I heard from confident sources, that the Pope bought those copyrights on Protestant bibles with vatican gold (Murdoch refused to take US or European currency because he is well informed about the coming disaster) and that our bibles will now be taken off the market and the ones we possess have to be surrendered to the authorities.

Now I am confused. I read that the Zionists are steering the NWO, why would they form a coaltion with the Pope and his secret orders when the Vatican is in fact trying to cease parts of Jerusalem especially the holy ones? Is the valley of Megiddo part of the new vatican state?

"The #Pope Helps UN Launch a Blueprint for
#NWO
Did you know that the UN is planning to launch a “new universal agenda” for humanity in #September
#2015? That phrase does not"

No such thing.

Un does not have anything to do with this 'new world order' business. its a democratic body, and any agenda it follows comes from its members.

the ones who are trying to push a 'new world order' agenda are basically angloamerican countries and their neoliberal satellites. us, uk, france, germany.

the thing you linked comes from a right wing conservative us website. these segments are being utilized to divert attention away from usa and to an external enemy, so that people in usa wont have ideas about wall street, oil corporations, taxes and their democracy.

oil companies caused iraq war and syria debacle, wall street banks broke world economy - naturally they want americans to look abroad, to blame external sources for these and not themselves.

What would an oil company do in Syria? They have no noteworthy oil reserves left since the 90ies. Harvest it's strategic sand resources as binding-agent in case of major oil desasters abroad?

"What would an oil company do in Syria? They have no noteworthy oil reserves left since the 90ies."

Qatari pipeline was supposed to pass through iraq, then syria and go to europe through mediterranean. that's the whole deal.

ah, and about no oil in syria:

http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2

Well, Golan Heights article speaks of a license to explore and is 2 years old. And since most of the Golan is under Israeli control, why wage war in Syria. Pipeline: same story was staged with Afghanistan. As if it would make sense to conduct year long billion dollar warfare for a possible pipeline instead of relocating its route, which is simply more cost effective.

"Well, Golan Heights article speaks of a license to explore and is 2 years old"

Syrian debacle started 3 years ago.

"And since most of the Golan is under Israeli control, why wage war in Syria. "

Golan heights are under occupation. they dont belong to israel.

" Pipeline: same story was staged with Afghanistan. "

What 'story'. the pipelines are happening. except russians are going to do it.

"As if it would make sense to conduct year long billion dollar warfare for a possible pipeline instead of relocating its route"

yes, actually it would.

you cant just 'relocate' a pipeline and make it pass through Iran, hostile to your interests. moreover, turkey has become rather out of control in the past 4-5 years, which is pushing the neocons to seek out other routes. without mentioning turkey has more bargaining power for its pipeline reimbursements than broken middle eastern states.

there is no other route. qatari pipeline can only pass through there.

.................

though, there are other factors accompanying this as well. saudi led wahhabi alliance of middle east want to depose syria, the last remaining secular and rather shiite dominated state in middle east. there are no other secular states left today.

hence the neverending funding and manpower supply from these countries for the 'syrian' islamists.

Below summary is helpful for anyone who wasnt following syrian events since 2001. and its visual as well.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/senator-john-mccain-foreign-relations-adviser-to-al-qaeda-death-squads-in-syria/5348383

Syrian debacle started 3 years ago

There are only attempts to search for actual oil deposits. Such drilling takes place all around the world. Mostly it's futile or finds only minor fields. Would be very astonished if the big oil jackpot is found in that small region.

Golan heights are under occupation. they dont belong to israel.

So what. They are used for agriculture and the like already. Why should Israel wait till their status is cleared before it would start to drill for oil there.

What ‘story’. the pipelines are happening. except russians are going to do it.

Afghan pipeline is still a proposed project. No meter build. And the current status is, that this eventual pipeline would supply India and Pakistan. No western interest there.

yes, actually it would. you cant just ‘relocate’ a pipeline and make it pass through Iran, hostile to your interests. moreover, turkey has become rather out of control in the past 4-5 years, which is pushing the neocons to seek out other routes. without mentioning turkey has more bargaining power for its pipeline reimbursements than broken middle eastern states.there is no other route. qatari pipeline can only pass through there.

Yes you can, and you must. It simply makes no sense to build a highly vulnerable giant structure through a hostile and possibly instable region, supply could be disturbed anytime and pressure/extortion could be applied on you. Before you do that, you invest few billions more to build the line underneath the sea or you develope alternative means of transportation. The good, old, cheap oil-tanker combined with LNG conversion is much cheaper than playing geostrategic big-games. Neocons couldn't care less what happens with near-eastern pipelines. US dependency on natural resources from that region has declined greatly and the quantities the US still buys come by tanker anyway. Besides, whole Arabian Peninsula shifts it's export focus towards Asia, so why make such a fuzz about a possibly minor means of export.

though, there are other factors accompanying this as well. saudi led wahhabi alliance of middle east want to depose syria, the last remaining secular and rather shiite dominated state in middle east. there are no other secular states left today. hence the neverending funding and manpower supply from these countries for the ‘syrian’ islamists.

Well, those other factors you mention are in my opinion the actually important ones for several players. For the Gulf states, it's a priority to limit Iranian influence. The fight against secularism isn't that interesting, they cooperate with secular states very well as long as they share the same interests, see Egypt.

Don't try to find the big picture of western influence policy and economic interest behind the events in that area all the time. Those times are mostly over. What we see from western countries is just an awkward attempt to extinguish a fire one has underestimated.

Well matz, excuse me but actual reality does not depend on your opinions. I already linked you a reference with references to multiple sources, through which you can assess the depth of the situation. what i told are not my opinions but the news and analysis which was published through the last 3 years.

i dont feel obligated to enlighten you in details of these via a lengthy discussion.

so, have a nice evening.

