Middle East Timebomb

Message boards : Politics : Middle East Timebomb
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1628644 - Posted: 16 Jan 2015, 21:38:53 UTC - in response to Message 1628362.  

If they only monitored known or suspected terrorists and known or suspected sympathisers that would only solve part of the problem, it the unknowns that they also need to find. Next, it would be quite impossible to listen to or read, every single communication that is ever made, so that doesn't happen. As I understand it the security services monitor everything as a matter of course then use sophisticated algorithms to detect key words or phrases that could be of interest to them. Then those results are targetted.

You don't need such massive surveillance systems to find the unknown ones. First of all, if you have a few known ones, you can look into people they associate with, and you can pick out a number of unknown ones. Furthermore, if you monitor for example certain sites with a known association to extremists groups, there is a good chance you catch even more unknown ones. Now of course, there will be a few 'lone wolves' who you can't catch this way because they don't really make contact with anyone. But the mass surveillance system currently used can't find those people either.

So again, this system breaches privacy, costs tons of cash and doesn't actually make anyone safer. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like the very definition of a waste of time and resources.

Before the existence of the internet or the capacity to set up such a large scale monitoring system, intelligence agencies were quite capable of sniffing out spies and terrorists. They don't need this system to do their job.

If you like it is the same concept that seti@home uses, all the data on the tapes is crunched, and saved in a database. Nitpicker will then analyse the results and make a list of those that are worth a second look.

There is a diference between general monitoring and specific targetting which is where I think you are getting confused. I don't think that any email or text of mine is individually read, but it may well have gone through the general scanning system. If I have anything that private to say I do it face to face, I don't do it via a text, email, post, or phone call, I never have done. Then again I have nothing of note to hide anyway.

Well, again, this is also something Snowden talked about, is that this system is far from infallible. Meaning there are tons of false positives. Messages that are picked out by the algorithm as suspicious when actually they are not. One, this is a waste of everyones time because they now have to weed out a whole bunch of people who aren't terrorists (old school methods dont have this problem as it creates far less false positives) and two, wouldn't it be great if you end up on a bunch of government watchlists because some computer system misinterpreted a bad joke you once made to a coworker?

Also, you may have nothing to hide, but that really isn't the issue here. I also have nothing to hide, but I still don't like people snooping through my personal life. Also, its the fact that such a system essentially turns the burden of proof around. Its no longer innocent until proven guilty, but assumed guilty and you have to prove your innocence to government every day.

Now the above I am quite happy to agree with, but the sticking point will be the words highlighted in bold. Who decides how much is acceptable, the State or the people? I would say it is both. The State charged with protecting its people, needs to be able in times of heightened risk, to effectively reduce that risk as much as possible. At those times I think it is acceptable to monitor more closely. But if it goes to the extreme than that is not acceptable e.g if everyones letters were steamed open and read before we got them, if all our bank statements were scrutinised before we received them etc.

Well first of all, the government has been doing this since forever now, even way before there was any ISIS or tangible danger of terrorist attacks. Second of all, in the case of terrorism, risk and danger are relative concepts. As bad as the Paris attacks were, it were only 17 people who died. There have been plenty of traffic accidents that ended up with a much higher death toll. And even now, with under the highest terrorist threat level, we are talking about a pretty minor chance of one actually occuring. And if it does, its what? 1 attack? Perhaps 2 or 3? Ask yourself whether these large scale monitoring programs are proportional to the threat its supposed to combat. I keep coming to the conclusion that no, those programs are in no way proportional to the problem they are trying to combat. The cure is much worse than the disease.

You mentioned the darkening of windows during the blitz. Yeah, that is an infringement of personal liberty, but it was also a proportional measure to the problem it aimed to combat, namely the bloody Luftwaffe trying to bomb British cities from the map. And even there, I would say that the darkening of windows is only a minimal infringement of personal liberties, certainly not as big as a program like PRISM.



That is correct. But don't confuse the Government or the State, with various law enforcement agencies. It is not the Government arresting you it is the Police force. It is your thought processes that think it is all Big Brother.

