the abiotic oil theory-fad).

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:50 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"Peak oil" is based on the notion that the planet is finite.

Do you believe that the planet is infinite?

Do you believe in basic math, exponential functions?

People will look to profit on any side of a trade.  This doesn't make them bad OR good.  I still believe that the market forces DO win out.  Those on the "losing" side conjure up all sorts of cover reasons for their failures, as they need to mute any pain/rage in their investors, and or continue to solicit for investors (could be a scheme- all ARE until there's a realized and proven production output).

Nothing will replace the existing fossil fuels as an energy source allowing for growth.  This means that when conventional fossil fuels hit decline (which they will because the planet is finite) that is it for growth.  It does NOT mean that some other fuel source won't exist, it just means that any such source wouldn't be able to provide for growth, and, there's a possibility that it just is not available in sufficient quantity to achieve economies-of-scale positive margins to support sustained production.

Abiotic oil isn't irrelevant, it's just that it's highly unlikely that it could ever provide energy at the levels that today's conventional fossil fuels do, and unlikely that it would be able to provide for continued growth (exponential growth is a dead-end on a finite planet).

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:40 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I'm a geologist HA. If I ever find a mantle-sourced igneous granitic pluton with a liquid hydrocarbon pool within it I'll take the abiotic theory very seriously. But given such has never been found, by anyone, ever, and as those are the rock types that originate from below the earth's crust in the mantle, and that oil reservoirs are never found within them, just brine water and their associated hydrothermal systems, then I don't expect I'll ever loose a job for still thinking abiotic oil is a clearly false theory, and not even an interesting or intelligent one. Oil does not just "pop-up" everywhere, all large reservoirs of oil are found within sedimentary trap structures, not within igneous liquid systems at the tops of plutons, and not in deep-origin volcanics, nor their inclusions either.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:50 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

If youre a Western geologist youre likely already disqualified. It isnt very often that original thinking comes from within the ranks of those who are so good at learning what theyve been taught.

But perhaps you can answer me this. I'd really like to have your viewpoint and I welcome opposing ones well thought out and presented. I'm not a specialist in the field, but logical thought and rational argument are universal, learned skills. They are the foundation on which the scientific method was later built.  I'm not impressed by b.s. or techno-babble designed to intimidate, however. Ad Hominem attacks are boring and a waste of time.  So communicate this in a way that a non-specialist can comprehend. - - - How do you explain extremely deep wells far below where any dinosaurs or other creatures lived ?  Have you read the accounts which attempt to link the volume of oil in existing fields to the amount of organic matter that would have died off and decayed in order to account for the fossil origins theory of oil ?  What is your opinion of this ?  And what is your opinion on the early history of the theory of the fossil origin of oil ?  Do you know that history ?   thanks

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 02:24 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Given you're not a geologist your assessment of geology is not significant, is it? And given I'm at zh this should be an indication I'm not a convention mainstream thinker, more a heretic really. So I'm someone more likely to have a look at abiotic oil theories and assess them according to field-relations, petrology and geochemistry. And I did look into it, about 15 years ago, and concluded it was false. I am aware of deep continental drilling programs, the Russians got down to about 10.4km in about 1989 from memory. I know about what has been found and in what structures. But I don't discuss a wall to wall scientific-jargon filled discipline like geology with anyone who does not even have a basis to understand what is being said. It would be like trying to talk to you in another language. Probably no geologist would talk to you in plain English about it, any more than a surgeon is likely to engage in a technical discussion of operating-room techniques with a checkout girl at the local supermarket. She would have no basis to understand what he was saying. So if you're really interested in the topic, you'll have to get a formal education so you can address and assess that yourself, if you still wish to at that point.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:08 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

Judging by the downarrow you got, and the uparrows the poster above got, ZH is full of couch-geologists who think they know best.

In fact, the place seems full of people smart enough to know a little bit about lots of little things but having nowhere near enough knowledgable about most of them to know just how much they don't know: Dunning-Kruger Effect at it's best.

What is especially interesting (from a sociological and psychological point of view) is to see how so many of them have solved their internal mental conflict of thinking they know a lot and yet knowing little by saying to themselves that having formal training in an area is actually a bad thing and that all formally trained specialists are part of enormous cabals trying to "hide the truth" from everybody else.

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:43 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

It's because we get invisible blinkers from <Gasp!> education, and once you get infected by the <Gasp!> education meme it's all over, you actually get very rapidly more ignorant than before. Only intensive overdosing on YouTube can bring you back to your senses at that point. I've been told by an expert that I'm a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Effect, and I'm inclined to agree, but what do I really know. :)

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:56 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And I sometimes believe that it's got a lot to do with people unknowingly being victims of self-deception, of so not being able to accept some reality that they construct some other non-reality and rationalize it as reality.

About "education," I was just commenting to a friend about a mutual acquaintance's behavior of not accepting information from others- I said that one isn't born knowing things, that in order for things to happen one has to acquire the knowledge/skill/information from someone else.

I find that many people attempt to do battle against what they don't like, arriving poorly armed and using all sorts of excuses for why they really aren't prepared.  I UNDERSTAND the notion of wanting to do battle against something that isn't liked, but I think that most people (everyone?) are WAY better off NOT battling and to instead use their energy to create/do what they think is right.  And I think that the real crux of the issue is that underneath it all the issue has more to do with folks not knowing really HOW to create/do- it's easier to tear something down than to build something.  I don't think that such people could hold up their own creations to the same levels of scrutiny that they apply to others.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:13 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

You're firing on all cylinders tonight Seer.  /thumbs up

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:54 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

" I'm not a specialist in the field, but logical thought and rational argument are universal, learned skills."

