8-Oct-16 World View -- Reader comments and questions on Syria, Russia, and Russian trolls / The future of the Mideast

[John]

8-Oct-16 World View -- Reader comments and questions on Syria, Russia, and Russian trolls


The future of the Mideast

** 8-Oct-16 World View -- Reader comments and questions on Syria, Russia, and Russian trolls
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e161008


Contents:
Russian Trolls
Popularity of Bashar al-Assad
Russian shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
The future of the Mideast


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Russia, trolls, Syria,
Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin

[Barrio Barma]

"Russia will be our ally in the coming Clash of Civilizations world war"
That depends who "we" are: we have a political establishment which is not allied with the American people. Ditto the peoples of Europe. Russia may have the same enemies as the American and European people, because our common enemies are running the NWO, Congress, The EU, the media and the climate hoaxers. Our other common enemies are running Iran, Saudi, UAE, Muslim Brotherhood and so on.
The Russians, Chinese, NK and most of LatAm are also our enemies: the questions revolve around how we fight to protect our interests, as Americans, without starting or joining wars that are none of our business.
Our biggest enemy is the DC/Media establishment. Let's get control of our country first, so that WE decide who is friend or for, or neither.

[Rhymes121]

In terms of Russia swinging back to an allied stance w/r/t the West, I wonder if the triggering event will involve Turkey.

Right now, Turkey is a NATO ally, and has made highly-publicized amends with Russia.

And yet, bubbling under the surface are the broken promises of the European Union regarding the refugee deal, the West's celebration of the Kurdish militia in Syria, as well as the West's chilly response to the failed coup epitomized by America's unwillingness to extradite Gulen. Russia is too close for comfort and is supporting Bashar al Assad who hates Sunnis. So there's strained relations all around.

President Erdogan's power grab, constitutional amendments, and his civil, media, & military purges indicate that Turkey is moving in a highly nationalist direction.

Do you think President Erdogan would ever leave the NATO alliance? What regional powers would ally with Turkey in that case? And would that necessarily push Russia and America into bed with one another?

[John]

> "Russia will be our ally in the coming Clash of Civilizations
> world war"

> That depends who "we" are: we have a political establishment which
> is not allied with the American people. Ditto the peoples of
> Europe. Russia may have the same enemies as the American and
> European people, because our common enemies are running the NWO,
> Congress, The EU, the media and the climate hoaxers. Our other
> common enemies are running Iran, Saudi, UAE, Muslim Brotherhood
> and so on.

> The Russians, Chinese, NK and most of LatAm are also our enemies:
> the questions revolve around how we fight to protect our
> interests, as Americans, without starting or joining wars that are
> none of our business.

> Our biggest enemy is the DC/Media establishment. Let's get control
> of our country first, so that WE decide who is friend or for, or
> neither.

This is not the way the world works. You're talking about political
issues. These issues become irrelevant once the "Regeneracy"
occurs. The word "regeneracy" is from generational theory, and it
refers to the regeneracy of civic unity that occurs when the people
perceive that the country and its way of life face an existential
threat. At that point, political issues are put aside, and the
population unites behind the leader, and a full-fledged generational
crisis war begins.

To put this in more concrete terms, suppose that a Chinese nuclear
missile lands on San Francisco. Issues like climate change would
instantly become completely irrelevant. The entire country would
unite behind the leader -- whether it's Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or
Hillary Clinton -- to fight the war.

In the 1930s, the country was similarly bitterly divided, with big
political divides between supporters and opponents of Franklin
Roosevelt. The "regeneracy events" were first Pearl Harbor, and then
the Bataan Death March. At that point, the country was united behind
Roosevelt in fighting the war against the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

In the 1850-60s, the North was deeply split between pro- and
anti-slavery factions. Those considerations were put aside when the
Regeneracy occurred -- the Battle of Bull Run, the first battle that
made everyone aware that the country might not survive the Civil War.

Tom Mazanec just posted a reference to an article that compares the
US today to the late 1930s:

https://theconversation.com/why-calls-f ... 940s-62405

[John]

> In terms of Russia swinging back to an allied stance w/r/t the
> West, I wonder if the triggering event will involve Turkey.

> Right now, Turkey is a NATO ally, and has made highly-publicized
> amends with Russia.

> And yet, bubbling under the surface are the broken promises of the
> European Union regarding the refugee deal, the West's celebration
> of the Kurdish militia in Syria, as well as the West's chilly
> response to the failed coup epitomized by America's unwillingness
> to extradite Gulen. Russia is too close for comfort and is
> supporting Bashar al Assad who hates Sunnis. So there's strained
> relations all around.

> President Erdogan's power grab, constitutional amendments, and his
> civil, media, & military purges indicate that Turkey is moving in
> a highly nationalist direction.

> Do you think President Erdogan would ever leave the NATO alliance?
> What regional powers would ally with Turkey in that case? And
> would that necessarily push Russia and America into bed with one
> another?

As in the previous posting, you're talking about many political issues
that will become completely irrelevant once the Regeneracy occurs, as
described in my previous response.

It's quite possible that parts of Europe will ally with Turkey.
Germany and Italy have done so in the past and may do so again.

It's impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but some guidance
is available from my "Generational alignments of the world's religions
hypothesis" that I described in the following article:

** 17-Aug-16 World View -- Russia-Iran airbase agreement further isolates Saudi Arabia
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e160817

[gerald]

It is all a game to keep the inmates fighting among themselves.
-Prison Planet-

[Coordinated fires]

u no say ther is Ruzza trolls! Ruzza STRONKK!!