Those are the same thing. Law enforcement is part of the State, the State is controlled by the government, therefor the government is in control over law enforcement agencies. Indirectly in our case, directly in countries where freedom is not really a thing yet.


Silly statement, no those principles are not suddenly being ditched, that is ideological claptrap. They are necessarily being modified. Read all the above again.

That sounds a lot like how torture became 'enhanced interrogation'.

The problem that all left wingers like you have is that you automatically see any State or Government, or any vestige of them as the enemy, a them and us situation, a reds under the bed attitude.

Ehm excuse me, but are you seriously suggesting that all left wingers are against the government? You are realizing that left wing includes things like Socialism and Communism, both political ideologies that foresee a significant role for the government in the economy and society?

Anarchists are the only left wingers that are against the State and centralized government. Anarchists are also a fringe movement, even within left wing circles.

Your personal privacy matters more, and is more important that the overall good of the rest of the people.

It is exactly for the overall good of the rest of the people that I argue for more personal privacy. Privacy is one of the foundations of a free and open society and a requirement for things like freedom of speech to work.
ID: 1628644 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1628646 - Posted: 16 Jan 2015, 21:47:29 UTC - in response to Message 1628496.  

So why is ISIS carrying out this war, and what does it want? The stated mission goal of ISIS, as they voiced publicly last year, is to establish a new Islamic caliphate across the Middle East, with the ultimate plan to take over responsibility for, and control of, the whole of the world’s Muslim population, and by force if need be.

I sort of doubt that to be honest. Yes, thats what they are publicly stating. Yes its what their propaganda machine tells us. But thats the thing, this is propaganda and propaganda does not equal an actual statement of intent. Personally I suspect they are actually doing it because its profitable for them. Or at least, profitable for the leadership.
ID: 1628646 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1628658 - Posted: 16 Jan 2015, 22:10:14 UTC - in response to Message 1628589.  

Religious extremism will only go away when religion goes away.

That leaves extremism.
Should not it be the other way around?
Religious extremism will only go away when extremism goes away.

Moderation in all things. But I'm told you can be an extremist following that religion too.

Of course. But do jihadist really follow the religion?
Don't Think so.
And why are the jihadist not following the religion?
ID: 1628658 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1628911 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 11:27:35 UTC - in response to Message 1628906.  

Of course there will be false positives in any system, but at least it narrows the chance of missing any type of positives.

Hardly. Because they have to wade through a whole bunch of false positives, you actually increase the chance they miss out on an actual terrorist.

That is neurotic talk.

No its not. There are plenty of people who are completely innocent who have ended up on no fly lists to the US for reasons no one cares to tell them. And once you are on their list, good luck getting off it again.


That is an incorrect assumption to make. Nobody is assumed guilty until evidence is uncovered that suggests that they are or may be. until that time they are assumed to be innocent. Again that is neurotic talk as in they are all out to get me.

If they don't assume I'm guilty, then why are they continuously monitoring everything I do on the internet?

Ye gods there you go again! I really don't understand why you cannot see how offensive that statement is. The point at issue is why they died and how they died, and it is not free speech to insult the memory of the dead. In fact I would judge that you break this stated rule.

No messages that are deliberately hostile or insulting.

I'm sorry you get offended by facts.

You obviously have no real idea of the real current threat of terrorism. Paris was 2 attacks but it still killed 17 people. What is the difference between that and 17 separate attacks? 17 people are still dead regardless. If you choose not to take it seriously then you are out on your own, because everybody else is doing soEurope alert, USA/UK

Im willing to bet I have a better idea of the actual threat than you do.

One of your classics there. You make a statement, them debunk it twice afterwards! First it's an infringement, next it was proportional, next it was minimal. The point of the blackout was as a preventative measure to avoid a bomb going through your roof or your neighbours. The Germans knew very well where the big cities were and were quite capable of navigating there by map and compass. After the main bombing run was over, many planes had bombs left over so they dropped them over the suburbs on the way home where ever they saw lights meaning habitation.

