RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Cui bono? Is there a caveat with that?

A caveat? Is this a joke known only to the cool kids, or do I need to add cui bono to the list of things I don't understand

You need to to read the hate/cringe thread where Rowan gets to decide which Latin words/phrases are permitted on the board and which aren’t

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Cui bono? Is there a caveat with that?

A caveat? Is this a joke known only to the cool kids, or do I need to add cui bono to the list of things I don't understand

You need to to read the hate/cringe thread where Rowan gets to decide which Latin words/phrases are permitted on the board and which aren’t

asinus ad lyram

Wasn't it Macron who had proof last time round as well?

Wasn't it Macron who had proof last time round as well?

The French are in Neo-colonial phase right now, directly intervening in North Africa again and supporting the war on Syria.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Trump, May, Erdogan, Netanyahu, the House of Saud - that's quite a lineup calling for action against the Syrian government just as it closes in on victory over the terrorists. Oh, and let's not forget Macron, who claims he has ze evidence against the Syrian government but fails to actually produce it. What a headline that made in the mainstream corporate propaganda of the West! In fact, the US, NATO, EU alliance and the custom-made vassal petro-state of Kuwait make up almost half of the UN permanent council members (7/15) which voted down Russia's resolution for an inquiry into whether a chemical attack had actually taken place, but voted for the one effectively condemning Assad - which Russia ultimately vetoed (China abstaining, significantly). The Latin phrase Cui bono? remains a standard question in modern law and investigating, and the answer here is clearly not the Syrian army as it finally drives the terrorists out of their last remaining stronghold. Actually, it is giving them free passage out on luxury coach-lines, and has been for some time . . .

Cui bono? Is there a caveat with that?

Cui bono is high class canine cuisine.

Not satisfied with starting a trade war that could cause starvation abroad, Trump now wants to start a land war so that murder, rape and starvation overseas can all have a decent turn.

Once again, the US is going to war over a bit of desert scrubland. If Syria could grow a rainforest they'd probably be alright.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: LOOK! A SQUIRREL!!!!

I hate squirrels

Racist.

Grey or Red?

kk67 wrote:Once again, the US is going to war over a bit of desert scrubland. If Syria could grow a rainforest they'd probably be alright.

To be fair - they did lose in Vietnam

Which Tyler wrote: To be fair - they did lose in Vietnam

Everybody lost in Vietnam. The US haven't really lost a war economically for a long time,.... they've made a lot of money from war since WWI. Their industrial manufacturing base is very much funded by their output from both World Wars.

It seems nothing more than extraordinary that no one is asking why we are playing nuclear brinkmanship over another portion of sand.
It can only be about natural assets. No other reason makes any sense and almost all wars are driven by this motive.

Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.
Israel-Syrian territorial dispute over oil-rich Golan Heights, UN backed Syria, not that Israel took any notice.
Saudi concerns over Shia Crescent, now stretching from Iran to Lebanon, effectively created by Iraq War.
Turkish opposition to Alawite leadership, Muslim Brotherhood preferred, plus border tensions with Kurds.
US designs on oil-rich northern Syria, where troops are currently based in violation of international law.

Plenty of reasons . . .

Interesting: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/wh ... 1677623456

I'm not always in agreement with Rowan..... but this is Halliburton v Gazprom... It's as clear as day.

Stuff I said and edited...

Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.

