Sign in to follow this  
LAOLONG

1914

Recommended Posts

Moved topic to off grid,  where all things war and gun related are discussed.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you read that book ?   I read some reviews on it .

 

Did you find the  'Egytptian' groups that I told you about ?  That started a Masonic Jewish secret agency occult group to encourage the Young Turk rebellion that turned into al-queda, then terrorism and bit them on the arse ? 

 

 

Todays number is

 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSy6K-bQmS_tLc_DxltqrG

 

 

TVC 15

 

.....

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agent 666 ididn't read ,its about ww1.
B. Tuchman book on 1914 pre ww1 ,i have read ,(and it reminds our days ) when
There are a number of kings with
Territorial aspiration playing a foolish
Game of kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WW1 was the culmination of the antagonistic behaviour behind 2 great imperial and industrial powers. The alliances and the extent of the colonies are what resulted in a global war. Erroneously ww1 wasn't the first global war...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we still haven't learned how to sit down and talk with each other and arrive at compromises instead of killing each other.

 

A condition of the human animal it seems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people really understand why wars take place or why they do things.   Often it seems to me there is a resistance to an energetic transition; fear incomprehension, lack of understanding how to progress, then collapse.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rideforever said:

I don't think people really understand why wars take place or why they do things.   Often it seems to me there is a resistance to an energetic transition; fear incomprehension, lack of understanding how to progress, then collapse.

True this.  Fake news isn't really anything new.  It has been happening all along.  The people are told only what the governments want them to know.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

It seems we still haven't learned how to sit down and talk with each other and arrive at compromises instead of killing each other.

 

A condition of the human animal it seems.

 

It doesn't have to do with human beings per se. Only in an indirect manner.

Eg.What is your conflict Marblehead with the average farmer in Siberia? You have never met and you have nothing to settle between yourselves.

Yet your states are in conflict because they are trying to exercise control in the same parts of the world.

Conflicts happen between states which themselves are superorganisms. They have they own drives which sometimes come in conflict with the motives of some individuals which they are the sum of.

Edited by Zork
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zork said:

It doesn't have to do with human beings per se. Only in indirect manner.

Directly, I suggest.

3 minutes ago, Zork said:

Eg.What is your conflict Marblehead with the average farmer in Siberia? You have never met and you have nothing to settle.

Yet your states are in conflict because they are trying to exercise control in the same parts of the world.

I have no conflict with the peoples of Siberia.  They don't want anything that belongs to me and I don't want anything that belongs to them.  

 

Yes, there are conflicts between the governments of Russia and the USA.  That is a result of the politicians (people) wanting more power and control.  It has nothing to do with me or the Siberian farmer.

3 minutes ago, Zork said:

Conflicts happen between states which themselves are superorganisms.

The masses controlled by the few (politicians).  They tell me that they are doing it in my best interests.  They lie.

3 minutes ago, Zork said:

They have they own drives which sometimes come in conflict with the motives of some individuals which they are the sum of.

Yeah, greed and the desire for more power.  Ego based totally.

 

WWI was started because Germany was getting close to becoming an Imperial power and Britain didn't want the competition.  That is all.  Politicians against politicians striving after their greed and desire for more power or the desire to maintain its power at the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but what has Syria for example have to do with American power? Why do your politicians have become involved in that country and almost gotten themselves to war with Russia for? At this time there are active undercover forces of Americans and Russians in the area that exchange fire. 

Syria was never that important or even part of the American influence sphere. It still isn't important in any conceivable way when viewed in an economic way. I chose Syria because it is a good example that doesn't make sense when examined by the view that politicians want power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Sure, but what has Syria for example have to do with American power?

Fair questions but I feel I am being tested.  Hehehe

 

Syria is an ally of Russia as is Iran.  Syria and Iran support terrorist organizations - organizations that want to destroy Israel.  Syria is where most of the ISIS went after being forced, in the mot part, out of Iraq.  So it's not so much that the USA has vested interests in Syria but it is more at holding the support for terrorism in check.

 

Our last administration, for whatever the reason, supported those countries that were supporting terrorism.  The USA is not trying to do an about face so that Israel does not have to get directly involved because if they do it would lead directly to war with Russia.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Why do your politicians have become involved in that country and almost gotten themselves to war with Russia for?

Answered above.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

At this time there are active undercover forces of Americans and Russians in the area that exchange fire.

Nothing new.  CIA and KGB have been doing that for nearly 80 years now.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Syria was never that important or even part of the American influence sphere.

True if you don't consider the relationship between Israel and the USA.  Our last administration didn't care about Israel.  Our current administration does.  The USA will not allow the destruction of Israel by Iran and Syria.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

It still isn't important in any conceivable way when viewed in an economic way.

