I really like Mark Sleboda’s point about the difference between a military point of view and a political point of view…
I have heard that the whole of the WW1 from Germany’s point of view, was a problem that should have been dealt with politically and instead Germany reacted with a mililtary solution…that’s the huge failure of German ministers, during the few days before war was mobilized. If Germany had had a leader like Putin, which it certainly didn’t, it would have used a political solution and Britain was needing that…because Britain wanted war…just like today. Sadly.
Putin is the perfect example of a leader that has a political solution…he’s a God Send in these times.
Ann … “a political solution and Britain was needing that…because Britain wanted war…just like today”
Yes, but let me share some bits from a book that I am writing…
‘… In the decades leading up to the outbreak of world war, there were hundreds of treaties, agreements, promises and arrangements made between any of the key players. Many were conducted in the utmost secrecy by a handful of people. (The Secret Elite or shadow government).
In the aftermath of WWI, Germany was hauled before tribunals to confess her guilt over starting the war. In Germany’s defence, ex-Kaiser Wilhelm II used original documents available to him to compile a table listing alliance and key meetings held, from 1878 to 1914, between the various countries of the European states, the Ottoman Empire and United States. Thus his 189 page document ‘would enable the reader to form their own judgement’.
Wilhelm II makes several references to … ‘the Triple Alliance secretly renewed’.
The Triple Entente meetings make many references … ‘in the advent of war against Germany…’
Of note: ‘America 1897: Conclusion of a ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ between the Britain, France and America against the alleged Pan-German menace. The United States of America undertakes to give help against Germany and Austria in case of war’. [Wilhelm, p53]
The existence this ‘agreement’ was revealed by Roland G Usher, in his book , Pangermanism, (London 1913) Chapter X, p. 139. Usher was an advisor to US State Department. Usher’s full text was reprinted in The Problem of Japan.
Thus, some 17 years before the outbreak of WWI, the great powers were ‘preparing for war and without the slightest twinge of conscience to annihilate Germany and Austria to eliminate their competition from the world markets.’ [Wilhelm, p73]
Wilhem also outlined the role of the Freemasons: ‘…an important role was played in the preparation of the World War directed against the monarchial Central Powers by the policy of the international Grand Orient Lodge; a policy extending over many years…’ [Wilhelm, p157]
The Zionists objective had already been stated by Herzl: ‘Note that the next European war cannot harm our enterprise, but only benefit it, because all Jews will transport all their belongings across, to safety.’ [Herzl Diaries]
It just needed was some ‘incident’ to trigger a massive war across Europe.
In a nutshell… the secret wanted war and no diplomacy would stop them. WWI was long planned.
References:
Wilhelm II. Comparative History –Tables of Alliances (Leipzig, 1921). Web-Internet Archive
Ex-diplomat. The Problem of Japan (Amsterdam, 1918) Chapter 8. Web-Internet Archive
Hi Babushka, yes very interesting that you are writing a book…good for you !!
I have known this info for a while..Carroll Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment is the Masons, although he never says they’re Masons…(Quigley is a catholic) but the Round Table / Milner Kindergarten…were Masons…
Catholics aren’t any better when it comes to intrigue in politics….jesuits are into ‘everything’ and have been for centuries.
And even there were western masonic ‘cells’ in Serbia and were bringing in guns etc…that’s in another book that I’ve read…Rudolf Steiner “Karma of Untruthfulness” lectures near the beginning of vol. 1.
I highly suggest if you haven’t yet to get a copy of Fritz Fischer’s book Germany’s Aims in the First World War, as it contains information detrimental to your thesis you should be aware of–particularly the Kaiser’s viewing the upcoming war as one for the survival of the Teutons versus the Slavs.
Dear Outlaw, please put name of person you are commenting too, at the beginning…I’m not sure who you’re talking to but I think you mean Babushka….
My impression of Kaiser is that he didn’t know what to do…silly man…and that’s why the war got going like the Brits wanted it to….the Germans had no good diplomats anywhere…only good military men and older plans….
Thanks Outlaw… always good to find new sources. Fischer’s book is considered highly controversial (but then most history books can be). I will read it.
Ann … Meyer’s book front page says “letters, documents and after-death communications”.
History sourced from the ouiija board and occult dreams – thanks but no thanks.
In defence of the Germans (or at least explanation), they were looking back at 200 years throughout which their success (and sometimes even their survival) depended on military force. In the days of Frederick the Great, at times he was facing four separate invading armies from different nations! When he defeated one army, he had no time to follow up before he turned to block the next one.
Then in the 19th century Prussia expanded itself greatly to become the Germany that we know today. Bismarck cleverly provoked war with Austria, then France – and the Germans won quickly each time.
