Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Sep '13 12:38
    So let me get this straight.


    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad. ASsad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf States are pro-Sisi, which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US. Gulf States are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf States against Assad, yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.

    Do I have it right?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    12 Sep '13 14:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    So let me get this straight.


    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad. ASsad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf States are pro-Sisi, which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is backing Muslim Brotherh ...[text shortened]... ainst General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.

    Do I have it right?
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/august-5-1914,10615/
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    12 Sep '13 14:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/august-5-1914,10615/
    You know, that's almost not funny.
    Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser, dubbed a “carrier-killer” by NATO, has passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the Russian naval force there.
    http://rt.com/news/russia-moskva-cruiser-mediterranean-720/

    Whose up for WW III? Let's say President Mom Jeans just can't abide getting bitch slapped by Putin and bombs Syria, and then Putin (with his new credibility as level headed peacemaker thanks to Obama and Kerry), takes out an American carrier, you know, for the children, or whatever.

    Who would our allies be? Who would Russia's be?
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    12 Sep '13 16:12
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    You know, that's almost not funny.
    Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser, dubbed a “carrier-killer” by NATO, has passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the Russian naval force there.
    http://rt.com/news/russia-moskva-cruiser-mediterranean-720/

    Whose up for WW III? Let's say ...[text shortened]... w, for the children, or whatever.

    Who would our allies be? Who would Russia's be?
    No Russian skipper is that suicidal.
  5. 12 Sep '13 19:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    So let me get this straight.


    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad. ASsad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf States are pro-Sisi, which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is backing Muslim Brotherh ...[text shortened]... ainst General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.

    Do I have it right?
    '...Hamas is against the US.'
    --Whodey

    It would be more accurate to say that the United States is against Hamas
    or, indeed, against any Palestinian political movement that aspires to be
    truly independent (not counting a Bantusan) of Israel's domination.

    Israeli propaganda (which the US media tends to accept with little question)
    has long demonized Hamas (as the PLO was demonized earlier) for its
    American audience. Hamas would oppose the USA, of course, to the extent
    that the USA (practically unconditionally) supports Israel's domination of
    the Palestinians and keeps supplying Isarel with arms to kill Palestinians.
    But Hamas never has attacked any target in the USA, and, as far as I know,
    the US intelligence community's not seriously worried that Hamas will begin
    any campaign of 'terrorism' in the USA. Hamas had no connection at all to
    the attacks of 11 September 2001.

    Also, ignorant Westerners who lump Hamas (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shia)
    together don't comprehend the great depth of the Sunni-Shia division.
    What Hamas and Hezbollah have in common is one enemy--Israel.
    Iran was a patron of Hamas more out of expediency than ideology.
    In Syria's civil war, Hamas (anti-Assad) and Hezbollah (pro-Assad) have
    conflicting sympathies.
  6. 12 Sep '13 19:53
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    You know, that's almost not funny.
    Russia’s Moskva missile cruiser, dubbed a “carrier-killer” by NATO, has passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the Russian naval force there.
    http://rt.com/news/russia-moskva-cruiser-mediterranean-720/

    Whose up for WW III? Let's say ...[text shortened]... w, for the children, or whatever.

    Who would our allies be? Who would Russia's be?
    I am currently reading a great book called, "Hitlers beneficiaries". In the book it explains how Hitler used progressive policies to buy off the populace. Anyhew, the Nazi regime essentially went broke due to its excessive spending habits which probably avoided further detection by declaring war. Perhaps Obama is doing the same.
  7. 12 Sep '13 19:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    '...Hamas is against the US.'
    --Whodey

    It would be more accurate to say that the United States is against Hamas
    or, indeed, against any Palestinian political movement that aspires to be
    truly independent (not counting a Bantusan) of Israel's domination.

    Israeli propaganda (which the US media tends to accept with little question)
    has long demoniz s civil war, Hamas (anti-Assad) and Hezbollah (pro-Assad) have
    conflicting sympathies.
    If the US attacks Syria then Hamas may then begin to target the US. Then again, what is the big deal about taking out a few buildings as Kerry suggests? Just because the US took out 2 countries after losing two buildings in no way implies that a tiny strike against Syria will have any significant consequences as it did in America. LOL

    As for Israel, I said nothing about Israel. Hell, I could be talking about the Sudan and Israel would somehow get dragged into the mix. Talk about propaganda. No doubt, Israel would come out looking worse than the genocidal Sudan on top of it all.

    With or without Israel and the US, these fools would still be killing each other. That is a fact I'm sure you are not willing to accept.
  8. 12 Sep '13 22:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am currently reading a great book called, "Hitlers beneficiaries".
    In the book it explains how Hitler used progressive policies to buy off the populace. Anyhew, the Nazi regime essentially went broke due to its excessive spending habits which probably avoided further detection by declaring war. Perhaps Obama is doing the same.
    The argument of _Hitler's Beneficiaries_ seems controversial and would be
    disputed by some historians of the Third Reich. As far as I can recall, some
    parts of the book seemed disingenuous or misleading when I read it.
  9. 13 Sep '13 00:10
    Originally posted by whodey
    So let me get this straight.


    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad. ASsad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf States are pro-Sisi, which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is backing Muslim Brotherh ...[text shortened]... ainst General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.

    Do I have it right?
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/the-best-laid-plans-the-new-middle-east/

    This sounds more like it.
  10. 13 Sep '13 01:50
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The argument of _Hitler's Beneficiaries_ seems controversial and would be
    disputed by some historians of the Third Reich. As far as I can recall, some
    parts of the book seemed disingenuous or misleading when I read it.
    So you have read it?

    Tell me then, what do you disagree with specifically?
  11. 13 Sep '13 04:28
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Ignorant Westerners who lump Hamas (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shia)
    together don't comprehend the great depth of the Sunni-Shia division.
    A Muslim friend of mine (Shia, of Malay descent) used to tell me that "ignorant Westerners" exaggerated the depth of the Sunni-Shia division, failing to realise it was insignificant to most Muslims. Where conflict between Shias and Sunnis existed, my friend tended to ascribe this to the actions of non-Muslims seeking to promote division within Islam as a kind of divide-and-rule strategy. Himself Shia, my friend was married to a Sunni Muslim.
  12. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    13 Sep '13 11:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    So let me get this straight.


    Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad. ASsad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi. But Gulf States are pro-Sisi, which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood. Obama is backing Muslim Brotherh ...[text shortened]... ainst General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.

    Do I have it right?
    Just one more reason to stay out of the middle east...
  13. 13 Sep '13 11:37
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    A Muslim friend of mine (Shia, of Malay descent) used to tell me that "ignorant Westerners" exaggerated the depth of the Sunni-Shia division, failing to realise it was insignificant to most Muslims. Where conflict between Shias and Sunnis existed, my friend tended to ascribe this to the actions of non-Muslims seeking to promote division within Islam as a kind of divide-and-rule strategy. Himself Shia, my friend was married to a Sunni Muslim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxzJGgox_E
    Seriously, dude.
  14. 13 Sep '13 12:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Just one more reason to stay out of the middle east...
    Nonsense. You are talking about progressives here. There is money to redistribute, society to be re-engineered, and massive debt to create. There is no time but now to strike Assad!!!

    Life is just one big "experiment for dummies".
  15. 13 Sep '13 12:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you have read it?

    Tell me then, what do you disagree with specifically?
    Bump for the Duschess!!

    Do you care to respond or are you retracting your statement?