There is a link between the American-led war on Syria and the decision of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to sanction Qatar. This has to do with who will control the largest natural gas reserves in the world and dominate the world gas market. For the past century the world has been at war over oil, but with advances in natural gas development and transportation technologies, we are now witnessing the age of wars over natural gas. Naturally this, too, has been led by the US, and began in earnest during the Obama presidency, which continuously rained bombs on 7 different Middle Eastern countries. Syria became the primary target after rejecting Qatar's proposed gas pipeline through Syria to Turkey and the European gas market (thereby undercutting Russia, a long-time ally of Damascus ever since the CIA had attempted to stage a coup there shortly after WWII). As fate would have it, the world's largest gas field straddles the territorial waters between Qatar and Iran. In 2011 the governments of Syria, Iraq and Iran signed a separate agreement for a gas pipeline from Iran to the Mediterranean via Syria and Lebanon. That project has been on hold ever since the protracted, US-led proxy war on Syria began 7 years ago. Unsurprisingly the 'mysterious' ISIS joined the fray and immediately occupied Aleppo, where the pipeline was being planned. Qatar was one of the major financiers of the war on Assad, contributing $3 billion in 2011 alone, while Saudi Arabia has reportedly invested more than $100 billion in building terrorist networks right across the region. Meanwhile, NATO special forces and the CIA began training opposition terrorists, comprising mercenaries and the Saudi-backed Wahhabists, to drive our Assad, install a Saudi-controlled puppet regime in Damascus and balkanize a destroyed Syria in order to control gas flows through the region. But when Sheikh Hamad abdicated in 2013 his son Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani acknowledged Qatar's pipe dream had been destroyed by Russian intervention and quietly began negotiations with Tehran. Indeed, last year they reached a compromise and began talks on the construction of a Qatar-Iranian pipeline to Turkey and Europe. To compound the issue, Qatar is actually home to the Pentagon's most important military base in the entire Middle East. Thus Qatar has been denounced, demonized and accused of supporting terrorism, as has Iran - naturally.

rowan wrote:Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.

Try reading that again and consider that Russia is the country with its troops on the ground in Syria. Honestly, put your automatic bias aside for one day.

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.

Try reading that again and consider that Russia is the country with its troops on the ground in Syria. Honestly, put your automatic bias aside for one day.

You do come out with some strange comments Russia has boots on the ground, for the very reasons mentioned above, at the bequest of the recognized government, and is therefore acting entirely in accordance with international law - unlike the US, who has boots on the ground illegally.

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.

Try reading that again and consider that Russia is the country with its troops on the ground in Syria. Honestly, put your automatic bias aside for one day.

You do come out with some strange comments Russia has boots on the ground, for the very reasons mentioned above, at the bequest of the recognized government, and is therefore acting entirely in accordance with international law - unlike the US, who has boots on the ground illegally.

At the bequest of the recognised government? Really?

Recogised brutal dictatorship?

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
Try reading that again and consider that Russia is the country with its troops on the ground in Syria. Honestly, put your automatic bias aside for one day.

You do come out with some strange comments Russia has boots on the ground, for the very reasons mentioned above, at the bequest of the recognized government, and is therefore acting entirely in accordance with international law - unlike the US, who has boots on the ground illegally.

At the bequest of the recognised government? Really?

Just as long as we are all aware that they are not there to protect their ailing gas industry. It's only the west that goes to war over that sort of thing.

canta_brian wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:
You do come out with some strange comments Russia has boots on the ground, for the very reasons mentioned above, at the bequest of the recognized government, and is therefore acting entirely in accordance with international law - unlike the US, who has boots on the ground illegally.

At the bequest of the recognised government? Really?

Just as long as we are all aware that they are not there to protect their ailing gas industry. It's only the west that goes to war over that sort of thing.

Yeah, like the annexation of Crimea wasn't at all related to the fact that they now control a potentially vast petrochemical reserve that they had tried to access two years previously by treaty, but which was refused by the Ukrainian Government.

The annexation of its former territory Crimea was carried out at the bequest of the ethnic Russian majority, who hastily organized a referendum after seeing ethnic Russians being burnt alive by Neo Nazis in Odessa - and voted overwhelmingly for a return to Russia. Crimea was actually gifted to the Ukraine in 1954 on the proviso Russia continue to be able to access its Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. This was also under threat.

Assad? Not a fraction as brutal as America, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Israel, et al.

Yes, Russia is there, at the bequest of the recognized government and therefore legally, to defend an ally from foreign invasion and terrorist proxies, and thereby protect their gas industry. Well done.

America is there, uninvited and therefore illegally, to overthrow the recognized government and install a puppet regime that will allow them to control the flow of gas from the Gulf to Europe - via Syria.

rowan wrote:The annexation of its former territory Crimea was carried out at the bequest of the ethnic Russian majority, who hastily organized a referendum after seeing ethnic Russians being burnt alive by Neo Nazis in Odessa - and voted overwhelmingly for a return to Russia. Crimea was actually gifted to the Ukraine in 1954 on the proviso Russia continue to be able to access its Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. This was also under threat.

Assad? Not a fraction as brutal as America, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Israel, et al.

Yes, Russia is there, at the bequest of the recognized government and therefore legally, to defend an ally from foreign invasion and terrorist proxies, and thereby protect their gas industry. Well done.