Excellent, I agree!

Logical question: Is or is not the planet finite?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:15 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"How do you explain extremely deep wells far below where any dinosaurs or other creatures lived ?"

How do you explain the existence of God?

We can get into a point where there is NO answer.  This mostly happens when we lose track of What Is The Question.

At some point one just has to settle for accepting what IS.  And for those that cannot?  I see no obstructions: people are pretty much free to invest in whatever.

There are claims that there's all kinds of great stuff out on other planets, and while this gets past the problematic issues associated with the FACT that the earth is finite, it still is pretty much meaningless due to basic energy equations (EROEI)- how much energy do you need to assert in order to garner said stuff?

Ask ordinary oil drillers (not the corporate execs or the scientists) what it's like to drill for oil WAY down into the earth.  Deepwater Horizon was something like 35,000' deep.  The equipment and materials necessary for such are put under EXTREME forces (extreme cold and extreme heat).  There ARE limits.  The greater the depths the greater the sophistication of the equipment and materials necessary for extraction.  This also means a LOT more energy costs in the development and manufacture of equipment and materials.

As an investor looking to invest in new energy, please give your best pitch as to why I should invest my money with you instead of say some project to obtain energy sources from another planet?  I need to compare all of this against potential investments in conventional energy.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 03:42 | Link to Comment Nassim
Nassim's picture

Element,

Take a look at the gas pipeline that precipitated the US involvement in Afganistan. Unocal (now part of Chevron) has Karzai as its Afghan partner. Go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

Of course, what you wrote about the security of gas pipelines is quite correct. Go tell that to American politicians.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:42 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I think that sometimes the strategy is not so much to "win" as it is to not "lose."  It's control of turf, and perhaps not so much about the control over the ability to secure a pipeline as much as to not allow the "opposition" to do the same (in this case that would be Russia).

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:56 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Cheers Nassim,

The US Govt is busy with the pullout that you're having when you aren't having a pullout.

Carzeye is going to have his hands full staying alive soon. Stability is not coming back to Afghanistan for years. As soon as the soldiers leave the money is getting pulled from the local economy, and down it will go. But as the war will be officially "over", so the revolution will not be broadcast, etc.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:03 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"Stability is not coming back to Afghanistan for years."

And one has to wonder what "stability" really means here/there!  I suspect that it'll never really be "stable" there given it's perpetual importance as a trade route (Khyber Pass; oil pipelines...).

All that will have been accomplished is to further instill the notion of war.  I'd hope that all NGOs would also disappear (from ALL outside entities, not just the US or the West).

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 09:59 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

None of those countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghan, etc) can be stable for obvious reason - artificial borders and nationhood is trumped by tribe and religion.  Syria was controlled by a tiny religious minority who controlled all the power jobs (army, secret police, intelligence). Afghanistan is truly a tribal culture with no allegiance to central power. Iraq, outside Baghdad, is the same - warlords, tribes, personal armies. It was absurd to think these areas could be "stabile" except throught authoritarian means. 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

Afghan is not a country it is on overlap-zone boredered by  Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia. It is a series of hill tribes that the world passed by and is unevolved

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:00 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

If Syria falls, Jordania will probably be next in line - it's a western pawn regime, and has had more coup attempts than probably all other states in the region combined.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 15:32 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

Jordan has shown that she can be ruthless when required.  When the Palestinians tried to overthrow the kingdom, they did not hesitate to slaughter thousands of their fellow brethren.  I doubt that mood has changed. 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Palestinians are refugees; Jordanian regime has been protected by both the US and SA for being pro-western and a monarchy; if things go other way than expected.. or they no longer are important, they'll be on their own against those they're currently feeding in Syria, US stile.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 09:54 | Link to Comment tango
tango's picture

RMolineaus,  It's been pointed out numerous times to those insisting that Israel is working against Assad that she (and Turkey) wanted more than anything for Assad to stay in power.   LOL   I swear to God, if Assad had made peace with Israel those who treat Assad as a modern George Washington would be foaming at the mouth, assured he was a MOSSAD plant and (of course) they knew it the whole time.   When every event is seen through a puritanical ideological lens then truth comes in second. 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:29 | Link to Comment Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

...and appalled.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:26 | Link to Comment gatorengineer
gatorengineer's picture

in answer to should I be shocked?..... Only if the money isnt ultimately traceable to the CIA.  Then I would be shocked.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:16 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

The CIA is just a front for/to the Chamber of Commerce.  It is, after all, "just business."

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:18 | Link to Comment jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

Probably said it before, we're all getting played here to fight their wars.  There is self-interest of course as there will be sweet deals, but in the end somebody else is winning more and the rest losing.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:23 | Link to Comment johngaltfla
johngaltfla's picture

That's right jonjon but this is old news. As early as the Summer of 2012 hints of GCC funding for weapon purchases from the Libyan stockpile (Under State Dept. and CIA control) were underway.

 

The Other Truth about Benghazi
Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:27 | Link to Comment swmnguy
swmnguy's picture

That's a pretty interesting article.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:36 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Stephens was deleted*.   He'd helped in the overthrow.  He was, in Oliver North fashion, acting as the "good patriot."

* We'll never know who paid the assassin(s).

I think that all the focus on any particular administration misleads from the FACT that these things are not the sole domain of a given "party," rather, they're only the continuing actions of POWER.  One could go back MANY years and take this same basic story-line and plug in other names and locations.

We MUST have oil.  We are ALL part of this.

