SYRIA

[danbr00]

It would seem the biblical gog/magog and euphrates war is lining up VERY soon.

US/EU/NATO wanted assad to let them build their pipeline through turkey to europe but assad chose irans offer.. this is what began the pentagons quest for regime change as theyve done in all the other mideast countries with proxy wars and terrorist groups.. and they will stop at nothing https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ergy-pipelines
https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter...russia-senate/

Russia/Iran/China are sick of the west having their hegemonic way and want to maintain balance so they drew the line and will not let us take out assad.

Weve been on the edge this last week with the coalition bombing of syrian troops and then un convoy bombing by syria/russia.

I have a feeling that the US may allow turkey to attack syrian troops soon here as edrogan has the balls.. a retaliation would start ww3 as turkey is part of nato

this would probably result in israel and saudi being targeted by russia iran thereafter

*OPINION*>there is no explanation of the US risking death of millions just for a pipeline in syria and conflict with russia as the western economies are passed by the east OTHER than their want for chaos to prevent election and allow un and antichrist pope to start global government<*OPINION*

[Profileid]

yep

[Poise n Pen]

They largely did it just to flood europe with muslims, part because they get money for it and part because they get free votes and make sure they can maintain power no matter what they do.

[danbr00]

yes as this ensures the chaos and their stay in power BBBBBUTTTTTT this is the crux moment so many are turning ALT RIGHT i dont think theyre going to allow us to vote them out and remove everything theyve set in place these last decades! remember who is above the leaders and making their decisions? the 1%

[zhaoyun]

Man, why's it always the Middle East. Must be because Middle Easterners are such attention whores and drama queens. The world tends to blow up into fistfights there.

[Profileid]

Man, why's it always the Middle East. Must be because Middle Easterners are such attention whores and drama queens. The world tends to blow up into fistfights there.

It's the heat.Tends to make people wanna fight for some reason. Brown people are more likely to have tempers. You see a milder case of this with Italians and Spaniards.

[danbr00]

ok lets stay on topic its THE OIL and because they are unstable/weak countries that superpowers can intervene and topple.. its the middle of the world, frontline of east vs west, chess board were countries can skirmish..anddd its in the BIBLE

[N1019]

It would seem the biblical gog/magog and euphrates war is lining up VERY soon.

US/EU/NATO wanted assad to let them build their pipeline through turkey to europe but assad chose irans offer.. this is what began the pentagons quest for regime change as theyve done in all the other mideast countries with proxy wars and terrorist groups.. and they will stop at nothing https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ergy-pipelines
https://www.rt.com/usa/360317-carter...russia-senate/

Russia/Iran/China are sick of the west having their hegemonic way and want to maintain balance so they drew the line and will not let us take out assad.

Weve been on the edge this last week with the coalition bombing of syrian troops and then un convoy bombing by syria/russia.

I have a feeling that the US may allow turkey to attack syrian troops soon here as edrogan has the balls.. a retaliation would start ww3 as turkey is part of nato

this would probably result in israel and saudi being targeted by russia iran thereafter

I agree with the pipeline wars theory, with the following exception: the part where Russia and Iran attack Israel and Saudi Arabia.

My reasoning is as follows:
1. Russia has always quietly supported the existence of Israel.

2. Russia and Iran know that if they attacked major regional allies of the US like Saudi Arabia and Israel, they would face full-force retaliation from fifth generation Western military forces of the US and allies, which would be unwinnable, and would give the US the excuse it needed to take the Middle Eastern hostilities to the next level. At the moment, the US is running short on excuses to be involved in the Syrian conflict, relying heavily on non-state proxies and covert operations, and facing wipespread criticism in the international community. Were its allies to come under major attack from an axis of opposing states, that would no longer be the case. Russia and Iran would be foolish to hand the US such an opportunity.

3. It is more likely that the US will orchestrate some sort of false flag attack on one of its allies or even itself to justify offensive moves against Syria, Iran, etc. That's their typical method of breaking geopolitical deadlocks, and it usually works, even if the ugly truth comes out later.

ok lets stay on topic its THE OIL and because they are unstable/weak countries that superpowers can intervene and topple.. its the middle of the world, frontline of east vs west, chess board were countries can skirmish..anddd its in the BIBLE

Yes, it's largely about energy resources upon which the global economy depends, although the Middle East would probably be a "hot zone" even without oil and gas as part of the Great Game.