So it’s understandable that the German leaders came to believe that war was the answer to all problems. “When your only tool is a hammer…”
True,and near the end that was certainly true.But its good to remember that Fredrick brought that on himself.In those days,wars were extremely common.Easy to get into (and out of),and Fredrick decided on his own at the beginning of his reign he wanted to aggrandize Prussia by wars on his neighbors.He broke the agreement Prussia had made with Austria over the “Austrian Succession”.When Maria Theresa followed her father to the throne of Austria.By Hapsburg family law a woman could not ascend the throne,but with no living sons to succeed him, her father changed the law.He then got the different “Kingdoms” of his Empire to agree to that.And made agreements with the other nations surrounding his Empire to not contest her claim to rule.But as soon as he died Fredrick saw that as his opportunity to gain territory.And invaded Silesia (now in Poland).That set of a Europe wide war.He gained most of Silesia from the war for Prussia.But had Austria as an enemy throughout his reign.And it took another war for him to be assured of keeping Silesia.His victories (and his troubles and near defeats) came from his relations with Russia.When Russia was his ally he won.The few times she wasn’t he almost lost it all.He got lucky that when Russian Empress Elizabeth died (who disliked him).She was succeeded by rulers that supported him,Peter III,and more importantly Catherine II who was born a German Princess and whose father was one of Fredrick’s supporters.
Just saw that France was sending heavy weapons to insurgents in 2012… I do hope all these imperialists get what they surely deserve. They gent bent out of shape if someone not a citizens even gives money to a political party let alone arm them to kill their citizens. What hypocrites these westerners turned out to be. Seems its a white trait that has become a genetic one after 5 centauries… I have to bring color into it because there do seem to be of whites who think they are exceptional… Almost everyone in power in western capitals.
And its also interesting to listen to the French guest, about the ‘ideology’ of democracy, for instance the overthrow of Ukrainian president ‘because he was undemocratic’ even though he was elected by a majority vote in Ukraine…before Maidan…
Dirty assad, pays saleries of public servants no matter where they are located in Syria, they still provide medical acre and vaccinations all over the country and even mail and the same dirty assad grades school papers from the entire country..
Robert Fisk has been absent lately but he always seem to take his time to report almost truth from mostly inaccessible areas.. Also what US special forces need to know if they go into Syria.. Wear neck braces because they might lose their heads if the mighty calif gets them.
We should all write to Baghdadi to ask why he chops off the heads of out Christian brothers..
If you want to write to Baghdadi (original family name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri) you have only to address a letter to: al-Calipha Ibrahim, Raqqa. “Be assured it will arrive safely,”
All IS it staff are European Muslims, Google addicts with a list of critical publications to read. The Independent is among them. But so is the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy and the Syrian government news agency SANA.
Raqqa has an efficient tax system and schools have reopened – segregated, with a heavy emphasis on religion – exam papers are forwarded across the front lines to the Syrian government ministry of education in Damascus.
Quite a dissection of Isis for US Special Forces to ponder before they tip-toe over the Syrian border. But they might also remember that the Prophet ordered the execution of prisoners captured in the battle of Badr in 624, a precedent followed by later Muslim leaders; the Ottomans beheaded King Ladislaus of Hungary and King Stephen of Bosnia and his sons after they surrendered.
“We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
I certainly don’t agree with the mass killings (in the past or today).But still that is not a “Muslim” trait.There are plenty of incidents of similar doings by Christians in history.So for every occurrence that we could bring up.Others could answer with one done by Christians to them.I think the best way to look at today’s terrorists like ISIS is that they don’t represent “Muslims” anymore than “the nazis” represented Christians.
Well religion usually has nothing to do with mass killings.. But here we can use jesus slaughtered his prisoners who did not follow him so we can do the same.. Oh wait.. he died fro our sins.. What a waste..
Excellent answer. I used to have lots of respect for Robert Fisk, but after this article:
“But they might also remember that the Prophet ordered the execution of prisoners captured in the battle of Badr in 624, a precedent followed by later Muslim leaders…”
The above statement is false and is given without any evidence. The battle of Badr, the Prophet relatives fought against him. They thought that through religion the Prophet is taking away their power and money. Real blood brothers against real blood brothers. Since, it was the first battle the Prophet was advised as such:
1. Kill the prisoners even they are our real blood brothers and we had lots of our own killed on both sides.
2. Prophet and his companions to pay freedom money on behalf of their own blood brothers.
Prophet rejected both options, and set them free for nothing.
“We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
I wonder why mmiriww, you partially and selectively quoted. As I have mentioned umpteen times on this blog that there rose a deranged individual in Islam called, ibn Taymiyyah in 14th Century. He was so deranged that the Muslims literally threw away the keys into oceans of his imprisonment. Today, due to Petro Dollars this deranged individual is called, Sheikh of Islam.