OK. Me I don't feel obliged to read through a source page that starts with "what the media withholds from you". That's also no more than an opinion, at best :-)

"the thing you linked comes from a right wing conservative us website. these segments are being utilized to divert attention away from usa and to an external enemy, so that people in usa wont have ideas about wall street, oil corporations, taxes and their democracy."

Indeed, unity100, very well stated .. and thank you for the links and references .. good stuff :)

http://www.inquisitr.com/2396458/29-countries-accepting-syrian-refugees/

Nobody said anything about oil. You started that.

"OK. Me I don’t feel obliged to read through a source page that starts with “what the media withholds from you”"

Refusing to check and examine the references an opposing debater is giving is denial at best, rudeness at worst.

OK, read through it. So McCain went to Libya/Syria to talk to rebels who at that point had not pledged allegiance to Al Qaida. Was McCaine a government official at that time? Did the US deliver actually weapons to people who were clearly supporters of a islamic state? Nope.

As always when trying to fight a war without own troops and with minimum own risk, the US encouraged everybody that was against Ghaddafi/Assad in the first place. Actual weapons deliveries came from Gulf States that have a certain other agenda in that region. Foreign policy and intervention is not something that works very predictably, especially when you try to play the game half hearted.
Later on it became clear that Libyan/Syrian rebells weren't interested in maintaining a centralized state under combined rule / or in the case of Syria a state that is beyond the middle ages and now we have a civil war going on that includes new islamist groups. That was a failure of the internaional coalition against Ghaddafi/Assad, but it was not the plan a along. They had - IMO naive - ideas about democratic pro-western opposition forces that could take over the states.

Why should it have been the plan to bring stone age nutheads into power? Thats a crab. If you call your self leftist, don't forget to ask the cui bono question as often as possible when analyzing politics and economy and you might find that the only bono that's in this mess for the US and allies is a possible U2 Live Aid for Syria concert in the near future.

"the ones who are trying to push a 'new world order' agenda are basically angloamerican countries and their neoliberal satellites. us, uk, france, germany."

Wouldn't that be the OWO, where comes the the new from?

"So McCain went to Libya/Syria to talk to rebels who at that point had not pledged allegiance to Al Qaida."

Misperception. 'free syrian army' islamists did not pledge allegiance to al qaeda. they disappeared en masse, and IS came to being suddenly. al qaeda is their competitor.

"Was McCaine a government official at that time?"

Actually, he DOES seem to be - seeing how he is the one grilling and interrogating victoria nuland of state dept, in hearings, and how nulands and state dept. appears after him wherever he goes. including ukraine.

"Foreign policy and intervention is not something that works very predictably"

If ALL the 'interventions' have played out exactly similarly, matz, it means that its a policy.

"Why should it have been the plan to bring stone age nutheads into power? "

geee, i dont know, why dont you have a look at Saudi arabia. the source of all the nutheads.

incidentally #1 us ally in the region.

...............

Its because the scheme works well - you bring radical islamist dictatorships into power, they repress populace effectively through religion and fascism, and no one contests your control of their resources through this clique. its the blueprint for every single state in middle east that is an us ally.

Using islamism as a control of oil is not something extra ordinary or new. It goes back to WW1 and british policy in the region. Later us took over the same format.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/americas-devils-game-extremist-islam

Misperception. ‘free syrian army’ islamists did not pledge allegiance to al qaeda. they disappeared en masse, and IS came to being suddenly. al qaeda is their competitor.

FSA was and is a loose coaltion of factions opposing the Assad regime. Some of those factions had an islamist background, most were former syrian army units. As the FSA suffered more defeats and casualties over the years, while the IS operating out of Iraq gained ground in eastern Syria (thanks to Assad regime which left IS alone since they attacked the FSA and other rebel groups to gain ground) the islamist parts of the FSA defected to IS, who had the upper hand and seemed to be on the winnig side. What a surprising event! Same happend in northern Iraq year before.

Actually, he DOES seem to be - seeing how he is the one grilling and interrogating victoria nuland of state dept, in hearings, and how nulands and state dept. appears after him wherever he goes. including ukraine

That's a bright insight! Seems as if McCain still attends parliamentary processes instead of steering foreign policy from his secret repuplican headquarters.

If ALL the ‘interventions’ have played out exactly similarly, matz, it means that its a policy.

So according to your theory there's a big plan behind everything since the west is so all-out powerful and intelligent and it's not likely that the foreign policy and military engagement of states simply fails from time to time? Well then i guess the Vietnam war was all about bringing the Vietcong into power from the beginning on :-)

geee, i dont know, why dont you have a look at Saudi arabia. the source of all the nutheads. incidentally #1 us ally in the region.

Saudi Arabia was a and is a usefull ally in the cold heartend game of influence, it's not a partner out of common values and it's got an own agenda in middle eastern politics which has to be ignored by the US and western states as long as they need that country. Or do you think they are a partner out of ideological choice?

Its because the scheme works well - you bring radical islamist dictatorships into power, they repress populace effectively through religion and fascism, and no one contests your control of their resources through this clique. its the blueprint for every single state in middle east that is an us ally.

And that scheme was applied where again? When you look at foreign policy in the mid-east, the preferred regime for the outside players to cooperate with is a cynical dictatorship without disturbing religious or ideological values and aggressive ideas of spreading islamist rule over the world. Maybe take a look on other western partners and regime change attempts all over the world.

Im bringing references for any argument, you are just reiterating your perceptions and conditioning without any reference to back them up.

That kind of discussion wont work.

If you want to discuss, start backing up your arguments with references.

