aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Swedish deputy PM #gone..... Going to be replaced by and immature fuckwit Green who as education minister has proposed to put 17 year old refugee kids in with 12 year olds so it doesn't effect the countries school statistics. They are more important and the refugee kids than the welfare of the locals. Quote:Green leader steps down as government minister The Local · 9 May 2016, 15:08
UPDATED: Green Party co-leader and Environment Minister Åsa Romson has confirmed she is leaving the government, after her party moved to replace her in the wake of weeks of scandals.
Sweden’s Greens tumble towards open trapdoor Green Party leaders: We have no plans to resign How the Green leaders have alienated almost everyone The Swedish news agency TT broke the news on Monday, hours after a press conference in Stockholm which followed weeks of doubts about the party's leadership, with polling numbers dropping to a ten-year low.
A nominating committee from the Green Party told reporters earlier in the day that it would propose to the annual party conference on Friday that co-leader Gustav Fridolin stays at the helm, but that it wanted to replace Romson with Isabella Lövin.
Lövin is currently the Minister for International Development Cooperation.
"I am humbled and grateful for the nominating committee's trust in me," said Fridolin at the press conference.
"I am happy and honoured," added Lövin.
Gustav Fridolin and Isabella Lövin. Photo: TT
With the party's annual congress looming later this week, Romson and Fridolin had been under increasing pressure to make way for a new duo.
At a press conference two weeks ago they said that they wanted to lead the party out of its crisis but would step aside if colleagues wanted them replaced, putting the decision in the hands of the party's nominating committee.
It has been a stressful few weeks for the party, as evidenced by the reply a busy member of the nominating committee sent to a Swedish reporter on Monday morning, responding to a request for a short interview with the words: "...are you stupid? Have a nice day."
Hög nivå i Miljöpartiets riksvalberedning pic.twitter.com/NBNrRBkF4G
— John Granlund (@johngranlund) May 9, 2016 The junior party of Sweden's Social Democrat-led coalition government was first plunged into crisis when it emerged in mid-April that the then housing minister, Mehmet Kaplan, had kept company with Turkish extremists.
Fridolin and Romson deflected the criticism, even when a clip emerged of Kaplan comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, and they continued to back the minister after he announced his resignation at a joint press conference with the prime minster, Stefan Löfven.
More trouble came when a rising star in the overtly feminist party, Yasri Khan, refused to shake a female journalist’s hand. He resigned but commentators were left wondering what had happened to the sweet little junior partner in Sweden’s government.
As if all that wasn't bad enough, the party's environmental credentials also suffered a blow when Sweden's state-owned Vattenfall sold its brown coal operations, a move the Greens had pushed hard to block when in opposition.
Romson too found herself in the eye of the storm when she referred to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as “accidents”. She later clarified to The Local what she had meant but for many, the damage was done.
Story continues below… It was not the first time the Swedish minister has grabbed headlines over ill-advised comments.
Last year she was at the centre of controversy after she twice made ill-advised comments about the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz, and after it was revealed she had used toxic paint on her houseboat.
Romson sparked a huge wave of criticism at the time when she described the migrant crisis in Europe as "the new Auschwitz" in a live television debate. She was later forced to apologize after commentators accused her of disrespecting the victims of the Holocaust. http://www.thelocal.se/20160509/swedens-greens-move-to-oust-scandal-hit-leader
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
scott21 wrote:johnszasz wrote:scott21 wrote:Barca4Life wrote:Very sad in what has happened in Brussels, its just not safe anymore. Im getting out of Europe. The authorities have lost control. They dont even know who is in their country. I'm back in oz for a visit and I feel safer here. Lots of nutters here too. The Germans are fussing over my status while they've got people with 8 different registrations. Unfortunately I am just waiting until someone goes on a knife attack in the Stockholm subway. I think it will be due to visa rejection though, like the Ikea stabbings. Rip victim
|
|
|
thejollyvic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote: Spanish newspaper AS are reporting the news that 14 Real Madrid fans, members of a supporters club in Iraq, have been massacred by terrorist group ISIS at the group's headquarters today.
The attack took part in Samarra in Baghdad and it's believed men carrying AK-47s stormed the building in which 50 people were gathered. There's believed to be at least 14 dead and a further 20 injured. AS spoke to the President of the supporters club who revealed "A group of Islamic terrorists, from ISIS, came into the café, armed with AK-47s, shooting at random at everyone who was inside".
Of the motives of the terrorists the president claimed: "They don't like football, they think it's anti-Muslim. They just carry out attacks like this. This is a terrible tragedy".
The club met to watch games together and on non game days they would watch old matches. These are horrific scenes.
More to follow...
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
thejollyvic wrote:Quote: Spanish newspaper AS are reporting the news that 14 Real Madrid fans, members of a supporters club in Iraq, have been massacred by terrorist group ISIS at the group's headquarters today.
The attack took part in Samarra in Baghdad and it's believed men carrying AK-47s stormed the building in which 50 people were gathered. There's believed to be at least 14 dead and a further 20 injured. AS spoke to the President of the supporters club who revealed "A group of Islamic terrorists, from ISIS, came into the café, armed with AK-47s, shooting at random at everyone who was inside".