Our Masters, the Brits revived him through Abdul Wahhab and created a new cancer in Islam called, Wahhabism. This is to divide and rule Muslims. Thus, the Empire created the Pseudo House of Omayyad.
Fifty years later after the inception of Islam, the House of Omayyad committed a genocide against the Prophet grandson and family in Karbala, Iraq. Every years 20 to 30 millions of Shia pilgrimages visit Karbala and the Shrine of Imam Hussain. Therefore, the compete quote is:
‘In the 18th century, Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud – whose family now rules Saudi Arabia – went on head-chopping expeditions to extend their purest rule over Arab lands. Al-Saud’s historian, Uthman bin Bashir al-Najadi, wrote after 5,000 Shia Muslims were butchered in 1801: “We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’”
So mmiriww, I just wonder, what is the motive of the partial quote,
““We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
I wonder why you left out that the above quote is in regard to Shia Muslims and not in regard to non-Muslims.
What has shia got to do with here? The quote was from the PR department of IS in reference to US special forces might be sent to fight them, maybe you should write to Baghdadi and ask him.. Maybe do a real interview with him..
About history.. We have trouble getting accuracy and truth from 50 years ago. It is almost impossible to get from 100 years ago and I would say it is definitely impossible from 1000 years ago. In fact history is mostly just lies.
Removed – no attacking other commenters. Thanks. Mod TR
What do you mean, “What has shia got to do with here?”
Read the full quote and you will see that the quote has nothing to do with PR department of IS, the quote is from history from the days of Abdul Wahhab regarding the Shia. Here is the full quote for you again.
In the 14th century, Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim theologian, sought a return to the purity of Islam from moral corruption, calling for a holy jihad to create an Islamic state. In the 18th century, Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud – whose family now rules Saudi Arabia – went on head-chopping expeditions to extend their purest rule over Arab lands. Al-Saud’s historian, Uthman bin Bashir al-Najadi, wrote after 5,000 Shia Muslims were butchered in 1801: “We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
It is in regards to Shia and they, the Shia are called, kafir [unbelievers]. The quote is a historical quote, that both Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud went to Karbala in 4 years in a row to butcher Shia and to loot them.
The funny part is people intentionally are not reading properly and/or intentionally are misquoting. Removed. No attacking moderators. Please re-read site moderation policy. Mod TR
“Brutal monster, tyrant and sadist or moderniser, victor and reformer – it’s hard to find a more controversial figure in Russian history than Joseph Stalin. And while successive Russian leaders have approached his legacy differently, it remains as divisive today as ever. Can Russia come to terms with its dramatic past and is it possible to achieve closure, considering the mark this towering figure has left on the Russian people and national psyche? Oksana is joined by Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University, to examine these issues.”
Anyone caught this one yet?
My wife would watch it for hours……..
The problem I have with that is the term “Russian”.Stalin was the leader of the USSR,which included Russia,but also Ukraine and other states.Many (most) of his closest collaborators weren’t even Russian.So while I do believe his rule was traumatic and important (for good and bad) to Russia.It was also the same for Ukraine,and all the other parts of the USSR.Its a “cop-out” for the other states to always associate him only with “Russia”.It allows them to try and disavow the “bad” parts of his rule with “Oh,that’s not us,that’s Russia”.That happens with Germany as well.As soon as the war ended Austria disavowed any connection with the nazi crimes.While the nazi leadership,SS,etc,was crammed full of Austrians.And Hitler himself was Austrian.A better conference would be on studying the legacy of Stalin’s rule on the “Ex-Soviet nations”.
A few weeks ago, the US announced plans to dramatically increase aid to a group calling itself the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a heretofore unmentioned which itself was presented as having just been formed out of a similarly unknown faction called the Syrian Arab Coalition, which was nominally the recipient of large airdrops of US arms.
I finally got a high bandwidth connection and looked at all the pictures and video. It appears to me that the shoot down video is authentic. […]. It was filmed with medium quality super zoom cameras, and more than one, from more than one vantage point […]
[…] And I need to stress a point here – it is freakishly difficult to film something like this happening live, no matter how good the camera is. The fact any video of this got made at all shows a degree of professionalism beyond the average joe. The cameras had their limits, but the people handling them were quite good, despite obvious camera shake. It is not a walk in the park to keep a half degree of sky in a camera lens, that takes really good hands which I seriously doubt any hack could ever pull off. It appears to me that professional photographers did this either with cheap tripods or very good supported handheld with mediocre equipment to make it all seem low key. Even high end professional gear properly mounted is hard to hold steady with such a shot, the fact it at least stayed in frame the whole time from multiple vantage points is another smoking gun.
I disagree with Stone and his emotional rant is more than a little illogical and amateurish e.g. -I don’t believe he understands ‘smart’ missile targeting methods.
