Leave a Reply --Link to Moderation Policy--
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
Saker Message:
Only Logged in users can comment.
New Commentators Register here to comment.
Ivan is a neoCultist tool. Didn’t take him long to pull out the talking points. Partition-Syria is a “made- up” country. Syrian was mentioned by name in Roman Republic reports. Saul fell over on the road to Damascus. Or was all that made up?
It seems to me that these exceptional and indispensable ones have got it wrong. Syria is Syria, and its people are Syrian, regardless of their faith. They have the right to be Jewish, Alawi, Sunni, Shia, Catholic, Orthodox, Zoroastrian, Druze, anything they want to be. Only the West wants a single Salafi (ISIS) regime.
The West needs to get out. They have tried to conquer and rule the ME since the Crusades. It is time for the peoples of the ME, all the peoples, to chart their own path.
I suspect that, for such people, everything but Israel, (the most fake of all ‘nations’ – after the former the Ukraine and the USA) is slated for demolition. A crucial part of the tasks at hand for the Anglo-Zionist destruction of the Middle East has been the obliteration of historical, archaeological and cultural memory.
(This goes for the former The Ukraine, in spades.)
The pedigree of the Fourth Reich leads directly back to the Third Reich and, of course, to the First Reich – Rome. No one can say that the Anglo-Zionist Empire has no pedigree. Unfortunately it leads all the way back to Satan.
One of the guests (Ivan,interesting name for him) who was the most pro-US on the panel. Brought up a pro-US point that I think needs to be explored. He mentioned that Syria and Iraq were “artificial” states,and partition might be better (the not so hidden US desire for them). So what is the meaning of that term exactly.Many if not most countries in the World could be termed that way as well.But most of the problems in those states come from outside forces using those countries internal issues to harm them.Not from the dynamics of internal forces themselves.There are several problematic concerns in different states. Most states were formed in one way or another by historic means (minus some that were loped together by colonial powers.With little rhyme or reason). Syria and Iraq on one hand might be called “artificial” But historically there were states in those regions that come pretty close to those borders (actually usually even larger borders). So it wasn’t just the French and British pulling a rabbit out of their hat when those states were formed after WWI. There was a basis for them being together.
Usually,which is “not” true mostly in Syria or Iraq,are ethnic and language issues in some states.And those could “even” with more rightness be considered as “artificial” if we use the US criteria used in Syria and Iraq.Israel (in the full pre-1947 Palestinian borders,is at least 45% Arab.So “partition” if you use the US thinking should certainly be the solution. Yet you can be certain the US won’t “suggest” that there.The US itself is made up of areas ethnically diverse (Southwest in particular). So “could” be considered an “artificial” state.The UK,with England,Scotland,Wales,Northern Ireland,would easily fit the “artificial” list if judged in that manner. Spain,with Catalonia,the Basque areas,and Galicia,would be the same.If you go for religion,as the criteria instead,as sometimes the US does. Then the Netherlands,Germany,both have areas that are mostly Catholic or Protestant,that should be a reason to divide them,under the US reasoning for an “artificial” state.We could go endlessly Worldwide and see those issues.But basically it comes down to,a bunch of “equally” artificial states,have no “right” to try to break up another state.And certainly not based on that type of flawed criteria.