Navigating by map is nice, but it requires you to see the ground so you can get an idea of where you are on the map. Black outs essentially made the ground featureless, making it difficult to navigate by map. Compass requires a map and also ground orientation to be truly effective.

In any case, the darkening of windows still was a proportional measure to the threat. Say what you want about Jihadists, but as long as they only do these kind of terror attacks, I'm not afraid of them. Wait until they get an actual fleet of bombers, thats when I start to consider them an actual threat to our safety and liberty.


Read what I said. The problem that all left wingers like you I did not say all left wingers per se.

In that case, you would think I'm an anarchist, when I just told you I'm pretty much the exact opposite.

In an ideal peaceful world yes that is a good principle to live by. But in case you hadn't noticed we aren't living in a peaceful world, as we speak there are terrorists blowing up our cities and killing people. Hasn't it occurred to you that its the jihadist terrorists that are curtailing your precious personal freedoms, and not the governments or the security services that are trying to restore them for you?

It are not the Jihadists that are monitoring everything I do on the Internet, its the government. It are not Jihadists that are putting people on no fly lists, its the government. It are not the Jihadists that are arguing that my opinion is radical and that I should be put on a no fly list and be closely monitored by the government, thats you. So yeah, it does not occur to me for even a second that those Jihadists are the ones that are attacking my freedom. We do that to ourselves. Those Jihadists are just giving us a little push every now and then, because thats all those spineless weaklings can do. When our civil liberties are finally dead and gone, it will not be because there were these extremists that abolished them and beheaded everyone who stood up to them, no, it will be our own government who has abolished them all in the name of public safety.

I really hope that there isn't a Paris type incident in the Netherlands, but if there is it will be interesting to see your reaction to it on your own doorstep.

I really hope so as well, but I can assure you my reaction won't change.
ID: 1628911 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1628936 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 14:32:16 UTC - in response to Message 1628929.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2015, 14:42:46 UTC

They have not assumed that you are guilty. If you are being monitored along with everybody else it is because they don't know whether you and others are guilty or not. What they are hoping to find is evidence showing those that are guilty. Then they will be targetted with specific surveillance. You seem to think this is all directed at you individually as if its a personal affront upon your integrity. How dare they monitor me I'm a law abiding Uni student etc.

Yeah but the thing is that they don't clear my name the moment it becomes obvious that I'm not a terrorist or even an ordinary criminal and stop monitoring my every move online. No, this monitoring is total and continuous, it does not stop. That is NOT how you are supposed to treat innocent, law abiding citizens. It suggests that every day, every time I go online, they have to check again to see if I haven't turned into a criminal since the last time I checked. But you don't see a problem with that?

The world does not revolve around you and your life, and until you understand that, you can continue to huff and puff as much as you like. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it to you.

I'm not alone in this, what happens to me happens to millions of others as well.

Well I can think on one good reason why you should be on a no fly list to the USA. If you were on an American Airlines flight from Amsterdam to New York, and you got chatting to the passenger in the next seat, the current situation came up in conversation and you regaled them with your current views on terrorism i.e. it's all a fuss about nothing hardly anybody gets killed etc etc. You might well find that passenger getting really angry and upset, if especially unbeknown to you one of their relatives was killed.

Hmm a bunch of pissed off Muslims who took violent action against people who expressed an opinion they were insulted by are deemed terrorists and need to be taken down. Yet when its me who expresses an opinion that people might react violently too I'm the one who needs to be placed on no fly lists. Hypocrite much?

Also, your argument is trash. Yeah, I could get in a violent argument with someone because they can't handle my opinion (and apparantly thats my fault, and not the guy who tries to punch me. Why isn't he on a no fly list? Oh right, because he has the same opinion as you) but the same reaction might just as well occur when it turns out I'm a fanatic fan of a different soccer team than the guy next to me, or because I follow a different religion than the guy next to me. Better put every religious person and sports fan on no fly lists because who knows, they might get into a fight.