The purpose of a missile is to disable its target not blow it up in the most spectacular Hollywood fireball fashion, a fireball that incidentally demonstrates wasted energy. ‘Smart’ missiles that are not the heat-seeking engine variety will target the cockpit area, the nose area and preferably side or above -the weakest area of canopies/windows where the pilot(s) are.
“The aircraft has certainly been brought down by an explosion. No if’s or buts. With almost 100 percent certainty, it was a missile that did this. And it was an intelligent missile that can analyze a plane and know where to hit it perfectly to assure destruction, it was not a simple heat seeker going after a hot spot”
Stone fails to give any argument as to why it was 100% brought down by a missile.
The video’s credibility is very suspect and certainly doesn’t help the missile theory which, if Israeli, as in a Python would be a dead giveaway. Israel isn’t stupid. Far easier to bribe/threaten or infilitrate ground crew/maintenance into placing a package/suitcase.
Airframe failure/ wiring spark near fuel lines/ fuel tank are still viable causes.
I wouldn’t take Jim stone too seriously. All of the video appears to be taken by the one camera. The colour version at the start is exactly the same as the black and white section.
Old film digitally enhanced for the colour version?
Seems odd to downgrade colour to blurry black and white.
After the explosion the aircraft appears to nose down as a better silhouette of the wings can be seen. Towards the end of the video it looks as though the aircraft goes into a much steeper dive which also matches the data set.
In the colour section of the video the aircraft can be seen flying out of a fireball. If correct that the US detected an explosion or heat flare this also matches.
The other thing that matches the video which I first noticed was the lack of a fuel fire on the ground.
Slightly over 20,000 kg of fuel at take off apparently. Going by the trail of black smoke coming from the aircraft in the video, there was a huge amount of fuel pouring out of the tanks to feed that fire.
The A-321 can actually carry 5,000 kg approximately more than the 20,000kg you quote. I assume this flight would only carry what was needed plus mandated reserves but I have no idea what the protocol is for the belly tank(s) -if not needed are they partially filled anyway for balance?
Assuming for sake of argument that the video is valid and of flight 9268 then the majority of the fuel would still be in the wings which remain intact with the forward fuselage even after impact. The wings don’t appear to be burning in the video and the explosion you see is towards the rear. Would you not expect to see burn marks or at least soot on that rear wreckage with the A-321 logo and part of vertical stabiliser? If you look at the white paint and blue vert stab, they appear pristine -as if blown off at altitude before any fire got to them. That the very amateurish video ends so early is suspicious too.
Although parts of the aircraft wreckage show no fire damage -radar cone, vert stab, engine turbine perhaps and other bits, if you look at the drone footage circling above then the wings and the complete pancaked mess blasted forwards with little height left in anything look like a complete burnout.
Time will tell and if it were a missile, bomb on board or aerial vehicle e.g. drone midair collision then there should be enough ‘foreign’ material and kinetic indicators together with black box data to rapidly come to a conclusion -or at the very least rule out a number of possibilities.
““In the 14th century, Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim theologian, sought a return to the purity of Islam from moral corruption, calling for a holy jihad to create an Islamic state. In the 18th century, Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud – whose family now rules Saudi Arabia – went on head-chopping expeditions to extend their purest rule over Arab lands. Al-Saud’s historian, Uthman bin Bashir al-Najadi, wrote after 5,000 Shia Muslims were butchered in 1801: “We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.””
Like I said earlier, ibn Taymiyyah was a deranged individual and that there was neither any purity nor fundamentalism about him. It is a myth that Wahhabism is going back to Fundamental Islam and/or Pure Islam. Basically, The House of Omayyad the enemy of the Prophet withered away, and ibn Taymiyyah created the Pseudo House of Omayyad to wage wars against Islam and Muslims.
I really like Mark Sleboda’s point about the difference between a military point of view and a political point of view…
I have heard that the whole of the WW1 from Germany’s point of view, was a problem that should have been dealt with politically and instead Germany reacted with a mililtary solution…that’s the huge failure of German ministers, during the few days before war was mobilized. If Germany had had a leader like Putin, which it certainly didn’t, it would have used a political solution and Britain was needing that…because Britain wanted war…just like today. Sadly.
Putin is the perfect example of a leader that has a political solution…he’s a God Send in these times.
Ann … “a political solution and Britain was needing that…because Britain wanted war…just like today”
Yes, but let me share some bits from a book that I am writing…
‘… In the decades leading up to the outbreak of world war, there were hundreds of treaties, agreements, promises and arrangements made between any of the key players. Many were conducted in the utmost secrecy by a handful of people. (The Secret Elite or shadow government).
