Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

Still, it'd be boots on the ground, Israeli soldiers getting killed, Arabs being killed by Jews... It'd be a whole different league.

[Descan]

How do you two feel about Israel colonizing the Golan Heights, anyway?

[Loud Whispers]

I don't entirely know how they're treated

Rather well, actually. While the Druze are very insistent on being Syrian due to religious reasons, they and the Israelis get on just fine. In fact the one known trigger for Israeli involvement in the Syrian civil war is Druze-related: If someone starts fucking over the Syrian Druze population, they'll get the Six Day treatment.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If the Druze form a state in the South, Israel will not need to do anything on this border because contrary to your claims, Israel has no interests in Syria except fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border.

No interests except balkanizing it, ensuring their dominance - even if such balkanizing will result in internecine and deadly sectarian warfare. I also do not see Israeli expansionism stopping any time soon, once they secure a buffer zone and immensely settle it they seek new buffer zones. Fighting off Iranian and Hezbollah from the Golan heights border translates into colonizing the Golan heights.

Well, they also have it in their interest to take care of the Druze in Syria because of the large Druze population in Israel which is considered very loyal.

Cute, but Israel does not work like this.

No. Israel safest border in the last 40 years was the Syrian one. they would rather deal with Assad and his ancient military than with terrorists.
Your theory regarding Israel has a slight conflict with history and reality. the Druze in the Golan heights are extremely happy right now that Israel never gave it back and Israel will never give it back, they have absolutely no interest expanding it and when people move into the Golan Heights, its not nearly for the same reasons and its not nearly the people as in the settlements in the West Bank.

The Israeli have been confiscating Druze lands and building settlements on it, upon which Israeli settlers will move in.
You're trying to refute what is happening. Did you read what I posted?

That growth is tiny compared with the aggressive development goal — 100,000 new residents across the Golan in five years — being promoted by Naftali Bennett, a senior Israeli minister and one of many Israeli leaders and thinkers seizing on the chaos in Syria to solidify Israel’s hold on the Golan.

My theory is not a theory, it is an Israeli strategy to see its neighbours ineffectual and incapable of resisting Israeli expansion. It's the same method the Russians historically used, the British before them, the Mughals before them, all the way down to antiquity with the Babylonians.
Also, you know. Right now.

The irony is that if Israel ever create a buffer zone in Syria, it would be to protect the Druze, not so it could gain new territory for itself.

Salman Fakhreddin, spokesman for Al-Marsad, a human-rights group in Golan, complained that Israelis confiscate Druse lands, and do not share water and other resources equitably.

The justification that leads to the end result.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.663511
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21654660-israel-has-warned-syrian-rebels-steer-clear-one-particular-minority-dont

You're posting two sources, both declarations of intent from Jerusalem. I find this as believable as Russian media talking about protecting Russians in other people's land or Chinese media talking about protecting Chinese "historical" sovereignty. Also you know, this isn't theory. They're building on seized lands right now.

To continue on this vein of thought, major oil reserves have been found in the golan heights. The volume of oil is potentially in the billions of barrels worth, more than enough to supply Israel's energy needs for the forseeable future. Most interesting; it remains to be seen whether this oil will be economically viable now or in the future.

With Jews you Druze

How do you two feel about Israel colonizing the Golan Heights, anyway?

Cheecki breecki

[Descan]

DANGIT LW THIS WAS A PERSONAL CONVERSATION BEING BROADCAST TO THE ENTIRE FORUM TO READ YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE

okay so maybe colonize is a less-than-neutral term

[Loud Whispers]

My interfering is a subtle commentary on the interference of foreign nations in personal middle east affairs

[Helgoland]

okay so maybe colonize is a less-than-neutral term

Yeah. I believe the usual terminus is 'loaded question'.

[Reelya]

No this is a pure click bate

How is something that's not even on their website "click bait?" A click bait is a headline (or possibly image) used to direct hits to a site. But Charlie Hebdo did not publish the cartoon online, nor do they sell advertising on the site. And we don't see a copy of this cartoon used in any sort of promotional aspect relating to Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo don't seem to have drawn any particular attention to the specific comic. So there's no evidence that they used this specific cartoon in any sort of marketing context.

To see the image you must have already bought the print comic. It was inside a magazine sold in France, so some Russian person had to go to France, actually buy the comic, get outraged that there was a cartoon about Russia, then take a photo of the cartoon and upload it so that we could see it. Which is a pretty convoluted way to drum up publicity.

It's like saying "on page 73 of your new book, there was a statement I found offensive so I wrote a blog saying how offended I was about it", and then claiming the author of the book was responsible for the clickbait. No, clearly the offended blogger is the one generating clicks.

[sprinkled chariot]

Wondering, why part of media belonging to the state  still insists on the plane falling apart certainly not because of bomb.
Bomb version seems to be best version for them to promote.

[Sergarr]

They've been peddling the "it was technical difficulties" version pretty hard since the first day. Changing the version at this point would make them look silly, and there are plenty of reasons to imagine why it would be bad for them, both internally and externally.

[Helgoland]

According to German media part of the reason is that Putin does not wish to offend Egypt, whose airport security is a little lax to say the least.

[Sheb]

It's not just offending. This kind of attacks could devastate Egypt's tourism industry.

Also, I guess admitting it was a bomb could diminish support for his intervention in Syria.

[sprinkled chariot]

They've been peddling the "it was technical difficulties" version pretty hard since the first day. Changing the version at this point would make them look silly, and there are plenty of reasons to imagine why it would be bad for them, both internally and externally.

Internally it may give Putin support, same as it was with houses in Moscow getting blown up during second chechen war. The overall response was artillery shell them harder, what he did.
Externally this may make bombings in syria more valid, as it proves, that guys he bombs are quite dangerous and deserving to have some bombs rain on them
Meanwhile, the shitty old plane version gives reason to suspect state plane quality control of being rather meh.

[Sheb]

Apparently Russia suspended all flights to Egypt two days ago, so the bomb narrative seems to be gaining traction.

[boki]

No this is a pure click bate

How is something that's not even on their website "click bait?" A click bait is a headline (or possibly image) used to direct hits to a site. But Charlie Hebdo did not publish the cartoon online, nor do they sell advertising on the site. And we don't see a copy of this cartoon used in any sort of promotional aspect relating to Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo don't seem to have drawn any particular attention to the specific comic. So there's no evidence that they used this specific cartoon in any sort of marketing context.

To see the image you must have already bought the print comic. It was inside a magazine sold in France, so some Russian person had to go to France, actually buy the comic, get outraged that there was a cartoon about Russia, then take a photo of the cartoon and upload it so that we could see it. Which is a pretty convoluted way to drum up publicity.

It's like saying "on page 73 of your new book, there was a statement I found offensive so I wrote a blog saying how offended I was about it", and then claiming the author of the book was responsible for the clickbait. No, clearly the offended blogger is the one generating clicks.

Heh, that's actually even worse. Click bait, controversial/insulting publications or call it whatever you want. The end result is same, post bullshit things that are insulting to make as much buzz in medias so they get as much as possible exposure from it (free marketing, more sells, more clicks on their site and similar crap). And thats why they are shit  Doesnt matter where its sold, bullshit is bullshit.

[Sheb]

What? No, they are a newspaper that specialize in making fun of everything. They've been doing that for 30 years. I'm not even sorry if you're offended, because it just mean they did their job right.