The Somalia Model- Israel’s Plan for Syria

reply to post by victor7


I'd agree the Arab Spring didn't do much for the people. Reactionary movements rarely do anything for anyone. My main point is AQ is unlikely to find complete support in Syria and the U.S. is unlikely to support that and thus an extended civil war is the most likely outcome. In this environment Syria is no threat to Israel and they can easily fly over as the factions on the ground are going to be too busy fighting with one another.

reply to post by antonia


If Israel attacks Iran then Syria has to attack Israel by default. If Assad does not do that then he will lose all the support from Iran and that would be the end of him in power.

Attack on Iran is coming for sure either by October or after elections in US. When that happens, then Russia will take any opportunity to attack Georgia in order to have a free logistics from Russia to Armenia which borders Iran. That might take only 2-3 days to open road route to Armenia and this would be the safe guarantee for Iran to avoid the Libya like regime change.

US-Israel are better off just bombing Iran's nuclear sites and calling it quits. Iran is better off just taking the bullet and not replying with thousands of missiles. If it tries to do that then regime change will be enforced and that might be the situation for a real big war in the region atleast.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

you are joking right?? RT is anti-bull#?? RT is a Russian government controlled channel that deliberately publishes "provocative" content simply to get followers....and you think it is anti-bull#??

It may well be government owned, but it at least offers some different perspectives compared to much of the western media. It gets on actual people living in the areas affected by the news rather than solely think tank talkers. There are actual debates on subjects, rather than dogmatic bull#.

Take this discussion on Iran, which includes persons from different viewpoints and even, unbelievably, includes an Iranian!

Just because it shows a different viewpoint does not mean it's anti-BS. The state owned NK news media also shows a different viewpoint than western news agencies, does that make them anti-BS aswell?

Also, what does it suppose to prove that they interviewed an Iranian in a discussion about Iran? How many times was an Israeli involved in a discussion about Israel? What makes it so special?
I mean, you make it sound like "Yeah!! They even interviewed a real Iranian!! Omg!!"..... ........... Yeah, so what?...

reply to post by IsraeliGuy


zhidkov alert!!!!!

How about your Rothschild masters stop war and greed mongering???
Maybe if your elites were not so self centered,cruel,greedy and merciless on others your people would not have been kicked out of every nation in the past 3000 years.Straighten out your issues else there will be a day this will happen again.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy

The state owned NK news media also shows a different viewpoint than western news agencies, does that make them anti-BS aswell?

Well no because they present one view, the government's.

RT has guests, presenters and contributors from all over the world. I am not saying RT does not have an agenda, but no more so than other medias, both private & state owned, across the world.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


Some years back, when RT was started ,I expected it to be similiar to pravda.But,I was wrong as RT tends to be very subtle on anything.They allow their guests to talk and not inject their own opinion.That was how Western media use to do in the past. Now the western media ,including Reuters act like Soviet pravda with its crude jingoistic propaganda being propagated as news.

Somalia model is the plan for Syria? What about the remainder of Palestine?

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

you are joking right?? RT is anti-bull#?? RT is a Russian government controlled channel that deliberately publishes "provocative" content simply to get followers....and you think it is anti-bull#??

It may well be government owned, but it at least offers some different perspectives compared to much of the western media.

You are missing the point - it offers those alternative viewpoints, BECAUSE they are controversial and get viewers (like you obviously) - NOT because they are more accurate - ie they do not care whether their alternatives are BS or not.

So describing them as anti-BS is totally wrong - they don't care one white about BS - they only care about ratings/viewership.