In the aftermath of WWI, Germany was hauled before tribunals to confess her guilt over starting the war. In Germany’s defence, ex-Kaiser Wilhelm II used original documents available to him to compile a table listing alliance and key meetings held, from 1878 to 1914, between the various countries of the European states, the Ottoman Empire and United States. Thus his 189 page document ‘would enable the reader to form their own judgement’.
Wilhelm II makes several references to … ‘the Triple Alliance secretly renewed’.
The Triple Entente meetings make many references … ‘in the advent of war against Germany…’
Of note: ‘America 1897: Conclusion of a ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ between the Britain, France and America against the alleged Pan-German menace. The United States of America undertakes to give help against Germany and Austria in case of war’. [Wilhelm, p53]
The existence this ‘agreement’ was revealed by Roland G Usher, in his book , Pangermanism, (London 1913) Chapter X, p. 139. Usher was an advisor to US State Department. Usher’s full text was reprinted in The Problem of Japan.
Thus, some 17 years before the outbreak of WWI, the great powers were ‘preparing for war and without the slightest twinge of conscience to annihilate Germany and Austria to eliminate their competition from the world markets.’ [Wilhelm, p73]
Wilhem also outlined the role of the Freemasons: ‘…an important role was played in the preparation of the World War directed against the monarchial Central Powers by the policy of the international Grand Orient Lodge; a policy extending over many years…’ [Wilhelm, p157]
The Zionists objective had already been stated by Herzl: ‘Note that the next European war cannot harm our enterprise, but only benefit it, because all Jews will transport all their belongings across, to safety.’ [Herzl Diaries]
It just needed was some ‘incident’ to trigger a massive war across Europe.
In a nutshell… the secret wanted war and no diplomacy would stop them. WWI was long planned.
References:
Wilhelm II. Comparative History –Tables of Alliances (Leipzig, 1921). Web-Internet Archive
Ex-diplomat. The Problem of Japan (Amsterdam, 1918) Chapter 8. Web-Internet Archive
Hi Babushka, yes very interesting that you are writing a book…good for you !!
I have known this info for a while..Carroll Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment is the Masons, although he never says they’re Masons…(Quigley is a catholic) but the Round Table / Milner Kindergarten…were Masons…
Catholics aren’t any better when it comes to intrigue in politics….jesuits are into ‘everything’ and have been for centuries.
And even there were western masonic ‘cells’ in Serbia and were bringing in guns etc…that’s in another book that I’ve read…Rudolf Steiner “Karma of Untruthfulness” lectures near the beginning of vol. 1.
“yes very interesting that you are writing a book… good for you!!’
The double !! point sounds very shill and snarky.
***please refrain from hostility towards commenters – modaa
No, Ann was conveying genuine enthusiasm, not snark. That’s how most people would read it.
Thanks so much Anon…
Thanks so much Anon…
You have raised a very valid point.
Words without body language, eye contact, country and culture references can be fraught with multiple perceptions.
***
As they say perception is reality.
Cheers
I highly suggest if you haven’t yet to get a copy of Fritz Fischer’s book Germany’s Aims in the First World War, as it contains information detrimental to your thesis you should be aware of–particularly the Kaiser’s viewing the upcoming war as one for the survival of the Teutons versus the Slavs.
Dear Outlaw, please put name of person you are commenting too, at the beginning…I’m not sure who you’re talking to but I think you mean Babushka….
My impression of Kaiser is that he didn’t know what to do…silly man…and that’s why the war got going like the Brits wanted it to….the Germans had no good diplomats anywhere…only good military men and older plans….
Ann
Can you point me to a source to support your impression that the Kaiser was a silly man and that didn’t know what to do?
Rudolf Steiner has writings on the situations in Germany immediately prior to the War (1)
And Thomas Meyer’s book ” Light for the New Millennium” memoirs of Helmuth von Moltke
Ann, You need to read Fischer’s book too. You may assess its relevance at Fischer’s Wikipedia page. Yes, my comment was obviously directed at Oz.
Thanks Outlaw… always good to find new sources. Fischer’s book is considered highly controversial (but then most history books can be). I will read it.
Ann … Meyer’s book front page says “letters, documents and after-death communications”.
History sourced from the ouiija board and occult dreams – thanks but no thanks.
In defence of the Germans (or at least explanation), they were looking back at 200 years throughout which their success (and sometimes even their survival) depended on military force. In the days of Frederick the Great, at times he was facing four separate invading armies from different nations! When he defeated one army, he had no time to follow up before he turned to block the next one.
Then in the 19th century Prussia expanded itself greatly to become the Germany that we know today. Bismarck cleverly provoked war with Austria, then France – and the Germans won quickly each time.