Of the motives of the terrorists the president claimed: "They don't like football, they think it's anti-Muslim. They just carry out attacks like this. This is a terrible tragedy".
The club met to watch games together and on non game days they would watch old matches. These are horrific scenes.
More to follow... Twats.
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
even i find this hard to believe this is true...but it is :lol: Quote:Russia Used a Video Game to ‘Prove’ Chemical Weapons Claims
The Russian government just made a bullshit claim about chemical weapons in Syria—and used some bullshit graphics from an old video game to help make its argument. “Several trucks with improvised munitions fitted with chemical warfare agents based on chlorine have arrived in northern territories of Aleppo, which had been controlled by Jabhat Al Nusra terrorists, from the Idlib province,” the Russian defense ministry reported on May 11. The Russian embassy in the United Kingdom helpfully tweeted the defense ministry’s claim—and included a CGI image of munitions-laden trucks along with the disclaimer that the image was “for illustration purposes only.”
But that image was a screenshot from the popular 1995 video game Command and Conquer. Freelance journalist Kelsey Atherton was the first to notice the embassy’s rip-off. “Shout-out to the Russian intern who googled ‘bomb truck,’ found a picture from a video game, slapped on ‘illustration only’ & ran with it,” Atherton tweeted. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/12/russia-used-a-video-game-to-prove-chemical-weapons-claims.html?source=TDB&via=twitter_page
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
A Tory MP retweeted a tweet from a hunting firm labelling Chris Packham, a nature show presenter from the UK, a "self-confessed nut job" for being opposed to grouse shooting. The self-confessed nut job part is referring to a recent interview where he opened up about his struggles with Asperger's syndrome and depression, which led to him almost taking his own life twice. What a knob. EDIT: As if that wasn't bad enough, this was during Mental Health Awareness Week. Edited by salmonfc: 17/5/2016 12:07:35 AM
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I see the US is off to give Libya arms to fight IS. Can see that backfiring no pun. -PB
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
salmonfc wrote:A Tory MP retweeted a tweet from a hunting firm labelling Chris Packham, a nature show presenter from the UK, a "self-confessed nut job" for being opposed to grouse shooting. The self-confessed nut job part is referring to a recent interview where he opened up about his struggles with Asperger's syndrome and depression, which led to him almost taking his own life twice.
What a knob.
EDIT: As if that wasn't bad enough, this was during Mental Health Awareness Week.
Foot in mouth. Well more like the whole leg. Was the condition known to the offender though?
|
|
|
salmonfc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:salmonfc wrote:A Tory MP retweeted a tweet from a hunting firm labelling Chris Packham, a nature show presenter from the UK, a "self-confessed nut job" for being opposed to grouse shooting. The self-confessed nut job part is referring to a recent interview where he opened up about his struggles with Asperger's syndrome and depression, which led to him almost taking his own life twice.
What a knob.
EDIT: As if that wasn't bad enough, this was during Mental Health Awareness Week.
Foot in mouth. Well more like the whole leg. Was the condition known to the offender though? I assume that's why the firm specifically said he was a "self-confessed nut job".
For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:I see the US is off to give Libya arms to fight IS.
Can see that backfiring no pun.
-PB to many Egyptian getting beheaded by ISIS...it drop the embargo on Libyan govt or have Egyptian army invade Libya
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Russia’s Hybrid Warfare is Harming Germany
Among the multiple crises currently taking place on the European continent, another serious threat has been unfolding. Russia is actively seeking to harm and destabilize Germany. Taken together, Russian actions against Germany represent another example of hybrid warfare targeting the legitimacy of a European government. This is all the more dangerous because Russia has targeted its campaign against Germany: a key leader of the EU and a government currently struggling to keep Europe united in the face of numerous security threats, both internal and external. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/russia-s-hybrid-warfare-is-harming-germanyEdited by adrtho: 17/5/2016 04:38:45 PM
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]YX1I9HrKH_c[/youtube]
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
getting Kerry name wrong, i think he well on the way to being drunk :lol: the new anti- Russian union..Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and USA
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:getting Kerry name wrong, i think he well on the way to being drunk :lol: the new anti- Russian union..Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and USA Yeah, because all of those countries have traditionally loved Russia, especially considering there's only been twelve actual wars between The Swedish Empire/Finland and Russia and that's not even counting the Winter War campaign of World War II. You are literally retarded. Edited by Draupnir: 18/5/2016 06:12:11 AM
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:adrtho wrote:getting Kerry name wrong, i think he well on the way to being drunk :lol: the new anti- Russian union..Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and USA Yeah, because all of those countries have traditionally loved Russia, especially considering there's only been twelve actual wars between The Swedish Empire/Finland and Russia and that's not even counting the Winter War campaign of World War II. You are literally retarded. Edited by Draupnir: 18/5/2016 06:12:11 AM are you just going to follow me around the 442 chat site and call me retarded?