Oil.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

I chose Syria because it is a good example that doesn't make sense when examined by the view that politicians want power.

The enemy of my friend is my enemy.  Syria is an enemy of Israel.  Israel is our friend.  Therefore Syria is our enemy.  Same regarding Iran.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Fair questions but I feel I am being tested.  Hehehe

You aren't. It's for the sake of debate.:D But Syria is also a good example of a country like Serbia in WW1. There is a huge chance that a serious conflict will arise there if you consider the direct and indirect involvement of too many foreign powers.

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Syria is an ally of Russia as is Iran.  Syria and Iran support terrorist organizations - organizations that want to destroy Israel. 

Sure but this was already happening for at least 40 years. Why get involved with Syria now?

The way i see it, nothing has happened to Israel's detriment in the area  (the balance of power hasn't changed) so the problem isn't Syria or Iran.

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Syria is where most of the ISIS went after being forced, in the mot part, out of Iraq.

Not true.

 

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

So it's not so much that the USA has vested interests in Syria but it is more at holding the support for terrorism in check.

ISIS is using US vehicles like Humvees and US anti tank weapons. They also have been trained to fight in a way that is very similar to US infantry tactics. See a pattern there? 

So that basically rules out US involvement to battle terrorism...

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Our last administration, for whatever the reason, supported those countries that were supporting terrorism.

I didn't like Obama but this isn't true.

 

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

The USA is not trying to do an about face so that Israel does not have to get directly involved because if they do it would lead directly to war with Russia.

And you prefer to face russia in their natural playing field with danger of getting involved in a nuclear conflict? This doesn't make sense since Russia isn't trying to do anything with Israel. Modern Russia isn't the USSR.

 

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

True if you don't consider the relationship between Israel and the USA.  Our last administration didn't care about Israel.  Our current administration does.  The USA will not allow the destruction of Israel by Iran and Syria.

Israel isn't in danger. That's one of the false excuses some powers use to get involved in the region. Israel has so much air power that it can take on the whole NATO airforce by itself, it laughs at minor air powers like Iran or Syria.

 

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Oil.

Syria doesn't have oil reserves. At least not any to talk about or fight for.

 

32 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

The enemy of my friend is my enemy.  Syria is an enemy of Israel.  Israel is our friend.  Therefore Syria is our enemy.  Same regarding Iran.

Yes but what does all this have to do with politicians and power? Syria was one of most stable and peaceful countries in the region. Now it's unstable and war-torn? How does this situation increase your power in the area. The way i see it the war on Syria has cemented Russian presence in the area.

Edited by Zork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zork said:

You aren't. It's for the sake of debate.:D

I was just messing with you.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

But Syria is also a good example of a country like Serbia in WW1. There is a huge chance that a serious conflict will arise there if you consider the direct and indirect involvement of too many foreign powers.

Very true.  My last administration wanted war with Russia.  The present one does not.  That makes a difference.

 

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Sure but this was already happening for at least 40 years. Why get involved with Syria now?

Obama was (still is) pro Islam.  He didn't care about Israel.  Trump does.  the USA was already in Syria when Trump took power.  He apparently hasn't found a way yet to get us out.  Without Russia in Syria, Israel can take care of its own conflicts with Syria. 

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

The way i see it, nothing has happened to Israel's detriment in the area  (the balance of power hasn't changed) so the problem isn't Syria or Iran.

But that is because the USA is in the area.  Trump just cut back on funding the Palestinians in an effort to get them to talk with the Israelis. 

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Not true.

You might want to check this out.  They (ISIS) merged with the rebels in Syria in an effort to destroy the existing Syrian government.  Both the USA and Russia are fighting the ISIS in Syria.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

ISIS is using US vehicles like Humvees and US anti tank weapons.

Yes.  Weapons and vehicles that they took from the Iraqis after my last administration stopped supporting the Iraqis in their fight against ISIS.  That is totally the fault of the last USA administration.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

They also have been trained to fight in a way that is very similar to US infantry tactics. See a pattern there?

Not so.  They have been trained to kill anyone who does not commit allegiance to ISIS by any means possible.  The USA troops had very strict controls for engagement.  The rules were so tight that you actually had to be shot before you could return fire.  WTF???

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

So that basically rules out US involvement to battle terrorism...

Not true.  Those same terrorists are the ones killing people in Europe and other parts of the world.  My governments allowed for this chaos to evolve.  I think we have the responsibility to destroy it.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

I didn't like Obama but this isn't true.