Wealth is attended with power, by which bargains and oppression, carried on with worldly policy and order, clothes itself with the name of justice and becomes like a seed of discord in the soul. ... So the seeds of war swell and sprout and grow and become strong until much fruit is ripened. ... May we look upon our treasures ... and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions

  - John Woolman, American Quaker, c.1764

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 06:22 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

I've been reading about nutrition for a project my company has and have come across the book "The Omivore's Dilema".

In the context of this discussion the really interesting thing from that book is just how much of the modern industrial food production depends on oil, not just for transportation but also for things like the fertilizers required to be able to grow corn at high-yields (said corn going into everything, from growing of cattle - at an accelerated, non-natural pace - to the HFCS that sweetens sodas) and for many of the artificial food addictives used in processed food. The author of the book calculated that the amount of energy required to produce a fast food meal is roughly 10 times the energy (the calories) contained in that food, with most of that energy coming from oil.

In simple terms, Oil is at the basis of the modern industrial food production in the US.

It's a far larger dimension than just transportation.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:24 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And the sad part is that the "winning" is really only more noose-braiding, for ALL.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:23 | Link to Comment surf0766
surf0766's picture

Old news

#INTIMOGATE

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Grimlock
Grimlock's picture

Qatar World Cup 2022 looking solid. Safe.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:25 | Link to Comment icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

and when they're done in Syria, they will turn on their former sponsors - this script is so old even the dog won't eat it

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:33 | Link to Comment BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture

Let Arabs fight their own wars.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:45 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Boy ain't that the truth.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:51 | Link to Comment Zwelgje
Zwelgje's picture

No, Qatar is not a sovereign state. Their sheik ia a bitch serving Zion. This is not a inter Arab war. Yes, Arab mercenaries fighting the Syrian Arab Army, but this all planned in London, Paris, DC and Telly Vive.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

"Use barbarians to fight barbarians."

 

The Art of War   Sun Tzu 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:58 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

It is historic and academic fact that, according to some historical sources, the Goyim (non-chosen) are part of the barbarians.  Thus Christians and Muslims fighting is a (logical and theological) extension of the 'barbarian' hordes.  If it ain't so, a true Expert needs to speak up.  Reason and facts are always welcome with me.  PC is not.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:00 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Anyone who doesn't speak Greek is a Barbarian, because when they talk, it sounds like "bar bar bar .."

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 04:39 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Perhaps it's not really THEIR wars in the first place?

Anyway... yeah, get the fuck out and let the people that live in these places decide what they want (and allow them to harvest the results).

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:36 | Link to Comment Downtoolong
Downtoolong's picture

Perhaps one day they will take a lesson from the Wall Street strategy book. Fund both sides with enough weapons to blow themselves up, then just move in and take over all power and control from anybody who is left. 

 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:40 | Link to Comment dcohen
dcohen's picture

The conflict in Syria is a web of many complexities with many interests, however, I think one could very easily make the case that it boils down to one simple aim - Israel (and also the US, through it's israeli lobby) want to get to Iran and the way to do that without getting directly involved in the foreplay to get their hands dirty, is to play the Sunnis against the Shiites (an age old set of enemies). To provoke a conflict so large as to create a pretext for direct intervention, removal of the roadblock to Iran which is Syria and Hezbollah, who they need to dismantle (no easy task considering Hezbollah ejected the Israelis from Lebanon in 2000, a major defeat for the IDF, and a great humiliation. Hezbollah repeated their success by once again defeating the clay feet army IDF in 2006, and watching their backs, with their tails between their legs, as they sent them home to Israel once again) Israels detterence strategy was shattered, and uncapable of risking a third defeat from the party of God (Hezbollah), they unleashed their fury on the palestinians in Gaza in 2008, basically shooting fish in a barrell.

But there is a better way, unleash bloodthirsty sunni jihadist with the help of the corrupt arab allies, give to them what belongs to them, and hand us what belongs to us, a gateway for a final attack on Iran, of which Hezbollah is an extended arm. Divide and conquer, and the more the chaos, the better, the more dead on either side, the better, a complete mayhem will give the framework for multiple pretexts to walk in and prepare for the major objective - Iran.

This is, and has always been about Israels fear of Iran, its modernisation (there is nothing Israel fears more than for the arabs to modernise), its rapid unconventional armament capability progress and the influence it might have of the rest of the region around it. (the rest of the reasons outlined in this article, I believe are only side effects of the greed and hatred of the sunni arabs).

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:45 | Link to Comment dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

Here is Pepe Escobar's take on Qatar and the pipelines...

http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-pakistan-syria-pipeline-843/

and Lets not forget that these stinking Neo-cons also want to partition Pakistan

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=203125

 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:12 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

Pepe Escobar!

"Pipelineistan"

He may not have coined the term, but he was the first I heard use it.  Explains a lot of the geo-politics of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:19 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Escobar is THE  go-to guy on all of this.  Had to chuckle over this part:

The strategy spells out a Syria intimately connected with Iranian – and not Qatari – energy flows. Iran-Iraq-Syria is known in the region as the 'friendship pipeline.' Typically, Western corporate media derides it as an 'Islamic' pipeline. (So Saudi pipelines are what, Catholic?) What makes it even more ridiculous is that gas in this pipeline would flow to Syria and then Lebanon –  and from there to energy-starved European markets close by.

 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:56 | Link to Comment Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Okay, say we take down Iran.
Then what? We gonna nation build the fuckin' Persian empire?

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:46 | Link to Comment TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

It's dooubtful they much care about the Persian Empire or even about nation building. These are empires being built but it's their empires, which are more simular to ancient Babylon than anything. The design of empires, as old as man himself, has not changed. Their goals are predictable as are their manners, because it's like history repeating itself. The end to these empires is also predictable.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:06 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

empires of debt slaves. the same reason BP got the US to install the Shah in the 50s- they were going to get kicked out of Iran.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:59 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

... looks down list of things to do...