The bottom line was that the Assad regime knew it had two pipeline choices, one backed by the US and the other backed by Iran, and it made the wrong choice. The Assad regime also must have known that the US had its eye on Iran, and that being allied to an American target would be dangerous. The pipleine negotiations go back years, to a time when overt talk of war with Iran was more frequent, and when plans for greater regional conflict were fresh.

Assad should have known that selling his arse to the US would have been a better choice than the total destruction of his country. But no, instead of making the right choice for his people by submitting to an infinitely superior power, he allowed pride, ego and idealism to dictate his decision. Sure, he managed to cling to power, but look at Syria now. Was it really worth it? True, Syria and his regime probably would have been fucked over by America anyway, but maybe not as badly. Now, they're screwed.

[danbr00]

I agree with the pipeline wars theory, with the following exception: the part where Russia and Iran attack Israel and Saudi Arabia.

My reasoning is as follows:
1. Russia has always quietly supported the existence of Israel.

2. Russia and Iran know that if they attacked major regional allies of the US like Saudi Arabia and Israel, they would face full-force retaliation from fifth generation Western military forces of the US and allies, which would be unwinnable, and would give the US the excuse it needed to take the Middle Eastern hostilities to the next level. At the moment, the US is running short on excuses to be involved in the Syrian conflict, relying heavily on non-state proxies and covert operations, and facing wipespread criticism in the international community. Were its allies to come under major attack from an axis of opposing states, that would no longer be the case. Russia and Iran would be foolish to hand the US such an opportunity.

3. It is more likely that the US will orchestrate some sort of false flag attack on one of its allies or even itself to justify offensive moves against Syria, Iran, etc. That's their typical method of breaking geopolitical deadlocks, and it usually works, even if the ugly truth comes out later.




Yes, it's largely about energy resources upon which the global economy depends, although the Middle East would probably be a "hot zone" even without oil and gas as part of the Great Game.


The bottom line was that the Assad regime knew it had two pipeline choices, one backed by the US and the other backed by Iran, and it made the wrong choice. The Assad regime also must have known that the US had its eye on Iran, and that being allied to an American target would be dangerous.

Assad should have known that selling his arse to the US would have been a better choice than the total destruction of his country. But no, instead of making the right choice for his people by submitting to an infinitely superior power, he allowed pride, ego and idealism to dictate his decision. Sure, he managed to cling to power, but look at Syria now. Was it really worth it?

yes but what i was saying is that us may use turkey to attack assads forces first and then when they hit turkey back, its grounds for full attack of damascus.. assad is about to retake aleppo.. pentagon maniacs have no other choice.. once us attack damascus i feel it would spark ww3 which would involve russia/iran attacking israel/saudi after

[N1019]

yes but what i was saying is that us may use turkey to attack assads forces first and then when they hit turkey back, its grounds for full attack of damascus.. assad is about to retake aleppo.. pentagon maniacs have no other choice.. once us attack damascus i feel it would spark ww3 which would involve russia/iran attacking israel/saudi after

The only sensible decision for Russia now is basically to watch Syria fall, albeit in a face-saving manner. The Russians know that Syria and Iran are not worth direct war with the West.

Russia never set out to "save" Syria, anyway. If it did, it could have gone in there much earlier and harder. Instead, it came in late and its actions more or less amounted to a token gesture, with the Assad regime retaining power over a country in ruins and unable to support its only regional ally of Iran.

Russia still got a few things out of its involvement in the conflict, including a seat at the negotiating table when Syria is finally carved-up, which gives it leverage against the US in other matters like the Ukraine, sanctions, etc.

But ultimately, Syria is an expendable bargaining chip for Russia and so is Iran. They are nice to have on board, but if they lose them, life will go on for Russia. The Syrians and Iranians have no choice but to accept the bones thrown at them by Russia, because no-one else is coming to their aid.