I've said enough to this subject.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

And you prefer to face russia in their natural playing field with danger of getting involved in a nuclear conflict. This doesn't make sense since Russia isn't trying to do anything with Israel. Modern Russia isn't the USSR.

No, I think Trump is doing the best he can in order to prevent a war between the USA and Russia.

 

Agree.  Russia has no interest in Israel.  But it does have interest in the oil in Syria and Iran.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Israel isn't in danger.

Not now, no.  Even if the UN would like to see them destroyed Trump will not allow it.  That is why he moved our Embassy to Jerusalem. 

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

That's one of the false excuses some powers use to get involved in the region. Israel has so much air power that it can take on the whole NATO airforce by itself, it laughs at minor air powers like Iran or Syria.

True.  But their entire Air Force is supported and maintained by the USA.  I don't doubt that the USA has given them nukes.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Syria doesn't have oil reserves. At least not any to talk about or fight for.

True.  But the friendship between them and Iran makes them common enemies of Israel and friends with Russia.

6 minutes ago, Zork said:

Yes but what does all this have to do with politicians and power? Syria was one of most stable and peaceful countries in the region. Now it's unstable and war-torn. How does this situation increase your power in the area. The way i see it the war on Syria has cemented Russian presence in the area.

Good observation.  Remember, my last administration supported Arab Spring throughout the entire Middle East.  The goal seemed to me to be to create a Greater Islamic State.  I have no Idea why my last administration supported the terrorists because they had to know that it would only create chaos in the entire area.  But maybe that's what the New World Order wanted.  If your enemy is in chaos they are easy to defeat.

 

And I agree, Russia now has a physical presence in Syria which they didn't have until after my last administration decided to help over-throw the established government.  But then, we that withal the Mediterranean nations.  Egypt was our ally and we stabbed them in the back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Very true.  My last administration wanted war with Russia.  The present one does not.  That makes a difference.

Ironically it doesn't. I am not saying things are not better, but the end result of the situation that has already developed

could be a war between Russia and the US. We both know it is not something both sides should strive for.

21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Obama was (still is) pro Islam.  He didn't care about Israel.  Trump does.  the USA was already in Syria when Trump took power.  He apparently hasn't found a way yet to get us out.  Without Russia in Syria, Israel can take care of its own conflicts with Syria. 

This isn't about what obama believes. US foreign policy isn't fully dictated by the president. You know this better than me.

 

21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

But that is because the USA is in the area.  Trump just cut back on funding the Palestinians in an effort to get them to talk with the Israelis.

The US was never invited to act on the soil of a sovereign nation. There is also no UN decision. By what right are you still there?

21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

You might want to check this out.  They (ISIS) merged with the rebels in Syria in an effort to destroy the existing Syrian government.  Both the USA and Russia are fighting the ISIS in Syria.

I don't. You have to. ISIS grew in parallel in Iraq and Syria. It was already there when the islamic state in IRAQ collapsed. The difference is that the russians are fighting ISIS by the invitation of the syrian goverment. US has no right or jurisdiction to act there.

21 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yes.  Weapons and vehicles that they took from the Iraqis after my last administration stopped supporting the Iraqis in their fight against ISIS.  That is totally the fault of the last USA administration.

Typical american. Very well meaning and very naive...

Obama gave the weapons to the rebels with the ultimate goal to oust Assad. They just didn't care if the weapons ended up in the wrong hands. The late McCain was caught there in an incognito visit talking with heads of the rebels which included top ISIS members and Al nusra front members. And before you say anything about fake news, the reporter who first found out about it was french...

 

By your other comments you just prove that the only reason for the us intervention in the area is Israel and the alliance between the two states. Blind alliances like that are what triggered the 1914 incidents which led to WW1. You are actively meddling with the power spheres of Russia and France. Unless you get out of there, war is inevitable. I don't care about what happens to you next or the russians, what bothers me is what will happen to the rest of us who won't take part in the conflict but still take the fallout.

 

Edited by Zork
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the love of God i don't claim that the russians are "angels" of any sort, they are actively fighting with Assad in the form  private mercenary paramilitary groups.

Also this source is for McCain from French reuters for you that can speak French. It's from the McCain obituary.

Fervent soutien des rebelles syriens

La m√™me ann√©e, alors que la Syrie est √©galement secou√©e par des protestations, John McCain prend position en faveur d'un d√©part du pr√©sident syrien Bachar el-Assad. Pour parvenir √† cet objectif, il se fait le partisan d'une aide militaire aux rebelles syriens (en grande partie islamistes) restant ainsi fid√®le √† sa ligne en mati√®re de politique internationale √©voqu√©e une d√©cennie plus t√īt.¬†La crise se mue rapidement en guerre et l'influence de Daesh dans le pays se fait grandissante.