America is there, uninvited and therefore illegally, to overthrow the recognized government and install a puppet regime that will allow them to control the flow of gas from the Gulf to Europe - via Syria.

Nice re-writing of history there Rowan. Good to see that you're on the ball this morning.
The ethnic Russians in Crimea were as surprised as anyone to see Russian soldiers taking control of strategic points including official buildings and access to Ukrainian military installations. There was no bequest, whatever that is supposed to mean. (I suppose you are conflating "request" and "behest").
There was absolutely no threat to the continues Russian access to it's Sevastopol port. That's just another made up lie.
Referendum? Don't make me laugh. A referendum at the end of an AK74....

Here's the real reason for the invasion and annexation of Crimea.

https://www.platts.com/news-feature/201 ... -sea-hopes

The development of Ukraine's large offshore gas reserves was thrown into limbo this week after the Crimea peninsula returned to Moscow's rule, upending Ukrainian hopes of becoming a gas exporter anytime soon.

I know what happened in the Crimea, thanks. You have your obviously Russophobic view of it, but this is not the right thread for that. Here's a couple of clips to get the discussion back on track:





http://theantimedia.com/ron-paul-assad- ... -nonsense/

rowan wrote:I know what happened in the Crimea, thanks. You have your obviously Russophobic view of it, but this is not the right thread for that. Here's a couple of clips to get the discussion back on track:





http://theantimedia.com/ron-paul-assad- ... -nonsense/

Right, so if you are agreeing that the imperialist, illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia was an attempt to control Black Sea oil and gas reserves, then you will no doubt agree that Russia got involved in Syria in order to extend influence into the oil and gas producing provinces of the Middle East, allying with Iran to geopolitically outflank Russia's competitors.

Russia says it has irrefutable proof the chemical weapons attack was staged, but as with Macron's proof it was both real and done by Assad's regime they've not actually set out the proof.

What would be worth knowing is how much Syrian forces are being moved to stand alongside Russian forces giving an increasing problem for any missile strikes.

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Trans-Syrian Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline designed to head off the Russian supply to Europe rejected by Syria.

Try reading that again and consider that Russia is the country with its troops on the ground in Syria. Honestly, put your automatic bias aside for one day.

You do come out with some strange comments Russia has boots on the ground, for the very reasons mentioned above, at the bequest of the recognized government, and is therefore acting entirely in accordance with international law - unlike the US, who has boots on the ground illegally.

Let's compare and contrast the "bequest" (seriously? who died) above with that below. I'm sure the recognised government of Crimea might well take issue with your varied interpretation of international sovereignty.

rowan wrote:The annexation of its former territory Crimea was carried out at the bequest of the ethnic Russian majority, who hastily organized a referendum after seeing ethnic Russians being burnt alive by Neo Nazis in Odessa - and voted overwhelmingly for a return to Russia. Crimea was actually gifted to the Ukraine in 1954 on the proviso Russia continue to be able to access its Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. This was also under threat.

Assad? Not a fraction as brutal as America, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Israel, et al.

Yes, Russia is there, at the bequest of the recognized government and therefore legally, to defend an ally from foreign invasion and terrorist proxies, and thereby protect their gas industry. Well done.

America is there, uninvited and therefore illegally, to overthrow the recognized government and install a puppet regime that will allow them to control the flow of gas from the Gulf to Europe - via Syria.

Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders also among those calling for cool heads, pointing out that a US strike on Syria would be not only foolhardy and counterproductive - but entirely illegal - especially as no evidence has been produced (yet again) that government troops were responsible. Meanwhile, life in Damascus is returning to normal and reports this morning showed people in the streets imploring the US to butt out.

Digby wrote:Russia says it has irrefutable proof the chemical weapons attack was staged, but as with Macron's proof it was both real and done by Assad's regime they've not actually set out the proof.

What would be worth knowing is how much Syrian forces are being moved to stand alongside Russian forces giving an increasing problem for any missile strikes.

Syria hardly has any forces left. They have about 50,000 regular troops, and concentrate their best on key battle fronts supported by Hezbollah, Iranian and Russian units. They probably have about 10,000 that they can rely on, the rest are used to man check-points.
Any missile attacks are therefore going to have to target airbases and government infrastructure, and even there there are problems with making sure that Russian assets aren't hit. It's a serious problem.