I think you confuse references, articles, opinions or whatever you post with evidence :-)

Most stuff you posted consists of a journalists opinions/analysis on something (not to speak of the RT/sputniknews stuff). Don't see why I can't counter that with my own opinion. Or are you that completely dependent on what other people have to say on something that you can't discuss something on your own. I mean you are obviously able to chose for yourself what news to believe and what to categorize as evidence, but you can't argue or interpret something alone?

If you like to play it out that way, I will gladly bury you with referencevidences. No Problem. But I have the strong feeling that what I am about to post will miraculously not count and will be declared mainstream media lie or whatever by you. That's the part were a discussion get's really boring.

And by now you should have read my reply here: https://pod.geraspora.de/posts/4022645

I do read your references and kindly cross check them from time to time.

Im not able to reply there. i will reply here:

"That McCain-ISIS thing is an old hoax"
"Just find me those incontestable reports and link them. Please refrain from posting Russian state broadcast only."

No such thing. Here is your incontestable report:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/27/us-syria-crisis-usa-mccain-idUSBRE94Q0HU20130527

"Republican Senator John McCain, a former presidential candidate and an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the Syrian opposition, met with some of the rebels during a surprise visit to the war-torn country on Monday, his spokesman said."

News is from reuters, and the source of the news is mccain's spokesman.

hoax, my ass.

I see no need to go about extracting his daughter's excited tweets about his father's bold visit to 'brave rebels' in syria as event happened. that was another funny affair.

"Ah OK, now I understand. Immediately after it’s formation, the whole FSA went to north Iraq to form the IS there? "

There is no going here, going there and back. islamic state formed in syria as islamic state of syria and levant, changed its name to islamic state when they also grabbed parts of iraq. They did not 'move about'. whenever they can grab any piece of land, they do it.

"Here the US want to arm some leftover moderate rebels whilst the IS has already ceased hugh parts of Syria."

Yeah, 'leftover' 'MODERATE' rebels. They were able to find like 80. Where did all the earlier 'moderate rebels' they armed, go....

"They were a broad coalition that broke apart later, that does not imply that their organisation is in fact the same as IS."
" It’s the Fakealiph not-Baghdadi guy"

You seem to be thinking that there is any kind of difference in between the persona X or persona Y in those pictures, which constitute the leaders of whatever armed contingent that us is dealing with, regardless of what they name themselves at a given time point X.

Assume that 'baghdadi guy' never existed. The cadre you see there still constitutes the leadership cadre of whatever you choose to name saudi backed sunni islamists in syria, under whatever name they choose for themselves.

Im not able to reply there. i will reply here:

No problem, i will copy your post back there to avoid confusion.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/pope-francis-is-coming-to-congress-sept-24-gop-furious-with-his-main-five-point/

I'm not a catholic, neither a christian; actually, I don't even believe in God, at least in the traditional sense, but I have an enormous sympathy for Pope Francis. I wish him all the best, although I'm a bit surprised that he's still alive, given all the enemies he has been gathering within and outside the Church.

Im not able to reply to you in that location @matzinger . If you want replies, debate here.

there is not much to debate either. you apparently style countries as dictatorships or democracies after angloamerican corporate-state establishment standards. china is a dictatorship to you, but apparently usa isnt.

Strange. But you made the post, maybe there is problem with diasp.eu? I just checked and me i can post there.
Posting here is a bit confusion for the line of discussion.
I could repost your old post and clone the comments?

you can do whatever you want, but i wont be able to reply there it seems.

You are aware of the fact that all states, especially the larger and powerful ones do intervene in other countries to secure and widen their influence?

The only one among them who claims to be 'defender of freedom and democracy' and 'human rights' while funding, arming and training the very islamist terrorists they claim to be fighting against, is USA.

Effecting a regime change is one thing. Doing it through TOTAL social engineering by turning a country into a radical religious dictatorship, is another.

Just look how Putin the Peacebear intervened in Ukraine recently.

Yeah, he should have just let the neonazi puppets nulands and mccain put on top of ukraine repress the eastern regions so that exxon would get the offshore oil and gas and us corps the donetsk coal mines. And then prepare ukraine as a hostile threat against russia.....

Now, after watching the conflict for years it’s easy to say that

For those who knew geopolitical history of the region, and US policies, Assads and their secular 'dictatorship' were always the shining knight.

In the first years of the conflict it looked like the secular opposition and army defectors would succeed.

There was no secular opposition. Even in the first months secular opposition was totally marginalized, even themselves admitted that they were a minority..... It was an uprising of Saudi backed sunni islamist segments all the way from the start - just like how it was in earlier decades.

Islamists weren’t very strong then

Werent they?........ Within ONE and a half month of 'peaceful protests' starting, they manifested as a well armed, well trained entity to 'defend freedom'.

But naturally you think so, since being aware of this much detail requires having followed events day by day back in 2011.

So if you want to be smart guy afterwards and claiming to have known all from the beginning on

One who would not know how this thing ends after it was done 3-4 times during arab spring and finally in libya, would be an idiot. doesnt require smarts.

Haha. What an imperialist view on that part on the world. Arabs come in tribes only since they are clan people, bah

Nothing imperialist at all. Clan structure and society does not go away with DENYING it. It is there, it was there, and it will be there for a long while.

Incidentally, secular egalitarian socialist systems are the only systems which can reduce and end clan separations. Which is what happened in central parts of syria up until now. and incidentally the ones doing the uprising are the ones who kept the clan structure.

Majority of Syrian population was Sunni muslims of whom most lived in cities.

Fantastic proposition. If it was so, syria would have already been ran over by the saudi backed islamists. It isnt.

Of course you can. Just look to China

1 - china is not a dictatorship

2 - and no, you cant have regional autonomy in a dictatorship. There has been no case of any kind of regional autonomy for anyone in nazi germany, franco spain, mussolini italy or in any of the puppet dictatorships US kept in south america. period.