Là encore, John McCain se rendra sur place pour rencontrer les insurgés, appelant à leur fournir des armes lourdes. Après avoir diffusé un cliché de ses rencontres, il sera accusé dans la presse d'avoir pris la pose avec des rebelles ayant participé à l'enlèvement de 11 pèlerins chiites en Syrie.

Pas √† une pol√©mique pr√®s, John McCain accusera le pr√©sident Barack Obama d'√™tre¬†¬ędirectement responsable¬Ľ de la fusillade d'Orlando en 2016, revendiqu√©e par Daesh.¬†¬ęLorsque [Barack Obama] a retir√© tout le monde d'Irak, al-Qa√Įda s'est rendu en Syrie, est devenu Daesh et Daesh est aujourd'hui ce qu'il est gr√Ęce aux faillites de Barack Obama¬Ľ, justifiera-t-il.

 

https://francais.rt.com/international/53554-vietnam-irak-syrie-qui-etait-vraiement-john-mccain-heros-regrette-executif-français

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zork said:

Ironically it doesn't. I am not saying things are not better, but the end result of the situation that has already developed

could be a war between Russia and the US. We both know it is not something both sides should strive for.

This isn't about what obama believes. US foreign policy isn't fully dictated by the president. You know this better than me.

You are giving me some valid points to speak to here.  Yes, for the USA to get involved in a war with either Russia or China would be really stupid.

 

And I agree, there are many players who have a part in determining US foreign policy.  Wealth gives birth to power.

 

8 minutes ago, Zork said:

 

The US was never invited to act on the soil of a sovereign nation. There is also no UN decision. By what right are you still there?

I don't. You have to. ISIS grew in parallel in Iraq and Syria. It was already there when the islamic state in IRAQ collapsed. The difference is that the russians are fighting ISIS by the invitation of the syrian goverment. US has no right or jurisdiction to act there.

Agree.  We went to Iraq and Afghanistan uninvited.  Excluding oil, there was more of a reason to invade Afghanistan than there was to invade Iraq.  The US had a real enemy in Afghanistan.  But then, if the US had not interfered with the USSR when it was in Afghanistan the problem would never have evolved for us.  We created our own enemy.

 

I have to agree with you.  The USA has no right to be engaged in Syria, the Russians were invited.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Zork said:

Typical american. Very well meaning and very naive…

Well, we did the same thing in Vietnam.

8 minutes ago, Zork said:

Obama gave the weapons to the rebels with the ultimate goal to oust Assad. They just didn't care if the weapons ended up in the wrong hands. The late McCain was caught there in an incognito visit talking with heads of the rebels which included top ISIS members and Al nusra front members. And before you say anything about fake news, the reporter who first found out about it was french…

I won't question that and I felt that before Bush Sr. took any action in Iraq he should have listened to the French.  They knew what was going on in Iraq - the USA didn't.

8 minutes ago, Zork said:

 

By your other comments you just prove that the only reason for the us intervention in the area is Israel and the alliance between the two states. Blind alliances like that are what triggered the 1914 incidents which led to WW1. You are actively meddling with the power spheres of Russia and France. Unless you get out of there, war is inevitable. I don't care about what happens to you next or the russians, what bothers me is what will happen to the rest of us who won't take part in the conflict but still take the fallout.

 

Yes, the USA is in the Middle East for the oil and Israel.  The USA will not give up the oil or the Israelis.  If Trump is unsuccessful at bring peace to the area you can go ahead and get ready for the next war.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zork said:

And for the love of God i don't claim that the russians are "angels" of any sort, they are actively fighting with Assad in the form  private mercenary paramilitary groups.

Also this source is for McCain from French reuters for you that can speak French. It's from the McCain obituary.

Fervent soutien des rebelles syriens

La m√™me ann√©e, alors que la Syrie est √©galement secou√©e par des protestations, John McCain prend position en faveur d'un d√©part du pr√©sident syrien Bachar el-Assad. Pour parvenir √† cet objectif, il se fait le partisan d'une aide militaire aux rebelles syriens (en grande partie islamistes) restant ainsi fid√®le √† sa ligne en mati√®re de politique internationale √©voqu√©e une d√©cennie plus t√īt.¬†La crise se mue rapidement en guerre et l'influence de Daesh dans le pays se fait grandissante.

Là encore, John McCain se rendra sur place pour rencontrer les insurgés, appelant à leur fournir des armes lourdes. Après avoir diffusé un cliché de ses rencontres, il sera accusé dans la presse d'avoir pris la pose avec des rebelles ayant participé à l'enlèvement de 11 pèlerins chiites en Syrie.