So it’s understandable that the German leaders came to believe that war was the answer to all problems. “When your only tool is a hammer…”
True,and near the end that was certainly true.But its good to remember that Fredrick brought that on himself.In those days,wars were extremely common.Easy to get into (and out of),and Fredrick decided on his own at the beginning of his reign he wanted to aggrandize Prussia by wars on his neighbors.He broke the agreement Prussia had made with Austria over the “Austrian Succession”.When Maria Theresa followed her father to the throne of Austria.By Hapsburg family law a woman could not ascend the throne,but with no living sons to succeed him, her father changed the law.He then got the different “Kingdoms” of his Empire to agree to that.And made agreements with the other nations surrounding his Empire to not contest her claim to rule.But as soon as he died Fredrick saw that as his opportunity to gain territory.And invaded Silesia (now in Poland).That set of a Europe wide war.He gained most of Silesia from the war for Prussia.But had Austria as an enemy throughout his reign.And it took another war for him to be assured of keeping Silesia.His victories (and his troubles and near defeats) came from his relations with Russia.When Russia was his ally he won.The few times she wasn’t he almost lost it all.He got lucky that when Russian Empress Elizabeth died (who disliked him).She was succeeded by rulers that supported him,Peter III,and more importantly Catherine II who was born a German Princess and whose father was one of Fredrick’s supporters.
Just saw that France was sending heavy weapons to insurgents in 2012… I do hope all these imperialists get what they surely deserve. They gent bent out of shape if someone not a citizens even gives money to a political party let alone arm them to kill their citizens. What hypocrites these westerners turned out to be. Seems its a white trait that has become a genetic one after 5 centauries… I have to bring color into it because there do seem to be of whites who think they are exceptional… Almost everyone in power in western capitals.
And its also interesting to listen to the French guest, about the ‘ideology’ of democracy, for instance the overthrow of Ukrainian president ‘because he was undemocratic’ even though he was elected by a majority vote in Ukraine…before Maidan…
Ann, the current French elite are masters of mucilaginous hypocrisy. A great country brought low. From Napoleon to Hollande in a mere 200 years.
Dirty assad, pays saleries of public servants no matter where they are located in Syria, they still provide medical acre and vaccinations all over the country and even mail and the same dirty assad grades school papers from the entire country..
Robert Fisk has been absent lately but he always seem to take his time to report almost truth from mostly inaccessible areas.. Also what US special forces need to know if they go into Syria.. Wear neck braces because they might lose their heads if the mighty calif gets them.
We should all write to Baghdadi to ask why he chops off the heads of out Christian brothers..
If you want to write to Baghdadi (original family name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri) you have only to address a letter to: al-Calipha Ibrahim, Raqqa. “Be assured it will arrive safely,”
All IS it staff are European Muslims, Google addicts with a list of critical publications to read. The Independent is among them. But so is the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy and the Syrian government news agency SANA.
Raqqa has an efficient tax system and schools have reopened – segregated, with a heavy emphasis on religion – exam papers are forwarded across the front lines to the Syrian government ministry of education in Damascus.
Quite a dissection of Isis for US Special Forces to ponder before they tip-toe over the Syrian border. But they might also remember that the Prophet ordered the execution of prisoners captured in the battle of Badr in 624, a precedent followed by later Muslim leaders; the Ottomans beheaded King Ladislaus of Hungary and King Stephen of Bosnia and his sons after they surrendered.
“We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43304.htm
I certainly don’t agree with the mass killings (in the past or today).But still that is not a “Muslim” trait.There are plenty of incidents of similar doings by Christians in history.So for every occurrence that we could bring up.Others could answer with one done by Christians to them.I think the best way to look at today’s terrorists like ISIS is that they don’t represent “Muslims” anymore than “the nazis” represented Christians.
Well religion usually has nothing to do with mass killings.. But here we can use jesus slaughtered his prisoners who did not follow him so we can do the same.. Oh wait.. he died fro our sins.. What a waste..
Salam mmiriww,
Please bring the proof that Prophet Mohammad slaughtered his prisoners who did not follow him?
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Dear Bob,
Excellent answer. I used to have lots of respect for Robert Fisk, but after this article:
“But they might also remember that the Prophet ordered the execution of prisoners captured in the battle of Badr in 624, a precedent followed by later Muslim leaders…”
The above statement is false and is given without any evidence. The battle of Badr, the Prophet relatives fought against him. They thought that through religion the Prophet is taking away their power and money. Real blood brothers against real blood brothers. Since, it was the first battle the Prophet was advised as such:
1. Kill the prisoners even they are our real blood brothers and we had lots of our own killed on both sides.
2. Prophet and his companions to pay freedom money on behalf of their own blood brothers.
Prophet rejected both options, and set them free for nothing.