That angloamerican west dubs anyone who doesnt go along with their agenda a 'dictatorship', neither changes the meaning of the political science term dictatorship, nor makes any country a dictatorship.

I have been there twice, it was and is a complete police state with informants everywhere, that was so obvious and in moments were they feared no interested snitch ears people complained about that.

You must not be aware that that sounds less scary than the total and unmitigated spying that is being done on EVERYONE in the world - including americans - by usa. Incidentally, that is not something 'scary'. But when the syrian government has informants in a country which was soon to be attacked by external enemies (as early as 2009, israel presented their plan to usa), its something 'bad'.

Such a secular dictatorship - since you mentioned Libya too

Another time.... Hard pressed you may be because of angloamerican west conditioning to call countries like syria a dictatorship, but when one calls Libya a dictatorship it either sounds utterly stupid or pig ignorant.

There was more democracy in libya, than usa. In Libya actual opinions and preferences of libyan people, who exercised their power through tribal and intra-tribal parliaments overrode Gaddafi's desires many times in international affairs, leading to various incidents you know from western media.

No such thing happened ever, in United States political history, for comparison. Not even regarding vietnam.

Wow. Cliffy thesis pattern, yearning for an extensive objection. Won't be able to write that till sometime around end of this weekend. C.U.

and here comes the rebuttal... Sorry it took so long

The only one among them who claims to be ‘defender of freedom and democracy’ and ‘human rights’ while funding, arming and training the very islamist terrorists they claim to be fighting against, is USA.

Other countries claim to defend a reactionary pattern of stability and natural developement of nations along their historical roots or the like. What all intervening countries have in common, is that their stated intentions are just cover for a desire to secure political and economic influence in the targeted regions. Absolutely no country intervenes out of selfless reasons.

Effecting a regime change is one thing. Doing it through TOTAL social engineering by turning a country into a radical religious dictatorship, is another.

I don't see this planned social engineering pattern. Maybe you could explain that a bit in depth? If any change and input that comes from outside is considered social engineering, than all the other major powers swim in the same dirt, since other countries do the same, through fostering national identity or authoritarian rule and China is for example a forerunner in opening up countries to capitalist economies. Supporting religious dictatorships is so American? Well, who supports Iran and Sudan?

Yeah, he should have just let the neonazi puppets nulands and mccain put on top of ukraine repress the eastern regions so that exxon would get the offshore oil and gas and us corps the donetsk coal mines. And then prepare ukraine as a hostile threat against russia…

Neonazis were just a faction of the anti government movement, in no way they were powerful enough to take over government. Also it is very unlikely, that the eastern regions would have suffered repression in the long term. The legislature against Russian language for example stood against Council of Europe standards, no way that the Ukraine would have kept such laws for long. Speaking of right wing influence: Whose manpower feeds the eastern Ukrainean militias beside Russian armed forces? It's Russian nationalists and right wing groups, also they mobilised Cossacks. Oil and gas? Funny, one could also estimate that Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula for that reason, since all offshore fields are located right there and Russia has a huge interest in maintain it's status as largest producer of those resources in Europe. How about that theory? Coal mines and iron industry of Donbass: not even Russia was keen on that dinosaur from the beginning of industrial age. Coal and steel ain't desired resources no more, since decades.

For those who knew geopolitical history of the region, and US policies, Assads and their secular ‘dictatorship’ were always the shining knight.

Seen from the outside, a secular dictatorship is of course to be preferred over a reactionary regime. But those dictatorships (and especially Syria) tend to remain static, caged into their original setup and in no way able to adapt to the modern world or able to offer perspective to their citizens. That is what causes their doom in the long term. For us and our perspective watching this from our comfortable home in western countries it might make sense to keep such a regime, for the people over there it clearly does not. Syrians just needed to travel to nearby Lebanon, to get reminded on in what a poor economic state their country was. Syria wasn't able to buy the calm of it's population with gifts and the population wasn't buying the regime's explanations for it's backwardness any more. I've been in Syria when Assad came to power more than 10 years ago, people hoped for changes and were eager to support him, but nothing came along, economically it got even worse, not to speak of the repression. So it was no surprise for people who knew the history of the region that many Syrians grabbed the opportunity to overthrow the regime when the moment seemed right.

There was no secular opposition. Even in the first months secular opposition was totally marginalized, even themselves admitted that they were a minority… It was an uprising of Saudi backed sunni islamist segments all the way from the start - just like how it was in earlier decades.

How should those secret islamist circles have grown in Syria, a total police state allied with Iran, the declared enemy of Sunni islamism? Where died the opposition admit that they were marginalized? Protests developed in cities - who are naturally no breeding ground for backwardness religious fanatics - and the armed wing of the restistance compromised of army defectors.

Werent they?.. Within ONE and a half month of ‘peaceful protests’ starting, they manifested as a well armed, well trained entity to ‘defend freedom’.
But naturally you think so, since being aware of this much detail requires having followed events day by day back in 2011.

As stated above, the initial armed opposition was based on Syrian military defectors. The military was btw, a stronghold of secularism. Bitter conflicts were fought inside the opposition on whether to integrate islamists in their ranks or not and the organisation patterns they used in their regions and armed forces where secular administrations. The one who wasn't hesitating to let the religious fanatics out was Assad, who quickly called in support from Iran & Hisballah and formed ethnic-religious militias out of the Alevites. And yes, as somebody who has been to Syria twice and somehow has a relationship to the country and it's citizens, I followed the events there even before 2011.

One who would not know how this thing ends after it was done 3-4 times during arab spring and finally in libya, would be an idiot. doesnt require smarts.