[Shimshon]

"A lot of people feel that way. But a lot more people feel that America has a moral obligation to be policeman of the world, so it's unlikely that we'll get out of the situation."

Yet this attitude you insist is widespread in America (I have my doubts) has absolutely nothing to do with your constant editorializing against Russia and whitewashing the West's role in fomenting the war in the first that led to Assad's alleged genocide (Which people, as a group, is he trying to eliminate entirely?). What part of "there are no good guys in this" don't you understand? What do you think will come after Assad is toppled? You sound like an apologist for Nobel Laureate Obama. Please stop the polemics, which are tedious and make you a much less interesting read.

I live in Israel (check my IP address if you don't believe). I would be considered pretty hard core in my right wing politics. I am no fan of the Arabs that surround my country. Yet I am not stupid enough to believe that what would inevitably succeed Assad would be even a little better than him. Just like the situations in Iraq and Libya. Are the Iraqis or Libyans better or worse off since brutal but secular dictators were toppled? For that matter, is the West better or worse off?

[John]

> "A lot of people feel that way. But a lot more people feel that
> America has a moral obligation to be policeman of the world, so
> it's unlikely that we'll get out of the situation."

> Yet this attitude you insist is widespread in America (I have my
> doubts) has absolutely nothing to do with your constant
> editorializing against Russia and whitewashing the West's role in
> fomenting the war in the first that led to Assad's alleged
> genocide (Which people, as a group, is he trying to eliminate
> entirely?). What part of "there are no good guys in this" don't
> you understand? What do you think will come after Assad is
> toppled? You sound like an apologist for Nobel Laureate
> Obama. Please stop the polemics, which are tedious and make you a
> much less interesting read.

> I live in Israel (check my IP address if you don't believe). I
> would be considered pretty hard core in my right wing politics. I
> am no fan of the Arabs that surround my country. Yet I am not
> stupid enough to believe that what would inevitably succeed Assad
> would be even a little better than him. Just like the situations
> in Iraq and Libya. Are the Iraqis or Libyans better or worse off
> since brutal but secular dictators were toppled? For that matter,
> is the West better or worse off?

You're mixing up a lot of things here. The main thing is that you're
misreading my role. I'm like the weather forecaster who predicts a
hurricane. He isn't advocating a hurricane, nor is he arguing that a
hurricane is better than sunshine. He's just reporting what's
happening and what's coming, which is what I'm doing.

The West did not foment the "Arab Spring" that caused massive
dislocations in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemem, Bahrain, Iraq and Syria.
That was caused by the rise of a new generation of Arabs throughout
the Mideast.

Nor did the West foment Bashar al-Assad's reaction to the Arab Spring
in Syria, which was to start exterminating peaceful anti-government
protesters. As I recently described, the real turning point came in
August 2011, when al-Assad started a massive military assault on a
large, peaceful Palestinian refugee camp in Latakia, filled with tens
of thousands of women and children Palestinians. The US State
Department called the attacks "abhorrent and repulsive."

** 24-Sep-16 World View -- Syria's al-Assad goes for the kill, turning Aleppo and civilians to bloody rubble
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e160924

So what happened in Syria was not fomented by the West. It was all
Bashar al-Assad, supported by the war criminals in Russia and Iran.

Finally, I can certainly understand your concern about the Sunnis
winning the war. But I'm not sure why you aren't concerned about
al-Assad winning the war, since Iran and Hezbollah have made it clear
that Israel would be next.

I'm not underestimating your concerns. We're all headed for a world
war, and it will probably reach Israel before it reaches the US. I'm
just telling you what's going to happen.

[Shimshon]

Hi John. I am a daily reader, so I am familiar with that post.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I have no concern for the Sunnis, or anyone, for that matter, "winning" the war.

Who is providing arms and training to the rebels (many of whom are not even Syrian)? Is it the Russians? Whoever is aiding them is (are) the one responsible for actually fomenting the war, regardless of who started it. No arms and training, no rebellion, period. It is eminently clear that US policymakers wanted a war, promoted it, and nurtured it, long before it even got started. Leaked cables on the matter are indisputable.

Regardless of whether you sympathize with the rebels (which you openly and unabashedly do, over and over) or Assad (which I do NOT, and never said I did). I also never mentioned Hezbollah or Iran in my comments. Stop putting words in my mouth. It is disingenuous and dishonest. Please either respond to my statements (my ACTUAL statements) or tell me to go away.

This is a war, and there are no good sides (even the US). Constant editorializing by using terms like "genocidal," "pathological," and so forth when reporting is ridiculously one-sided and gets tiresome. Is Assad a psychopath? Maybe, but based on what? What is it if he is? Are you on the CIA's payroll? Because rather than interesting reporting, it reads as US propaganda with the endless diatribes directed against Putin and Assad (I note a much-attenuated animus directed at the US). We all know they're acting in their own interests, and doing so rather ruthlessly. To compare them to the Nazis and their organized program of extermination of entire peoples (and not just the Jews), which you are doing by imposing an editorial slant on what is otherwise interesting observations on what is happening, is absurd.

It's not like I am unfamiliar with war. During Protective Edge I head the nearly constant shelling for weeks from 50 miles inland. Israel leveled entire neighborhoods (not blocks, entire regions). If Assad is doing as you say in Aleppo, he is doing no differently (Israel is more Western, so helpfully notified people a few minutes in advance that their homes were about to be destroyed, a luxury Aleppo residents likely are not receiving). By picking sides as you are, you are, in a way, glorifying war (look at those selfless noble rebels fighting against the psychopathic Assad using barrel bombs -- BARREL BOMBS I TELL YOU -- as opposed to more civilized bombs manufactured by proper arms makers, I assume?).