“We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
I wonder why mmiriww, you partially and selectively quoted. As I have mentioned umpteen times on this blog that there rose a deranged individual in Islam called, ibn Taymiyyah in 14th Century. He was so deranged that the Muslims literally threw away the keys into oceans of his imprisonment. Today, due to Petro Dollars this deranged individual is called, Sheikh of Islam.
Our Masters, the Brits revived him through Abdul Wahhab and created a new cancer in Islam called, Wahhabism. This is to divide and rule Muslims. Thus, the Empire created the Pseudo House of Omayyad.
Fifty years later after the inception of Islam, the House of Omayyad committed a genocide against the Prophet grandson and family in Karbala, Iraq. Every years 20 to 30 millions of Shia pilgrimages visit Karbala and the Shrine of Imam Hussain. Therefore, the compete quote is:
‘In the 18th century, Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud – whose family now rules Saudi Arabia – went on head-chopping expeditions to extend their purest rule over Arab lands. Al-Saud’s historian, Uthman bin Bashir al-Najadi, wrote after 5,000 Shia Muslims were butchered in 1801: “We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’”
So mmiriww, I just wonder, what is the motive of the partial quote,
Mohamed.
Salam mmiriww,
““We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.”
I wonder why you left out that the above quote is in regard to Shia Muslims and not in regard to non-Muslims.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
What has shia got to do with here? The quote was from the PR department of IS in reference to US special forces might be sent to fight them, maybe you should write to Baghdadi and ask him.. Maybe do a real interview with him..
About history.. We have trouble getting accuracy and truth from 50 years ago. It is almost impossible to get from 100 years ago and I would say it is definitely impossible from 1000 years ago. In fact history is mostly just lies.
Salam mmiriww,
Removed – no attacking other commenters. Thanks. Mod TR
What do you mean, “What has shia got to do with here?”
Read the full quote and you will see that the quote has nothing to do with PR department of IS, the quote is from history from the days of Abdul Wahhab regarding the Shia. Here is the full quote for you again.
It is in regards to Shia and they, the Shia are called, kafir [unbelievers]. The quote is a historical quote, that both Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud went to Karbala in 4 years in a row to butcher Shia and to loot them.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
The funny part is people intentionally are not reading properly and/or intentionally are misquoting.
Removed. No attacking moderators. Please re-read site moderation policy. Mod TR
If I were you I would write a really nasty letter to Baghdadi..
Address a letter to: al-Calipha Ibrahim, Raqqa, Syria.
https://www.rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/320364-stalin-dramatic-past-russia/
“Brutal monster, tyrant and sadist or moderniser, victor and reformer – it’s hard to find a more controversial figure in Russian history than Joseph Stalin. And while successive Russian leaders have approached his legacy differently, it remains as divisive today as ever. Can Russia come to terms with its dramatic past and is it possible to achieve closure, considering the mark this towering figure has left on the Russian people and national psyche? Oksana is joined by Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University, to examine these issues.”
Anyone caught this one yet?
My wife would watch it for hours……..
Thanks. That was very good.
JJ on November 03, 2015 · at 8:47 am UTC
An excellent show,thanks !
Well worth watching and recomending
cheers.
The problem I have with that is the term “Russian”.Stalin was the leader of the USSR,which included Russia,but also Ukraine and other states.Many (most) of his closest collaborators weren’t even Russian.So while I do believe his rule was traumatic and important (for good and bad) to Russia.It was also the same for Ukraine,and all the other parts of the USSR.Its a “cop-out” for the other states to always associate him only with “Russia”.It allows them to try and disavow the “bad” parts of his rule with “Oh,that’s not us,that’s Russia”.That happens with Germany as well.As soon as the war ended Austria disavowed any connection with the nazi crimes.While the nazi leadership,SS,etc,was crammed full of Austrians.And Hitler himself was Austrian.A better conference would be on studying the legacy of Stalin’s rule on the “Ex-Soviet nations”.
A few weeks ago, the US announced plans to dramatically increase aid to a group calling itself the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a heretofore unmentioned which itself was presented as having just been formed out of a similarly unknown faction called the Syrian Arab Coalition, which was nominally the recipient of large airdrops of US arms.
US-Backed Syrian Alliance Exists ‘In Name Only’ – Syrian Democratic Forces an Invention to Placate Turkey:http://news.antiwar.com/2015/11/02/us-backed-syrian-alliance-exists-in-name-only/
Some come comments by “Jim Stone” on the shoot down video:
http://82.221.129.208
I finally got a high bandwidth connection and looked at all the pictures and video. It appears to me that the shoot down video is authentic. […]. It was filmed with medium quality super zoom cameras, and more than one, from more than one vantage point […]
[…] And I need to stress a point here – it is freakishly difficult to film something like this happening live, no matter how good the camera is. The fact any video of this got made at all shows a degree of professionalism beyond the average joe. The cameras had their limits, but the people handling them were quite good, despite obvious camera shake. It is not a walk in the park to keep a half degree of sky in a camera lens, that takes really good hands which I seriously doubt any hack could ever pull off. It appears to me that professional photographers did this either with cheap tripods or very good supported handheld with mediocre equipment to make it all seem low key. Even high end professional gear properly mounted is hard to hold steady with such a shot, the fact it at least stayed in frame the whole time from multiple vantage points is another smoking gun.