All those uprisings during the so called arab spring turned out different. According to your theory,the Saudis should have supported the muslim brotherhood in Egypt and the conservative religious faction in Tunesia too. In fact, the opposite happened. Or go back further and remember the Algerian civil war. There isn't always a great pattern, it's often chaos and helpless reaction, also the west does not have infinite means to intervene everywhere. Even in Iraq, where huge resources were spilled on regime change there was no willingness to carry that on any further after a while.

Nothing imperialist at all. Clan structure and society does not go away with DENYING it. It is there, it was there, and it will be there for a long while.
Incidentally, secular egalitarian socialist systems are the only systems which can reduce and end clan separations. Which is what happened in central parts of syria up until now. and incidentally the ones doing the uprising are the ones who kept the clan structure.

Clan structure exists, sure. But it's influence differs greatly between rural and urban areas. And Syria was an urban country which has witnessed a massive growth of population over the last decades and as you state too had a centralized secular state controlling education and society. To declare that clan structure is still the defining element of one's identity after decades of change and progress is nonsense. The regions where the uprising was strong were the cities, like Aleppo, inhabited by a wide range of mostly young people from different ethnicities and groups. One faction though relied heavily on clan and religious based ties from the beginning on: the Assad regime, who had pushed members of the Alevite minority in key positions all over the state, especially the military. Today, after years of war and anarchy those clan structures might be on the rise again throughout Syria, but in 2011 they didn't play that big role you suggest.

Fantastic proposition. If it was so, syria would have already been ran over by the saudi backed islamists. It isnt.

Because every person of sunni religion orientates it's political view automatically around their religion and is therefore an islamist of Saudi Arabian school? Oh dear...what a biased pre-modern view. And majority (think around 70%) of population were designated as sunni moslems, just go through any statistic or census. If you don't believe that, why don't you suggest who else made up the majority religion in Syria?

---

1 - china is not a dictatorship

Ok, so let's be more specific: China is an authoritarian one-party rule state that invests huge resources in controlling it's citizens through censorship and propaganda. Discontent and criticism of the state's actions is punished severly. Whilst it deals with it's population in a repressive way, the governments offers all the freedoms one can dream of to enterprises and capitalism. China will lead the way for an authoritarian capitalism that isn't bound by democratic institutions anymore, it's the wet dream of any neocon.

2 - and no, you cant have regional autonomy in a dictatorship. There has been no case of any kind of regional autonomy for anyone in nazi germany, franco spain, mussolini italy or in any of the puppet dictatorships US kept in south america. period.

OK, one thing we can agree on. Only thing you might get from a dictatorship is privileges in exchange for loyality, as demonstrated in Syria with the Alevite community.

That angloamerican west dubs anyone who doesnt go along with their agenda a ‘dictatorship’, neither changes the meaning of the political science term dictatorship, nor makes any country a dictatorship.

That may be so. I like to dub anything that comes with immense reactionary authoritarian rule a dictatorship, regardless of it's allegiance to any block. It would be nice to know your point on that? China, Russia, Iran, what do you think of the political systems of those countries?

You must not be aware that that sounds less scary than the total and unmitigated spying that is being done on EVERYONE in the world - including americans - by usa. Incidentally, that is not something ‘scary’. But when the syrian government has informants in a country which was soon to be attacked by external enemies (as early as 2009, israel presented their plan to usa), its something ‘bad’.

This is so cross, hope you'd dare to say that in the face of a person that fled Syria and earn your fair share of face slaps. So in your wicked world the Syrian police state was created to counter US-Israeli subversion and not to secure the existence of it's regime? Oh dear.
And there is a huge difference between electronic spying and a totalitarian police state. In Syria you could get hung upside down in a cell and get your feet slapped with metal cables for not treating the Assad bumper sticker on your car well, in the US you get the Pulitzer price if you reveal government secrets on the NSA in the newspapers. That's a great deal of difference, don't you think?

Another time… Hard pressed you may be because of angloamerican west conditioning to call countries like syria a dictatorship, but when one calls Libya a dictatorship it either sounds utterly stupid or pig ignorant.
There was more democracy in libya, than usa. In Libya actual opinions and preferences of libyan people, who exercised their power through tribal and intra-tribal parliaments overrode Gaddafi’s desires many times in international affairs, leading to various incidents you know from western media.

Holy shit....so when non-elected representatives of tribes (males only btw.) negotiate with an authoritarian regime that's free rule of the people for you compared to western parliamentary rule? Please don't say that you consider yourself a left-winger of any kind, Marx would laugh in his grave. That view is pure reactionary backlash.

No such thing happened ever, in United States political history, for comparison. Not even regarding vietnam.

That sentence/context I don't understand. Is it supposed to refer to the "tribal democracy" of Lybia?

I don’t see this planned social engineering pattern. Maybe you could explain that a bit in depth?

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/worlds-most-dangerous-islamist-alive-well-and-living-in-pennsylvania/

This is the tangible example.

This guy had had set up a whole islamic sect, grow it to a state-inside-state system complete with its own schools, industries, business. His schools condition children to not only radicalized islamism, but also obedience to the sect leader.

So much that in ~20-30 decades, they grew from nothing - just one guy with ties to turkish intelligence, coached by cia - to challenging the government in turkey, after having taken over education, judiciary, and a good swath of police.

Outside turkey, It is a dozen billon or so big organization all across the world now. It even has islamic schools in russia - which were shut down by russian government and taken over recently, on grounds that they were doing indoctrination - the same thing they were doing in turkey.

When the government tried to go after him, he escaped to usa, where he lives in philadelphia under FBI protection. US refused to oblige by any requests by turkey's government to prosecute him. And even the recent request turkey issued via interpol from highest order.

.............

He is just part of the same kind of organizations usa set up all across middle east to subvert secular, modernist socialist countries. The most rabid ones were from saudi arabia, culminating in what you see as IS today.