Pas √† une pol√©mique pr√®s, John McCain accusera le pr√©sident Barack Obama d'√™tre¬†¬ędirectement responsable¬Ľ de la fusillade d'Orlando en 2016, revendiqu√©e par Daesh.¬†¬ęLorsque [Barack Obama] a retir√© tout le monde d'Irak, al-Qa√Įda s'est rendu en Syrie, est devenu Daesh et Daesh est aujourd'hui ce qu'il est gr√Ęce aux faillites de Barack Obama¬Ľ, justifiera-t-il.

 

https://francais.rt.com/international/53554-vietnam-irak-syrie-qui-etait-vraiement-john-mccain-heros-regrette-executif-français

I promised that I would not talk about McCain any more.  I said what I needed to say while he was still alive.

 

Sure, the Russians are just as power greedy as is the USA.  We need to add China too even though they aren't directly involved.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I promised that I would not talk about McCain any more.  I said what I needed to say while he was still alive.

 

Sure, the Russians are just as power greedy as is the USA.  We need to add China too even though they aren't directly involved.

 

I respect that. I decided not to post anything in the obituary in the other thread for the same reason.

 

China is the one you should fear most in the long term. Your military already knows that and most of it's projections take china into account and what would happen when and if they overtake you in military spending/capability.

 

And sorry about the "naive americans" thing. I don't mean it in such a negative way nor was it meant to challenge you. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zork said:

I respect that. I decided not to post anything in the obituary in the other thread for the same reason.

I didn't notice but thanks.

1 minute ago, Zork said:

 

China is the one you should fear most in the long term. Your military already knows that and most of it's projections take china into account and what would happen when and if they overtake you in military spending/capability.

I think "fear" is not the best word here.  I would rather see "respect and cooperation".  China has worked very hard to get where they are now as the strongest economic power on the planet.  They realize that this makes them a target.  I'm not sure Trump yet knows what he wants to do with China.

1 minute ago, Zork said:

 

 

And sorry about the "naive americans" thing. I don't mean it in such a negative way nor was it meant to challenge you. :D

Ha.  You are presently speaking with a person who respects the truth.  Just don't be challenging me - you won't like the results.  Hehehe.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Seeing you two challenge one another is better than watching any boxing match the past five years. 

No challenges here.  Just finding understandings where we are in agreement.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeing with the analysis of historian Susan Kingsley Kent, historian Nicoletta Gullace writes that "the invasion of Belgium, with its very real suffering, was nevertheless represented in a highly stylized way that dwelt on perverse sexual acts, lurid mutilations, and graphic accounts of child abuse of often dubious veracity."[12]:19¬†In Britain, many patriotic publicists propagated these stories on their own. For example, popular writer¬†William Le Queux¬†described the German army as "one vast gang of Jack-the-Rippers", and described in graphic detail events such as a governess hanged naked and mutilated, the bayoneting of a small baby, or the "screams of dying women", raped and "horribly mutilated" by German soldiers, accusing them of cutting off the hands, feet, or breasts of their victims.[12]:18‚Äď19

Gullace argues that "British propagandists were eager to move as quickly as possible from an explanation of the war that focused on the murder of an Austrian archduke and his wife by Serbian nationalists to the morally unambiguous question of the invasion of neutral Belgium". In support of her thesis, she quotes from two letters of Lord Bryce. In the first letter Bryce writes "There must be something fatally wrong with our so-called civilization for this Serian cause so frightful a calamity has descended on all Europe". In a subsequent letter Bryce writes "The one thing we have to comfort us in this war is that we are all absolutely convinced of the justice of the cause, and of our duty, once Belgium had been invaded, to take up the sword".[12]:20

 

 

What are the causes of war ?   
Well why do human beings love violent news ?   
Every day most of the population clings to it, the say they hate it but boy do they drink it down.  No need to be worried about war, this fact tells all.

Perhaps they have nothing else.
Being so repressed and stiff, too frightened of the crowd to dance and sing and choose the things they like, human society is full of people who do things they hate, say things they don't mean, choose partners they aren't suited for ... in a desperate hope of being accepted by "society" and not be cast out in contravention of the what was expected.   Perhaps they lost their sense of humour.
And so humans are unhappy, and from their unhappy bolt-hole, they seek relief by way of violent images that express their deep pain that somehow they are so lost in they don't know how to free themselves.
Perhaps they could do qigong, moving their arms and legs politely and slowly in the park.
Crying screaming raging and sobbing .... ii.e their real feelings ... would attract too much attention.

 

 

Edited by rideforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this