Ah, here it is, item number "2) Use cheap oil from Iran to help rebuild failing infrastruture (in the US)"

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:04 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

dcohen:

"...is to play the Sunnis against the Shiites (an age old set of enemies)."

Hmmmm, how exactly would they go about doing THAT????

- Ned

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:03 | Link to Comment lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Easy. Put extremists sunnis in power in Syria... they'll massacre the shiites, saying they deserve it because they supported Assad... Assad is shiite but 80%+ of the country is sunni) pissing off Iran and Hezbollah (who are shiites)... spreading the war.

/Winning!

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:57 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

And what's more worrying, is the UN would most probably readily agree to enabling the intermediate indirect political steps required for that to take place.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:52 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

That would surprise you ?  You don't really think the UN is about 'peace' do you ?

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:57 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

You know Assad is Alawite, not Shiite?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:15 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Incorrect, Alawites are Shi'ites:

" ... The Alawites derive their beliefs from the Prophets of Islam, from the Quran, and from the books of the Imams from the Ahlulbayt such as the Nahj al-Balagha by Ali ibn Abu Talib. Alawites are self-described Shi'ite Muslims, and have been recognised as such by Shi'ite authorities such as Ayatollah Khomeini and the influential Lebanese Shi'ite cleric Musa al-Sadr of Lebanon.[43][45] ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 06:08 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Not really - from the same article:

The prominent Sunni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni also issued a fatwah recognizing them as part of the Muslim community in the interest of Arab nationalism.

In fact there's even questions if they qualify at all as muslims:

Some Sunni scholars such as Ibn Kathir, on the other hand, have categorized Alawites as pagans in their religious works and documents.

 Some sources have suggested that the non-Muslim nature of some of the historical Alawite beliefs,...

...Hafiz al-Assad "tried to turn Alawites into 'good' (read Sunnified) Muslims in exchange for preserving a modicum of secularism and tolerance in society."

And (http://www.discoveringislam.org/alawi_sect.htm):

- Part of their Taqqiyya is to adopt the Muslim practices outwardly as explained by an Alawi:

"We are accepted as Muslims because we have worked hard to be accepted. We have copied the Sunnis. Some Alawis cover their hair and wear hijab, either for personal reasons or when they marry Sunnis. We don't eat ham, and even when we do, we don't eat it in front of people. We fast - or we pretend to fast; out of respect for others, we don't eat in front of them during Ramadan. We have built mosques in our major towns. Some Alawis go to Friday prayer and to the Hajj. My grandfather was a modern shaykh who encouraged everyone to pray at the mosque in Jable. The charitable foundation established and run by Jamil al-Asad (the brother of former President Hafiz al-Assad) finances hundreds of Alawis to go on Hajj, and the women working for the organization have to wear the hijab. Hafiz al-Asad prayed in Mosque and fasted. When his mother and son died, he prayed for them in Mosque. He built the Na`isa mosque in Qardaha, his home town, in the name of his mother. All these things are proof to Sunnis that we try hard to be part of Islam and like Sunnis. They accept it. We have succeeded."

- Wine is Halal and is consumed in their masses where wine and bread are consecrated and partaken of by the male initiates. The wine especially is considered to be the very essence of God ('Ali), trans-substantiated by the mass and offered to the believer. It is called "The Servant Of Light" ('Abd al-Nur). Vines are treated with great respect in 'Alawi culture.

Also (http://www.angelfire.com/az/rescon/mgcalawi.html):

Their religion is secret and seems to be a syncretistic mixture of extreme Shi'a (Ghulat), ancient pagan, gnostic and Christian elements. They are sometimes classified as a branch of Twelver Shi'ism, but are actually an independent religion. They do not keep the five pillars of Islam, and they have no mosques but meet in private houses for their religious observances. Their festivals include Persian and Christian holy days. They have a ceremony similar to the Christian mass and believe in a trinitarian manifestation of God.

More: http://www.danielpipes.org/191/the-alawi-capture-of-power-in-syria

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 09:18 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"In fact there's even questions if they qualify at all as muslims:"

Do you know how often I hear this about all the various Christian sects?

Some Christians would claim that Quakers are not true Christians (http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...).  I've always had a soft spot for the Quakers, thinking that they actually have a better stance than the mainstream Christian sects.  So, I could question whether the mainstream Christian sects are really true Christians.  Further, I run the tape WAY back on ANY religious sect and find a crude origin, one that most likely encompasses things from OTHER religious practices (Joseph Campbell documented a lot of this) or may omit things, be incomplete (and fail the "true <this base religion>" test).

It's ALL MARKETING!  (tribal sales)  Only those insecure in their beliefs or offerings will attack other sects.  The audacity of pious folks to claim they KNOW "God's" word as though they'd know it if they were the ONLY person on the planet: if one is born deaf, dumb and blind (and unable to read braille) how could one be accepted as being a true <fill in the blank>?  Live your life and don't fuck with others.  Oh!, and Daniel Pipes can go fuck himself.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 22:30 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

You'll also hear it about Jews - Karaite and rabbinical Jews, for instance, also consider each other heretical.

Question is they don't adhere to the fundamental principles of Muslim faith (the five pillars) - it's like not adhering to the ten commandments or whatever the original is, and claiming to follow the Bible.

But the point is Alawis are neither Shia nor Sunni; they're Alawi - period.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:34 | Link to Comment caconhma
caconhma's picture

Hamas was and is an Israeli controlled terrorist organization.