Supporting religious dictatorships is so American?
Neonazis were just a faction of the anti government movement
Whose manpower feeds the eastern Ukrainean militias beside Russian armed forces? It’s Russian nationalists and right wing groups, also they mobilised Cossacks. Oil and gas?
Seen from the outside, a secular dictatorship is of course to be preferred over a reactionary regime. But those dictatorships
How should those secret islamist circles have grown in Syria, a total police state allied with Iran, the declared enemy of Sunni islamism?
As stated above, the initial armed opposition was based on Syrian military defectors. T
Because every person of sunni religion orientates it’s political view automatically around their religion and is therefore an islamist of Saudi Arabian school?
So in your wicked world the Syrian police state was created to counter US-Israeli subversion and not to secure the existence of it’s regime

While im talking with backing up any of my arguments with articles citing historical facts, leaks, statements from the involved governments and so on, you are just reiterating your opinion over and over.

This is not a productive discussion pattern.

After being linked an actual history with citations on how and where us had been openly supporting radical islamist dictatorships as a policy, with eventual linkage to Eisenhower administration's own conclusion on how that is what exactly they should be doing for american interests, coming up and rebuking it through OPINION is just outright absurd.

Ive given many references for each of the 'sub topics' you have went on to expand on your own opinion and your own accord - i dont see the need to do it over and over again.

Just refer back to earlier parts of the discussion as a response to above repetition.

Ok, so let’s be more specific: China is an authoritarian one-party rule state that invests huge resources in controlling it’s citizens through censorship and propaganda. Discontent and criticism of the state’s actions is punished severly.

Yeah, china is an authoritarian one party rule state that controls its citizens through censorship and propaganda and there is severe punishment of critics, but USA, for example, isnt.

That is why Nato 5 is still being tried in front of a secret court with a secret jury in chicago.

The moment you start to selectively apply your own standards and practice exceptionalism, any kind of rational discussion becomes impossible.

This is so cross, hope you’d dare to say that in the face of a person that fled Syria and earn your fair share of face slaps

Actually i would, i did, and half of those escaped syrians agree. And, 80% of the syrians who are still in syria blame us for rise of IS.

Holy shit…so when non-elected representatives of tribes (males only btw.) negotiate with an authoritarian regime that’s free rule of the people for you compared to western parliamentary rule?

You shouldnt talk on matters you have no information on. You let your existing conditioning to affect your perspectives too much.

WHAT do you know about libya's domestic political history that you were so bold to make such a grandstanding statement....

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/gaddafis-libya-was-africas-most-prosperous-democracy/

..................

This discussion has become counter productive. There is no end to fighting a person's biases and conditioning through a discussion, especially when any non deniable reference given can easily be denied and the person just reiterates his conditioning.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020126.htm

The funniest moments are when the person denies what the administration of United States has no hesitations of admitting - supporting radical islamist dictatorships as a policy.

This has been a slightly better version of discussing evolution with an american midwesterner so far. Therefore im not enthusiastic in participating in it longer.

If your next reply is not backed with solid references which are independent and reliable enough to be able to subvert actual reality but instead just are reiterations of your own world view and existing biases, i will cease participation.

While im talking with backing up any of my arguments with articles citing historical facts, leaks, statements from the involved governments and so on, you are just reiterating your opinion over and over.

Just for the record... You didn't back up your arguments lately and the last bunch of references was very easy to dismantle, just remember the McCain meets Al-Baghdadi picture. In that case you overrode my concerns with your opinion, an opinion that is better than mine, why again? Or you like to post links to sites that offer information that wouldn't stand against professional journalistic fact finding or a check e.g. from the scientific community, information that can therefore only classified as opinion. Discussions don't work in the way that one party defines truth, evidence and the choice of sources and let's the other side make futile attempts to proof the opposite by simply disqualifying it's sources as opinion whilst declaring one's own opinion the truth. And how come that only you are allowed to play out the generalization move? Try your game elsewhere outside your conspiracy community and you will expierience the same rejection. If one remains gentle, he will accept your view as your opinion and commences a discussion, but I doubt that anyone falls for your one-sided pattern from the beginning on.

.> This has been a slightly better version of discussing evolution with an american midwesterner so far. Therefore im not enthusiastic in participating in it longer.

Haha. Same for me! Creationist also post alleged apodictic facts from specialized homepages and think they won a discussion by doing that. Whitewashing authoritarian regimes, stating that the world is only 6000 years old, glorifying oppression, neglecting evolution it's all the same, searching for easy answers in a difficult world. Anti-modern reactionary patterns are the same. Good luck with your fight, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and if you folks that are still stuck in the cold war era happen to really find a nut, I will kindly applaud. Key word is: if.

I prefer to accept that we live in a complicated world that doesn't offer easy answers.

just remember the McCain meets Al-Baghdadi picture

Unbelievable. So you think you 'dismantled' that? By claiming that all the free syrian rebels came from oblivion and went to oblivion - ~50,000-60,000 men and their leaders.....

Not to mention reading the argument out of your ass - it was not 'mccain meets al baghdadi' picture -> the reference told that john mccain met with 'free syrian army', who then transformed into islamists.

you made up an argument and debunked it. that's not interactive.

Haha. Same for me! Creationist also post alleged apodictic facts from specialized homepages

Excuse me, matz. anyone who contradicts US government's own report on how they ARE and they SHOULD be supporting radical islamist dictatorships in middle east is a flat out idiot.

You are contesting Eisenhower administration's own statement and conclusion regarding US support for radical islamist dictatorships and movements

Narrated from the mouth of noam chomsky to boot.

I prefer to accept that we live in a complicated world that doesn’t offer easy answers.

There is nothing 'complicated' in denying what US government does not deny. Its idiotic.