It could cause an in-flight incident having to be dealt with by the cabin staff. If I was an American carrier knowing your views, I wouldn't want you on one of my aircraft. When I spent 10 days in the States in 2011 I had to apply to the American Embassy in London for an ESTA in lieu of a Visa. I am quite sure that even then certain checks were done, probably more so now. That is fine with me, I fully accept why that is so.

Yeah, the meaning of freedom of speech is completely lost on you. At your core, you literally follow the same logic as those terrorists that attacked Paris. Unpopular opinions (with unpopular being defined by you) need to be identified, policed, suppressed, silenced and pressured to change through force. Only terrorists think in terms of deadly force, while you still think in non lethal options.


I do not get offended about the facts, I get offended at your attitude to them.

And that is not my fault or my problem. Deal with it.



My apologies, I hadn't realised that you were an experienced bomber pilot. Plenty of job opportunities out there for those skills these days, on both sides.

Never navigated by map and compass have you? You don't need to be a bomber pilot to know that you need identifying landmarks to know your position on the map and that depending of the position on the map, your compass can tell you where to go. A year with the boyscouts would have taught you as much.

As someone who lived and worked through the IRA attacks in London during the 70's-90's it wasn't so much a case of being afraid, it was just simply plain scary, as you just didn't know where the next one was coming from, and whether you might get caught up in it. It was the same in WWII, you couldn't predict where the next stick of bombs would land. You just hoped it wouldn't be on you, and you took the best precautions you could to try and remain safe.

Yeah but the thing with bomber raids is that there generally a whole lot more of them. The threat is far more actual than with terrorism.

I'm not worried about terrorism because I know the odds of me getting involved in a terrorist incidents are statistically negligible. Its far more likely that I end up in a traffic accident or that I discover that I have stage 4 cancer. And I don't worry about those things either. Its pointless to be scared of terrorism the way it is right now.

The day that they switch tactics to bombers in the sky will be the day that we will defeat them. How could they possibly expect decades old aircraft and 1/2 trained pilots to be any match for the modern capabilities of the RAF and the USAF. Apart from which modern day SAM's & GTAM's are quite effective as well. They are more of a threat on the ground.

See? Even less reason for me to be afraid of them.

Whatever you see yourself as, or whatever category I might put you in, is simply arbitary. I am saying to you that your current attitude and response to actual terrorism out there, is off on a tangent with everybody else, offensive, and simply unhelpful.

Whether my opinion is contrarily is irrelevant. The validity of an opinion is not based on whether it is a popular opinion. As for its offensiveness, well thats not my fault or my problem. I'm not trying to offend, you simply are offended. As for it being unhelpful, again its irrelevant. Personally I consider what I'm saying to be helpful in the long run.

OK tell that to the relatives of the 17 dead in Paris, the wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters, left behind to mourn.

Alright, Im sick of this being thrown in my face every time. How DARE you use the grief of the relatives of 17 dead people as a cheap ploy of making a point? Have you no shame? Worse still, how dare you try to use their grief and their loss to try and police my opinion, when 12 of those victims died because they believed in free speech?

And that Ladies and Gentlemen is where I'm going to leave this. There is no point any more in trying to have dialogue with somebody like Мишель who is so entrenched in their views that he cannot see the wood for the trees, who is clearly out of step with everyone else, in Europe and the USA, and thinks that human life is no more than just words on a computer screen.

Anyone else want to try?

I'm not the one capitalizing on the grief, fear and sense of loss of innocent people to shut down other peoples opinion he doesn't particularly agree with. And you dare accuse me that I don't care about peoples lives, when you use their deaths so cheaply?

Yeah, before you accuse others of being indecent horrible human beings, first make sure its not actually yourself who is an indecent horrible human being <_<
ID: 1628936 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30719
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1628998 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 16:57:17 UTC - in response to Message 1628658.  

Religious extremism will only go away when religion goes away.

That leaves extremism.
Should not it be the other way around?
Religious extremism will only go away when extremism goes away.