 

Arab Time Internet  site circulated a report that the Imam of one of the mosques in the Palestinian refugee camps Al-Wahdat based in Jordan, said that Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, known for his blessings of brutal murders by Salafists  of all religious dissidents and Syrian citizens supporting authorities, deserves to die.

 

Reportedly, "the reason for such decision was the fact that Al-Qaradawi has become the spiritual leader of the Salafis and he justifies  the slaughter the people in Libya, Syria and Yemen as well as religious strife. " Palestinian Imam believes that Yosef Al-Qaradawi had violated the laws of Islam.

 

This address was sent to Gaza residents, where Al-Qaradawi is presently hosted  by the Hamas leaders. Moreover, according to the site, the plane which Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is using to visit Palestine belongs to the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani, and the flight security was provided the Israeli air defense.

 

According to France-Press, following the Israeli attack on Syrian military sites, Palestinians in the town of Khan Younes responded to the call by the PFLP and came out on a demonstration against the Israeli aggression against Syria. However, Žerhun Nasrallah, who was organizing the Palestinian protest, stated HAMAS security guards using police sticks attacked and broke up the demonstration. 13 people were injured during these demonstrations.

 

The site also notes that the France press film crew reported that Hamas prohibited any anti-Israeli filming.

 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:53 | Link to Comment caconhma
Fri, 05/17/2013 - 09:26 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I don't proclaim to KNOW that Hamas is an Israeli "controlled terrorist organization" as that phrase might appear/sound.  BUT, Israel DID tend to foster relations with Hamas, though more so as a mechanism to divide the rest of the PLO.

A problem I have with so much that is written about all the players is that it's almost always out-of-context and interpreted, both actions subjecting the source statements to come out off-track.  And when most that's bandied about is meant to inflame, to stir up violence, well... I think that this is a pretty shitty standard to use for such horrific consequences.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

Israel created Hamas to splinter the PLO

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Which has more of less failed now, and they are very much the sworn enemies of Israel.

They tried the same things with Hezbollah, in the 1980s, same outcomes too, Hezbollah are now their most dangerous enemy.

Hamas and Israel have been at each others throats for awhile now, so insinuating that either Hamas or Hezbollah are in Israel's bitchez or something ... come on.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:59 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Although Israel is undoubtedly involved in promoting the destabilization of Syria (as well as destabilizing Iran, guys we actually know they do this routinely) with US backing, support and cover, the following is certainly not true, and is more or less absurd:

"... removal of the roadblock to Iran which is Syria and Hezbollah, who they need to dismantle ..."

For goodness sake! If the US was going invade Iran, it had a perfect opportunity to do that when it had amassed armored divisions in Iraq.

Has every repeating this theory forgotten that little fact?

Absolutely they do not need to do that via Syria.

Neither the US, and especially not Israel, are going to Invade Iran via Syria.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:43 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

What about clearing an air route across Syria so that Israel with support from the US could attack Iranian infrastructure?

Would that qualify as an invasion or just simply a Non-Act-of-War bombing incursion like Syria received last week?

Invasion? Yeah, I agree. That idea is absurd.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:56 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

But you don't fly through Syria to get to Iran (and IDF SAMs and lower tier fighters could take care of any Syrian flank counter-strike).

The F-15I and the F-16 Sufa could just about make it to central Iran (depending on winds aloft), but only with no weapons on the wings, and with max fuel load. But they would literally be empty the moment they got to Tehran.

To have weapons on the wings they need several refuelings per sortie, per jet.

That's a whole lot of tanking capacity they don't have, plus they'd need fighters to protect the tankers, and they all have to be refueled as well. Then you need AWACs which also needs sure-fire fighter protection. Getting the picture?

Lose a tanker, of a couple, you lose a whole squadron. Loose the AWACs, same sort of outcome.

The IAF is really not equipped to do take on Iran, not because they can't destroy many buildings in Tehran, they probably could destroy many, especially with cruise missiles.

But they can not stop Iran doing that thing Iran is doing, or rather, the thing Iran says they are not doing, for if that were to occur, then Iran have already said that the thing that they are not doing, well, they would then go ahead and do that thing, which they are not doing. And the US also has stated that they can probably slow, but not stop Iran, if Iran actually wanted to do that thing - which of course, they aren't doing.

[My own view is, they already did that un- un-doable thing a long time ago, and that what we see now is bread and circuses, because Iran isn't a threat, unless you are threatening it. But there are no easy weapon contracts in accepting that, so they don't, and won't, an eternal boogie man is necessary to Lockheed Martin, the NYSE, and the dropkick politicians, in that other little country. I guess when the assorted idiots push them too far, which will be soonish, the Iranians will test one of those things which they haven't been building.]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_varia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle#Variants

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:09 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

 That's a whole lot of tanking capacity they don't have, plus they'd need fighters to protect the tankers, and they all have to be refueled as well. Then you need AWACs which also needs sure-fire fighter protection. Getting the picture?

You must have missed the part in my comment where I said,  "...with support from the US..." Got the picture now?

Your contextual strawmen are so transparent it's sad.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:34 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

oh for gawds-sake, relax. What the hell are you so bloody paranoid about? This is just a discussion of possible situations and their implications and requirements.

It was implicit in what I said that if Israel was to be able to do it, then they could not do it on their own, because they did not have sufficient tanking capacity to do it.

Are you really flying off the twig because I didn't say they would need US help? Come off it.