Your world is not complicated - you are just escaping into denial by trying to complicate concepts that are uncomfortable.

Im reiterating and pushing it home again:

You are contesting US government's own official report on how they are supporting radical islamist dictatorships and how they SHOULD keep doing it

Unbelievable. So you think you ‘dismantled’ that? By claiming that all the free syrian rebels came from oblivion and went to oblivion - ~50,000-60,000 men and their leaders…

Yes, I'm quite sure that your claim that the Syrian rebels composed solely of islamists encouraged by neocons from the beginning on is false and you haven't showed me anything that makes me doubt that. Syrian rebels came from many groups, they included islamists but those were not in the majority at the beginning - and we are still arguing over the start of the conflict, don't we. Majority of fighting in the first phase was done with equipment ceased from the Syrian army, Syria had mandatory draft, so every man knew how to handle a gun and many army uniteds defected to the rebel instead of shooting on their people. Rebels didn't come from oblivion, but without receiving outside support the moderates were quickly blown to oblivion by the government. After that, the radical nutheads started to have their time, but this developement took place around the end of 2013.

Not to mention reading the argument out of your ass - it was not ‘mccain meets al baghdadi’ picture → the reference told that john mccain met with ‘free syrian army’, who then transformed into islamists.
you made up an argument and debunked it. that’s not interactive.

Im my opinion, you made up the argument (using that McCain picture as proof) that the FSA was an islamists organisation from the beginning on. See answer above.

Excuse me, matz. anyone who contradicts US government’s own report on how they ARE and they SHOULD be supporting radical islamist dictatorships in middle east is a flat out idiot.
You are contesting Eisenhower administration’s own statement and conclusion regarding US support for radical islamist dictatorships and movements

What reports and statements are you talking about? Of course the US chose to work with radical groups that are awkward from time to time. But this is not a preferred choice it follows the logic of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Such alliances are common. And generalizing them is thin ice. Just take a look on the alliances Russia has, or better: the Hisballah islamists fighting for Assad. I can't hear myself or western governments or media pointing a finger at Assad and label him an islamist because he cooperates with Iran and Hisballah. The reason why he did this is clear: cold heartend choice of allies. No need to draw a generalization out of this especially when it comes to the point where one suggests that supporting religious nutheads is a good idea and beloved strategy.

There is nothing ‘complicated’ in denying what US government does not deny. Its idiotic.

It's idiotic to try to press every choice of allies or foreign policy into a pattern. USA is a country that changes it's priorities from time to time as it does with it's political leadership. Contrary to many of it's "foes" the US are not a static society that works for the long term salvation. It's a capitalist country that longs for the interest of it's economy and those interests and necessities are as shifting as the development of economy is in general. During the cold war the economic interests had to set back behind a general threat to capitalism, now they don't and therefore the middle east is loosing importance which explains the latest helpless, half-heartend and uninspired interventions there. Assad would have been bombed to oblivion by 2012 if there would have been any hawky neocon interest in ousting him, he wasn't in any position to resist modern aerial warfare that would have paved way for the rebels.

Taking that Gülen organization you linked in the post above as example for strategic support of islamism is a bit far fetched. He can be classified as conservative religious leader and migrated to the US in the late 90ies. I don't know whether you are from Europe or the US, but this organization is known in countries that have a large large Turkish community for a long time and doesn't count as more islamist as the current ruling party of Turkey itself. Federal and state authorities in Germany classify them as Turkish nationalists with religious background. He overthrew himself with the ruling party in Turkey lately and made news this way, doesn't have to do a lot with current events in my view. If you buy the current demonization of them, you should ask yourself if you unintenionally swallowed a media campaign of the Erdogan government - what you should avoid since believing their propaganda could shake your picture of Assad too :-)

Your world is not complicated - you are just escaping into denial by trying to complicate concepts that are uncomfortable.

My world, where capitalism has no longer the need to root in the specific nation state(s) of it's origin and where different power centers and economic interests interact is complicated. I prefer to observe change and adapt my views taking into account new developments instead of escaping into denial and searching for easy answers and secret plots. Maybe we can agree on the fact, that conspirative foreign and military action in western countries obviously got harder in the last decade? We wouldn't be discussing such things (beside the fact that we live in societies that allow free speech) if all those leaks from the deepest levels of government wouldn't have occurred lately.

Im reiterating and pushing it home again:
You are contesting US government’s own official report on how they are supporting radical islamist dictatorships >and how they SHOULD keep doing it

If this is aimed at the link about the Gülen organization you postet above: I stated my opinion on them. Or what report do you mean? Maybe I lost track a bit.

Generally, I like to patch my informations together from various sources and I do not trust any information that comes from certain websites and is found on such sites only without own research and count checks. There is still critical quality journalism out there, not to speak of the scientific communities and if I don't find certain informations reflected in a wider range of publications I tend to doubt their trustworthyness.

It would btw. be interesting to convey our little duel in a broader discussion involving more people. Just need to find a catchy header to point out the basic line of conflict, like: Is the IS an American puppet created to overthrow the Syrian government? Or suggest anything better.

No, it wouldnt be anything, leave aside interesting - in the face of arguments backed by actual references, you just go about reiterating your own opinions without backing them with ANY reference.

US government itself admits they are backing radical islamists and radical islamism in middle east, and they say this is exactly what they should be doing into the future as well but you come up and say that 'you dont see it that way', 'anyone does it' etc - without providing ANYTHING to back your opinion up. Leave aside anything which would actually refute US government's own report and statement regarding the subject.

There can be no discussion in such a situation.

Its unproductive and pointless.

Seeing how you have still not provided any kind of reference for any of your opinionated arguments, i am assuming this discussion is over.

If you think otherwise, come up with an argument which is actually backed by any kind of reference. The reference should be sufficient enough to contest the opposing reference.