I disagree with Stone and his emotional rant is more than a little illogical and amateurish e.g. -I don’t believe he understands ‘smart’ missile targeting methods.
The purpose of a missile is to disable its target not blow it up in the most spectacular Hollywood fireball fashion, a fireball that incidentally demonstrates wasted energy. ‘Smart’ missiles that are not the heat-seeking engine variety will target the cockpit area, the nose area and preferably side or above -the weakest area of canopies/windows where the pilot(s) are.
“The aircraft has certainly been brought down by an explosion. No if’s or buts. With almost 100 percent certainty, it was a missile that did this. And it was an intelligent missile that can analyze a plane and know where to hit it perfectly to assure destruction, it was not a simple heat seeker going after a hot spot”
Stone fails to give any argument as to why it was 100% brought down by a missile.
The video’s credibility is very suspect and certainly doesn’t help the missile theory which, if Israeli, as in a Python would be a dead giveaway. Israel isn’t stupid. Far easier to bribe/threaten or infilitrate ground crew/maintenance into placing a package/suitcase.
Airframe failure/ wiring spark near fuel lines/ fuel tank are still viable causes.
I wouldn’t take Jim stone too seriously. All of the video appears to be taken by the one camera. The colour version at the start is exactly the same as the black and white section.
Old film digitally enhanced for the colour version?
Seems odd to downgrade colour to blurry black and white.
The video does seem to match flight radar data. Data set link here – spreadsheet download. http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/metrojet-9268-extended-mode-s-data-decoded/
After the explosion the aircraft appears to nose down as a better silhouette of the wings can be seen. Towards the end of the video it looks as though the aircraft goes into a much steeper dive which also matches the data set.
In the colour section of the video the aircraft can be seen flying out of a fireball. If correct that the US detected an explosion or heat flare this also matches.
The other thing that matches the video which I first noticed was the lack of a fuel fire on the ground.
Slightly over 20,000 kg of fuel at take off apparently. Going by the trail of black smoke coming from the aircraft in the video, there was a huge amount of fuel pouring out of the tanks to feed that fire.
The A-321 can actually carry 5,000 kg approximately more than the 20,000kg you quote. I assume this flight would only carry what was needed plus mandated reserves but I have no idea what the protocol is for the belly tank(s) -if not needed are they partially filled anyway for balance?
Assuming for sake of argument that the video is valid and of flight 9268 then the majority of the fuel would still be in the wings which remain intact with the forward fuselage even after impact. The wings don’t appear to be burning in the video and the explosion you see is towards the rear. Would you not expect to see burn marks or at least soot on that rear wreckage with the A-321 logo and part of vertical stabiliser? If you look at the white paint and blue vert stab, they appear pristine -as if blown off at altitude before any fire got to them. That the very amateurish video ends so early is suspicious too.
Although parts of the aircraft wreckage show no fire damage -radar cone, vert stab, engine turbine perhaps and other bits, if you look at the drone footage circling above then the wings and the complete pancaked mess blasted forwards with little height left in anything look like a complete burnout.
Time will tell and if it were a missile, bomb on board or aerial vehicle e.g. drone midair collision then there should be enough ‘foreign’ material and kinetic indicators together with black box data to rapidly come to a conclusion -or at the very least rule out a number of possibilities.
Salam Uncle Bob,
““In the 14th century, Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim theologian, sought a return to the purity of Islam from moral corruption, calling for a holy jihad to create an Islamic state. In the 18th century, Mohamed Abdul-Wahab and Muhammad ibn Saud – whose family now rules Saudi Arabia – went on head-chopping expeditions to extend their purest rule over Arab lands. Al-Saud’s historian, Uthman bin Bashir al-Najadi, wrote after 5,000 Shia Muslims were butchered in 1801: “We took Karbala and we slaughtered… With the permission of Allah, we will not apologise for what we have done and we tell all kafir [unbelievers] ‘You will receive similar treatment’.””
Like I said earlier, ibn Taymiyyah was a deranged individual and that there was neither any purity nor fundamentalism about him. It is a myth that Wahhabism is going back to Fundamental Islam and/or Pure Islam. Basically, The House of Omayyad the enemy of the Prophet withered away, and ibn Taymiyyah created the Pseudo House of Omayyad to wage wars against Islam and Muslims.
Best regards,
Mohamed.