But you also were implicitly suggesting within your question that they'd have to go through Syria, which was incorrect, and I pointed out that they don't have to go through Syria at all to get to Iran, and there's also not much Syria could do about it.

get some sleep

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:39 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

I'm not flying off the twig or being paranoid just analysing your proposition and your false conclusion attributed to a logic I did not supply or a position I provided that was conveniently ignored. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

The fastest, most strategic and tactically direct route for an attack by Israel on Iran (which they have been chomping at the bit to do for last 2 years or more) is an air route over Syria with logistical assist by the US. Such an attack would neutralize the Iranian nucl...oops petro-currency ponzi threat the most efficiently.

 

So you've upgraded to ad hominem from straw man.  You must be exhausted. Perhaps you need some rest?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 01:38 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Are you nuts? Have a look:

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/maps/me2003.jpg

Going through Syria is not necessary, and it also is not the shortest distance to get from central Israel to Tehran.

What the hell have you been reading that gave you that idea? Have you even considered checking facts and testing your obviously false claims before posting them?

There are no strawmen in what I've written above, you just don't have a clue what you're talking about, let alone what I'm talking about.

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 02:06 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

 

There is one tiny potential glitch in the 'cakewalk'  . . . .

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/kremlin-no-russian-pledge-...

 

Though ex FBI interpreter/analyst Sybil Edmonds thinks it likely that a deal was made with the Russians to stand down . . . while they were given the green light to take 'anti terror' actions in the Caucacus region

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:33 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

And just as importantly in the Edmonds synopsis is the suggestion that the deal would be that in recognition of the Russians giving up on Syria the US/West will back off on Iran. (and we know how well US abides by its treaties/word </sarc>)

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:27 | Link to Comment Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

What about putting SS26 missiles in Mexico to help urban clearance in the US ?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 02:27 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

When you frame it that way, a case could be made that Israel has ambitions to be the region's main power. Something that can happen if the rest of the Arab/Muslim world has been good at for a long, long time: Infighting.

Can you imagine if that stopped? Why, we might actually have a chance at genuine peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. -- the same Palestinians who are the descendants of the Jews who did not leave after the Romans levelled the place and who converted to Islam.

Interesting how Judaism created both Christianity and Islam.

Tue, 05/28/2013 - 19:14 | Link to Comment QuietCorday
QuietCorday's picture

There were other people in the region as well as Jews at that time, you know. :oD 

And though people are led to believe Christianity came out of Judaism; in reality, Christianity was an attempt to bring Greco-Egyptian pagan philosophy from (probably Cleopatra's) Egypt to the Jewish communities in that region in a bid to enlighten what were very depraved backwaters run by religious tyrants and political usurpers.

It didn't really stick, however, but it did chime with lower-class pagan communities in Imperial Rome ... basically because it was selling sort of version of their current religio-philosophical beliefs back to them in "working-class" packaging with a bit of exoticism (originally, Christianity was a philosophy the Romans called "The Way"), which is why it was so much more successful in these communities than in Jewish communities.

Then from that point, particularly after Christianity became the state religion, it absorbed so much of conventional Roman (inspired by Greek) pagan religion on top of its Ptolemic Greco-Egyptian base that you can't really say where one begins and the other ends. Christianity really is the continuation of the Egypto-Greco-Roman belief systems, which is why its message is so wildly different to Judaism and why it cannot quite shake off shades of polytheism (the Virgin Mary, the Saints etc).

Unfortunately, the fact that most people tend to read the NT in a really bad translation, and that all the interesting stuff was shunted into apocrypha so that some ideas in the NT cannot be traced to their real meanings, means that the average reader of the NT can't really see what is actually going on.    

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:38 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

At least Obama is using high caliber US Marines as mercinaries. Are there any ETFs to bet on the outcome yet? I bet on China since they are about to explode if they don't come up with a good distraction and Russia can use all the help it can get. Maybe they'll decide to forgo all the battles and go after a few oil and bankster families instead. That would be the most logical thing to do. They could also fund national politicians to begin prosecuting Oilygarchs for sponsoring terrorism.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:04 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

I can see having a military that is conditioned to fighting a dubious engagement for dubious reasons , within nascent legal framework might be considered a desired conditioning.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:35 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Most excellent suggestion, ol' chap!

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:35 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Russia is sitting pretty- they have Europe by the balls as far as energy and they don't want to share it with the ragheads. high caliber marines? the Spetsnaz may have an issue with that-the marines have their hands full with goat herders.plus the marines have pretty low standards any more-like the SS at the end of WWII

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:12 | Link to Comment americanspirit
americanspirit's picture

Otto - unfortunately I think you are absolutely right. The USMC is now little more than a post-grad school for felons.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:44 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Europe's problems are likely more about themselves holding their own balls too tightly.

Yes, Russia holds a lot of sway when it comes to energy supplies, but... you cannot push on a string.  Moscow is quite aware that reliance upon energy sales to crumbling Europe ain't all that stable of a revenue source that others might think.

What a conundrum.  Energy sales are dependent upon available funds from revenues generated from production, which requires energy... I'd hope that people could spot the lunacy in any expectation that this is all going to right itself.

As the gates start closing we will ALL be programmed to believe that it's the barbarians at the gates, when in fact it's the internal den of thieves (and their failed "leadership" [deceptions of growth]) that are the real culprits.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:23 | Link to Comment Two Feet Studs Up
Two Feet Studs Up's picture

Heh- Talk about Marines...watch the vid- Barry is a useless cunt. How did Americans vote this guy in? He referred to the Turkish PM as "our"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6Oqvuticg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:44 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Sigh, another Party Pussy...