Moderation in all things. But I'm told you can be an extremist following that religion too.

Of course. But do jihadist really follow the religion?
Don't Think so.
And why are the jihadist not following the religion?

So now you have appointed yourself arbiter of their religion?!

Really?!!
ID: 1628998 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1629013 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 17:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1628929.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2015, 17:38:31 UTC

Anyone else want to try?


No, Michel is doing just fine. 95 to 50, in favor of Michel over Chris.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1629013 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1629017 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 17:38:06 UTC - in response to Message 1628998.  

Religious extremism will only go away when religion goes away.

That leaves extremism.
Should not it be the other way around?
Religious extremism will only go away when extremism goes away.

Moderation in all things. But I'm told you can be an extremist following that religion too.

Of course. But do jihadist really follow the religion?
Don't Think so.
And why are the jihadist not following the religion?

So now you have appointed yourself arbiter of their religion?!

Really?!!


Q: We are surprised and not surprised by this self-appointed arbitership?
A: No.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1629017 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1629034 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 18:23:02 UTC - in response to Message 1629031.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2015, 18:24:51 UTC

No, Michel is doing just fine. 95 to 50, in favor of Michel over Chris.

Hi Sarge,

I wasn't aware that it was a competition or that people were scoring with points. He certainly doesn't get a "Ten from Len" from me. But if 2:1 is the result I am happy with that. These free bulletin boards have always been a left Wingers and outsiders haven, so to get even that score is quite an achievement in my book.


BTW, Gary's doing quite well in elaborating and defending his points as well.
But I could name several non-left wingers on this forum in your so-called left wingers "haven", current ... and old.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1629034 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30719
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1629102 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 21:24:54 UTC - in response to Message 1629034.  

BTW, Gary's doing quite well in elaborating and defending his points as well.

Takes a bow .....

One of the items in the fraternity I belong to is "think before you speak," so think before you post!

It takes a long while to obtain the maturity to realize that not all persons who claim to belong to some group espouse an identical philosophy, even if they are not simply lying as part of their agenda.

The issue here is crazy control. Humans have a hard time predicting the future. All we have is the past record to look at.
ID: 1629102 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629306 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 11:13:19 UTC - in response to Message 1628998.  

Religious extremism will only go away when religion goes away.

That leaves extremism.
Should not it be the other way around?
Religious extremism will only go away when extremism goes away.

Moderation in all things. But I'm told you can be an extremist following that religion too.

Of course. But do jihadist really follow the religion?
Don't Think so.
And why are the jihadist not following the religion?

So now you have appointed yourself arbiter of their religion?!

Really?!!

What do you mean by Calling me a judge over their religion?
Reading the quran might make you understand a bit more...
http://quran.com/
ID: 1629306 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629318 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 12:00:39 UTC - in response to Message 1629017.  

Religious extremism will only go away when religion goes away.

That leaves extremism.
Should not it be the other way around?
Religious extremism will only go away when extremism goes away.

Moderation in all things. But I'm told you can be an extremist following that religion too.

Of course. But do jihadist really follow the religion?
Don't Think so.
And why are the jihadist not following the religion?

So now you have appointed yourself arbiter of their religion?!

Really?!!


Q: We are surprised and not surprised by this self-appointed arbitership?
A: No.

Sigh... :(
ID: 1629318 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629346 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 15:12:46 UTC - in response to Message 1629342.  

Does it really matter what any 'Holy Book' says?
Peoples Religion, is THEIR Religion. For good, or bad.
Can we really have a reasonable discussion, with Religious Fanatics?

Many people are cherry picking from Holy books.
And a reasonable discussion with Religious Fanatics are impossible.
The fact that Islam also obey to christan and jewish beliefs seems to be ignored.
In the quran there are many christian and jewish people (Abraham, Moses, Jesus)that are guidelines to every muslim.
A muslim also know about the ten commandments
ID: 1629346 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30719
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1629422 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 17:51:40 UTC - in response to Message 1629306.  
Last modified: 18 Jan 2015, 17:51:56 UTC

What do you mean by Calling me a judge over their religion?
Reading the quran might make you understand a bit more...
http://quran.com/

Unless you are the central authority for their religion, it is up to them to decide what their religion is. That authority decides what words mean. If they don't have an authority, then each person decides. Each of their sects has their Hadith. They are different. They kill each other over those differences.