The way you insist that you are arguing backed on references is really cute. Again, posting stuff from certain truth seeking online portals is not automatically considered a reference by people from outside your thought cosmos. At best, it's considered an opinion. If theories and disclosures from such pages do not enter a broader discussion or are reflected in other media and academic circles or offer at least some proof that can be checked, then those informations are highly doubtful and contestable. Once again, they might be seen at the utmost as an opinion or interpretation, never as a the one true story. And in the few references from other media you offered, your point of view was only backed by your own interpretation of the situation, not the actual things stated in that posts. Btw. have you checked from which right-wing quagmire you took your latest reference concerning the Gülen movement?

Summarized: I don't care if you unilaterally claim to discuss correctly. In my view, you don't do that. You state your opinion and so do I. Your reference is one-sided conspiracy stuff that does not hold up to journalistic standards. And if you are still able to remember a bit from beyond your tunnel view: I have provided several links underlining my point of view, you simply ignored them - as previously predicted, here, in this very same post.

Here's what I posted two weeks ago on that very same subject:

I think you confuse references, articles, opinions or whatever you post with evidence :-)
Most stuff you posted consists of a journalists opinions/analysis on something (not to speak of the RT/sputniknews stuff). Don’t see why I can’t counter that with my own opinion. Or are you that completely dependent on what other people have to say on something that you can’t discuss something on your own. I mean you are obviously able to chose for yourself what news to believe and what to categorize as evidence, but you can’t argue or interpret something alone?
If you like to play it out that way, I will gladly bury you with referencevidences. No Problem. But I have the strong feeling that what I am about to post will miraculously not count and will be declared mainstream media lie or whatever by you. That’s the part were a discussion get’s really boring.

And taking that into account, the only thing I agree on with you is: There can be no discussion in such a situation.

But we can still play this out otherwise, in a broader discussion involving other people, in a new thread. Than you can see how your way to argue plays out.Just say that you want to try this, we agree on a thesis and open it up for public debate. Would be very interesting.

Till then, I remain confused and totally think now, that Putin is the new George Bush because he invaded the Crimea in search for new oil and that he is cooperating actively with islamists, namely Iran and Bashar Assad who fights alongside the Hisballah militia.

Uh and nearly forgot, here some links concerning the FSA and the Syrian conflict:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003
http://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/11/would-arming-syrias-rebels-have-stopped-the-islamic-state/
--> last one is quite interesting since it's reflects the internal debate of the US government on Syria.

Btw, have you looked through this resent posting here:
https://pod.geraspora.de/posts/4060266

The way you insist that you are arguing backed on references is really cute.

Lets not talk stupid.

You were linked wikileaks leaks on how us and israel started planning for overthrow of syrian regime in 2009, you were linked the official website of noam chomsky telling about the eisenhower report regarding how us was and should be supporting islamists, you were linked historical chronology of us actions in middle east which does not change with whatever website you link it from.

In return you responded:

Most stuff you posted consists of a journalists opinions/analysis on something

...........

Uh and nearly forgot, here some links concerning the FSA and the Syrian conflict

A link from BBC, whose editor had openly declared his bias for certain countries and currently under investigation because of their biased recent coverages, britannica, an encyclopedia/publication from britain which STILL hosts the headquarters of 'free syrian army' in the middle of london since its inception, and washington post, who had been calling for bombing of syria since three years.

and WHICH of them neutralize the actual wikileaks documents, eisenhower report on how us was and should be supporting radical islamism, and actual historical chronology of us treaties and political actions in middle east?

...........

none of them do.

I told you to bring a reference which could neutralize these actual facts. You didnt.

..........

"There can be no discussion in such a situation"

The only reason there is not a discussion is because you refuse/ignore any fact which disturbs your self-constructed framework of reality. US government itself says that it IS and it SHOULD be supporting radical islamism and radical islamist dictatorships for oil, you just ignore it. and 'dont see it that way'.

And that's the end of it. Its YOUR own world, and there is no point for anyone to participate in it or try to persuade you to the fact that reality and your illusion are different.

But we can still play this out otherwise, in a broader discussion involving other people, in a new thread

Even if there are 500 people in any given thread, your denial of uncomfortable facts that disturb your existing framework of reality will totally cockblock any discussion, and i will still end up having to basically force you to back up your arguments with references and face the references you have been given.

I want to directly put it: Denying that US supports radical islamism as a policy while US government itself not only admits, but also ADVISES to do so in the future, is outright idiocy.

If you know BETTER than US government itself, maybe you should contact them and relay them the 'actual' reality of this matter so they will themselves realize that they were doing nothing wrong, and then they in turn can relay it to peoples of middle east so they will stop hating usa for propagating repressive radical dictatorships for controlling their oil.

That would solve a lot of problems in this world.

Btw, have you looked through this resent posting here:

Thats just part of the narrative that's being adopted by US to avert responsibility for disastrous US actions in syria which brought massacres, disaster and refugees, due to the plan failing with russian, chinese and iranian intervention. Now that syrian government wont fall, having done all that stuff will be a liability.

Therefore the western outlets are basically DENYING their own articles and going about publishing articles saying that us govt didnt have anything to do with syria - like last 3 years didnt happen.

http://fair.org/home/down-the-memory-hole-nyt-erases-cias-efforts-to-overthrow-syrias-government/

New York Times has no problems in basically LYING about all the articles they did in the past 3 years.

Funnily enough, the references you have been forced to provide have showed your perception of 'journalistic integrity'

Its basically angloamerican establishment.

So, YOUR journalism is journalism. But ACTUAL HISTORICAL FACTS, and even very own statements of US government, arent.

http://www.cruxnow.com/papal-visit/2015/09/22/live-stream-pope-francis-us-visit/?p1=Trending