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:47 | Link to Comment SeeNoEvil
SeeNoEvil's picture

The rebels an AlNusrah have already captured quite a lot of Assads weapons tanks, radar guided missile air defense , chemical weapons and MIGs along with air support systems So where else will these weapons turn up like in Lybia once there out of the box hard to get them back in . So I guess AlQaeda will happily just surrender all these modern weapons of destruction once they get rid of Assad . The nat gas will find its way to market at some point its just who will reap the wealth is the question iam betting on rebels backed by US,Israël , Qutar and turkey

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:48 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Caliphate or not to Caliphate that is the question.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:52 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm going long burkas and shorting passenger vehicles.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:02 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

fella' u look really great in a burka!  Doesn't show your fat-ass none in the least ;-)

- Ned

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:10 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

And they're great for hiding pressure cookers!

(Here it comes!)

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:15 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Go long White Toyota pickups. Great mileage vehicle and can travel on nearly any terrain. Especially useful when you need to quickly mount a rocket launcher.

PS: to the NSA ... this is a joke.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:09 | Link to Comment otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

you sure don't see them using any GM or Ford or Dodge PUs- those creampuffs are only good for hauling fat soccer dads on the smooth US roads

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:51 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Follow the flow of oil and gas is simply a proxy for.....

FOLLOW THE MONEY !!!!

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:52 | Link to Comment Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

Yep, JPM and GS conduct what, half the commodity trading volume globally? Wall Street, the 12 tribes and a bunch a no-good petrol sheiks. There's no escape.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 05:54 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

If we don't like the sharks then we should be looking to be in different waters.  What it really comes down to is that all these folks are doing the fighting for resource allocation.  Resource allocation HAS to be done.  And though it ain't pretty, I don't think that there's any other way that this could work unless there's some all-controlling entity (OWG, which, as most here should know, would NOT be my desired "solution").  If we want crap then we have to expect to mingle with turds.  The only real option is to avoid crap... this is going to be tough when we're so tightly woven into the crap-meme.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:52 | Link to Comment eddiebe
eddiebe's picture

The amazing thing here is that armageddon hasn't happened yet. 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:06 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Patience, Eddie, patience. 

Lots of people have a lot to lose in a shooting war (which could go nuclear if we're talking about a major world power).  So right now it's a war waged by proxy in countries that "don't matter much."  Like Syria.  At some point whether it's resources or geography, it will slip into a shooting war between countries that "do matter."  Likely it will be when somebody's economy is so bad (or so obviously threatened with collapse) their backs will be against the wall and war will be a preferable diversion to facing likely economic collapse.

All wars, at their core, are over economics (power, really, at its most basic).  When somebody somewhere gets desperate enough they can see it's "checkmate in 5 moves" waging war economically or by proxy, they will start a REAL war.  Win lose or draw, they WILL wage war.  They will have no better alternative.

 

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:18 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Very true what you say. I read a book many moons ago called "The Causes of War", during about the past 300 years (from memory) up to 1985, and  the author of this detailed long-term examination failed of records failed to identify a single case of evidence supporting the notion that a war is sometimes started as a distraction of the populace, even during internal domestic difficulties.

I know that's a view that is unpopular, as people presume (without any clear evidence) that this is the natural progression (Gerald Celente has said it often) but I'm yet to see anything to support the idea that distraction from economy and political strife is the aim of causing a war.

Given this, at the very least, we should not presume it is.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:57 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"and  the author of this detailed long-term examination failed of records failed to identify a single case of evidence supporting the notion that a war is sometimes started as a distraction of the populace, even during internal domestic difficulties."

Perhaps he had his eyes closed, and was "searching" in a Rockefeller-funded public school textbook.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:27 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

 

 

Leave your ideology at the door, it's boring.

--

Geoffrey Blainey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Blainey

The Causes of War

Book Description
Release date: September 7, 1988 | ISBN-10: 0029035910 | ISBN-13: 978-0029035917 | Edition: 3

This new edition of the highly acclaimed study on the causes of war has been expanded and updated to include a complete discussion of World War II and the road towards nuclear war. Analyzing all international wars since 1700, this widely quoted work solves the riddle of why some wars are long and some are short, and demonstrates how the outbreak of peace offers insight into the outbreak of war. Proving that war and peace are alternating phases of a relationship between rival nations, it offers a crucial, new understanding of international armed conflict.

http://www.amazon.com/Causes-War-Geoffrey-Blainey/dp/0029035910/ref=sr_1...

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 23:53 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

If my sons did not want war, there would be none"- Gutle Schnapper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:37 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Which is a patently stupid crock.

Go tell it to the DPRK, or North Vietnam, or the Japanese regarding their naval attack on Vladivostok.

Newsflash, international war was around for thousands of years before Mayer Rothschild was able to make a convincing shit-stain in his nappy.

Has it ever occurred to you that his comments may be a pile of dodgy ego-flattering utter bullshit designed to make him look more able that he was to others, thus fooling them into thinking he was "the dude", and that others should regard him as such?

I'm guessing no.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 00:48 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

 "History is written by the victors." - Winston Churchill.

You read a lot of history.  Do you know who is writing it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4

LOL

 

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 02:01 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

No, I'm not even going to look at another one of your videos.

Interesting you should quote Churchill though, as I read the foremost history on his role within WII in "Churchill's War", which was written by world famous historian David Irving. Who is the alleged infamous holocaust-denialist hystorian, who did prison-time for daring to look at original documented evidence regarding WWII, and to report it faithfully, and fully, and damn what anyone called him, as he had the evidence to back it up.

Because unlike you, I'm actually very careful about what I read, and who authors it, and what videos I watch, or buy into. It's why I spell "history", as "hystery". I'm apparently more aware of this aspect than you are, so quit wasting my time with your puerile baseless accusatory nonsense and preaching to the converted, because you sound like a complete idiot.  Cheers!