IS mission is to set up such a central authority and use their Hadith.

It does not mean you can't have an opinion, just that your opinion has no validity. You do not have the authority to tell them what their religion is unless they consent to it. I do not believe they have consented to it, any more than Christians have consented to the Pope being their central authority. Even a lot of Roman Catholics don't go along with everything the Pope says; religion is a very individual thing.

http://quran.com/2/256
Muhsin Khan
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.

There it is in the Quran, each must make his own decision.

If they have made the decision their religion allows Jihad, and they wage Jihad, then they are following their religion. (This rationalization process is humanity's error to fix and why all organized religions are maximally dangerous.)
ID: 1629422 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30719
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1631452 - Posted: 22 Jan 2015, 23:56:36 UTC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30945324
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah dies

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was the fifth of his brothers to take the throne and became king in 2005, reports Caroline Hawley

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died in hospital, state TV says.

The announcement, made early on Friday, said his brother, Salman, had become king.

Before the announcement, Saudi television cut to Koranic verses, which often signifies the death of a senior royal.

ID: 1631452 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1631464 - Posted: 23 Jan 2015, 0:55:27 UTC - in response to Message 1631452.  

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30945324
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah dies

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was the fifth of his brothers to take the throne and became king in 2005, reports Caroline Hawley

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died in hospital, state TV says.

The announcement, made early on Friday, said his brother, Salman, had become king.

Before the announcement, Saudi television cut to Koranic verses, which often signifies the death of a senior royal.


Makes one wonder how much longer the Wahhabis will tolerate the Saudi Monarchy. The two groups don't like each other all that much at the moment.
ID: 1631464 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30719
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1631503 - Posted: 23 Jan 2015, 4:30:18 UTC

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/22/shiite-rebels-remain-deployed-outside-yemeni-presidents-house-despite/
Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi has resigned under pressure from Shiite rebels who seized the capital in September and have confined the embattled leader to his home for the past two days.

Presidential officials said Hadi resigned after being pressured to make concessions to the rebels, known as Houthis. He had earlier pledged political concessions in return for the rebels withdrawing from his house and the nearby presidential palace, but Houthi fighters remained deployed around both buildings throughout the day.

Military officials close to the president, who like the other officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief reporters, said Hadi resigned after the Houthis pressured him to give a televised speech to calm the streets.

ID: 1631503 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1631515 - Posted: 23 Jan 2015, 5:03:01 UTC

Middle East Timebomb .......BOOOOOM

King of Saudi Arabia dies !!!!
Age 90
Son takes over as new King

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/22/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-abdullah-dies/index.html

mmm is this why the oil price dived !!?
how long will it last , low oil prices ?

Will the new King be able to hold the country together and will they still work with the coalition of the willing ?
ID: 1631515 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1631606 - Posted: 23 Jan 2015, 11:51:11 UTC

The Islamic State group has formed the "Anwar al-Awlaki Battalion," a unit composed solely of English-speaking foreign fighters whose purpose is to plan and execute attacks in English-speaking countries, according to anti-ISIS activist group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Raqqa, in eastern Syria, is the Islamic State's headquarters.

Jihadist John expands to Europe.
http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/?p=338
ID: 1631606 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1632974 - Posted: 26 Jan 2015, 10:38:25 UTC - in response to Message 1632508.  

I assume that you mean an all out war on the ground? That end game is an option that is becoming more viable and necessary. But like most of us, we worry about the Phoenix angle ......

Its not 'necessary'. Its probably only counter productive. Don't trust politicians or generals telling us that their preferred course of action is 'necessary' because they are only there to push their agenda.
ID: 1632974 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Middle East Timebomb


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.