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 06:39 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

I haven't read the book (yet) , so here's a question for you:

- Could it be that even though there is no causal relationship, wars and situations where the populace needs a distraction are correlated - i.e. both popular unrest and the starting of wars being caused by the same underlying problem such as, for example, a collapse in the quality of life of the masses?

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 08:57 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Been a long time, I read that book soon after it came out, but I remember he went into several such aspects, and I remember being quite surprised (and he seemed to be also) that no matter how much he looked he'd found nothing substantive to support the idea of a distraction type wars, and he even gave several examples of where you might have expected such a war to occur but it didn't happen. In fact, what he found was that in such times of internal unrest and economic weakness, contrary to the usual assumption, he found that Nations and politicians did precisely the opposite, they avoided wars, that could have otherwise occurred, and he gave several detailed examples of this as well. 

It ran so contrary that countries tended to go to war much more often when they're economically and politically stronger, then when economically, politically and socially weakened. He essentially concluded that this is what we should tend to expect, more often that not, because that was the pattern within the historical record.

Of course that's only one chapter, the whole book was a very interesting read.

(don't know if that answers your question suitably, but I have to get some shut eye)

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:55 | Link to Comment ArrestBobRubin
ArrestBobRubin's picture

It's ALL about natural resources you say? Really!

Are you so stupid to actually believe that, or do you just think we are?

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by Israel Shahak

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 21:38 | Link to Comment They trynna cat...
They trynna catch me ridin dirty's picture

Bingo.  As they used to say in ancient Rome: Cui bono? (To whose benefit?).

Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran.  Pretty obvious who stands to gain what.  Secular rational Muslim regimes trashed in favor of "extremist" Muslim regimes that hate you (yet that you actually control) = best excuse in the world to declare "defensive" war.

Fri, 05/17/2013 - 06:17 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

ALL WARS ARE ABOUT RESOURCES.

Go ahead, try the logic.

If everyone has everything they need then why would there be a need for war?

Do you think that cavemen competed because they said to themselves: Hey, we've got plenty of room to roam, plenty of food, and plenty of hot babes (had to toss this one in for fun), let's just go out and see if we can get ourselves into a clubbing match with the cavemen off in the distance.

We dress up (hide) this basic reason with all sorts of rationalizations, with ideological support.  We do this because the notion of losing a war would mean losing resources necessary to fund our all-important growth.  The ideological demon whispers in our ears that if we "lose" then that means "they" win; and, usually, this would mean that "our" "god" failed, something that our "god," being all powerful, cannot do.

Ultimately it's about survival, this cannot be argued.  And to plan for survival is ALL about planning for sufficient resources.  Our self-deception has dressed up the fundamental drives in lofty, "sophisticated" garb when underneath it's no more than a matter of saying: we're going to have what we need, and if you get in our way we're going to take it from you (we'll club you over the head).  Religion/ideology gives us the necessary tools to practice self-deception, for without them we'd have a hard time rationalizing why we deserve to live over someone else; and the more "sophisticated" the self-deception the more we are convinced that there really is some "master plan," that we are in fact "special."

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:55 | Link to Comment Henry Chinaski
Henry Chinaski's picture

Sounds like a done deal. POTUS meeting with UK and Turkey and Senate voting... Just the cost of doing business for a global military empire.  BTW, centrally planned global military empires are as doomed to failure as centrally planned economies.  Plan accordingly.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:54 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

Word

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:57 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

This is Spinal Tap - damn drummers keep needing to be replaced!

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:06 | Link to Comment Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

LOL.  I like the drummer's headgear in this Spinal Tap set.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:30 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The Ministry of Truthiness came blobbing up and said that video may be blocked in some countries. (I think this mask is similar- or perhaps it was the other one from earlier in the film).

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:58 | Link to Comment apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

Yeah.  War baby; must have war.  Let's nuke Iran and make the whole middle East a nuclear wasteland just like Japan will become within 10 years.  Hope everyone can still ride a bike.  Your Beemer won't be worth shit.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

just stop with the fucking wars already!!!!  

 

 

 

 

 

oh wait.  That wasn't on the script.  Keep fighting for 'freedom'! is what I meant to say.      

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:00 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"... and a far more competitive Asian market."

'cha', cuz Japan is going to be bleeding yenz to get any kinda' carbon into the islands, and the Emir is a'thinkin' that QGAS will clean up.

Not a bad bet, but the Emir ain't gonna' put his house at risk.

- Ned

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:08 | Link to Comment world_debt_slave
world_debt_slave's picture

Simple, war is a nation coveting what another nation has that the warring nation desires.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:10 | Link to Comment viator
viator's picture

Nothing to do with Sunni - Shia power struggles. Nothing to do with Shia Persian Iran vs. Arabic Sunni gulf powers. Nothing to do with the Kurdish/Turkish axis. Nothing to do with the internecine Muslim Brotherhood/Al Quaeda power struggles. Nothing to so with maintaining the Iran sponsored Shia beachhead in Lebanon. Nothing to so with Syria's neighbors - Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and Iran. Nothing to with with Russian power projection and historic lust for a Mediterranean naval base. Nothing to do with Israel's interest in self preservation. Nothing to do with the South Asian power struggle between Hindi India and Muslim Pakistan. Nothing to do with the old European interest in the Levant, primarily France, but other European  powers as well. Nothing to do with Turkish (Ottoman) ambitions.

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 20:41 | Link to Comment Georgiabelle
Georgiabelle's picture

 

OK, I'll bite. So, what does it have to do with?

Thu, 05/16/2013 - 22:23 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

He's just pointing out that the pipeline thesis of middle eastern warfare is deeply inadequate and insufficient to explain what's occurring today, and recently, and tommorow.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!