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:Draupnir wrote:adrtho wrote:getting Kerry name wrong, i think he well on the way to being drunk :lol: the new anti- Russian union..Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and USA Yeah, because all of those countries have traditionally loved Russia, especially considering there's only been twelve actual wars between The Swedish Empire/Finland and Russia and that's not even counting the Winter War campaign of World War II. You are literally retarded. Edited by Draupnir: 18/5/2016 06:12:11 AM are you just going to follow me around the 442 chat site and call me retarded? Nope, you just so happen to pop up and say stupid shit everywhere you go.
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
For those of you interested in the broader historical reasons for the constant instability and authoritarianism that exists in the Middle East, this is an interesting article that explains the whole Sykes-Picot carve up that happened post-WW1: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21698442-sykes-picot-carve-up-led-century-turbulence-unintended-consequences?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/unintendedconsequences[size=8]Sykes-Picot and its aftermath[/size] [size=7]Unintended consequences[/size] The Sykes-Picot carve-up led to a century of turbulence May 14th 2016 | From the print edition THE MODERN FRONTIERS of the Arab world only vaguely resemble the blue and red grease-pencil lines secretly drawn on a map of the Levant in May 1916, at the height of the first world war. Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot were appointed by the British and French governments respectively to decide how to apportion the lands of the Ottoman empire, which had entered the war on the side of Germany and the central powers. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Sazonov, was also involved. The war was not going well at the time. The British had withdrawn from Gallipoli in January 1916 and their forces had just surrendered at the siege of Kut in Mesopotamia in April.  Still, the Allies agreed that Russia would get Istanbul, the sea passages from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and Armenia; the British would get Basra and southern Mesopotamia; and the French a slice in the middle, including Lebanon, Syria and Cilicia (in modern-day Turkey). Palestine would be an international territory. In between the French- and British-ruled blocs, large swathes of territory, mostly desert, would be allocated to the two powers’ respective spheres of influence. Italian claims were added in 1917. But after the defeat of the Ottomans in 1918 these lines changed markedly with the fortunes of war and diplomacy (see map). The Turks, under Kemal Pasha Ataturk, pushed foreign troops out of Anatolia. Mosul was at first apportioned to France, then claimed by Turkey and subsequently handed to Britain, which attached it to the future Iraq. One reason for the tussle was the presence of oil. Even before the war, several Arab territories—Egypt, north Africa and stretches of the Arabian Gulf—had already been parcelled off as colonies or protectorates. Even so, Sykes-Picot has become a byword for imperial treachery. George Antonius, an Arab historian, called it a shocking document, the product of “greed allied to suspicion and so leading to stupidity”. It was, in fact, one of three separate and irreconcilable wartime commitments that Britain made to France, the Arabs and the Jews. The resulting contradictions have been causing grief ever since. In the end the Arabs, who had been led to expect a great Hashemite kingdom ruled from Damascus, got several statelets instead. The Maronite Christians got greater Lebanon, but could not control it. The Kurds, who wanted a state for themselves, failed to get one and were split up among four countries. The Jews got a slice of Palestine. The Hashemites, who had led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans with help from the British (notably T.E. Lawrence), were evicted from Syria by the French. They also lost their ancestral fief of the Hejaz, with its holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to Abdel Aziz bin Saud, a chieftain from the Nejd, who was backed by Britain. Together with his Wahhabi religious zealots, he founded Saudi Arabia. One branch of the Hashemites went on to rule Iraq, but the king, Faisal II, was murdered in 1958; another branch survives in a little kingdom called Transjordan, now plain Jordan, hurriedly partitioned off from Palestine by the British. Israel, forged in war in 1948, fought and won more battles against Arab states in 1956, 1967 and 1973. But its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was a fiasco. The Palestinians, scattered across the Middle East, fought a civil war in Jordan in 1970 and helped start the one in Lebanon in 1975. Syria intervened in 1976 and did not leave Lebanon until forced out by an uprising in 2005. More than two decades of “peace process” between Israel and Palestine, starting with the Oslo accords of 1993, have produced an unhappy archipelago of autonomous areas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Morocco marched into the western Sahara when the Spanish departed in 1975. The year after Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979, Iraq started a war that lasted eight years. It then invaded Kuwait in 1990, but was evicted by an American-led coalition. The Suez Canal and vast oil reserves kept the region at the forefront of cold-war geopolitics. France and Britain colluded with Israel in the war against Egypt in 1956 but were forced back by America. Yet America soon became the predominant external power, acting as Israel’s main armourer and protector. After Egypt defected from the Soviet camp, America oversaw the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. It intervened in Lebanon in 1958 and again in 1982. American warships protected oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. And having pushed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, America stayed on in Saudi Arabia to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq. In response to al-Qaeda’s attacks on Washington and New York in September 2001, America invaded Afghanistan in the same year and then Iraq in 2003. “Lots of countries have strange borders,” says Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut. “Yet for Arabs, Sykes-Picot is a symbol of a much deeper grievance against colonial tradition. It is about a whole century in which Western powers have played with us and were involved militarily.” [size=4]From the print edition: Special report [/size]
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Nato risks nuclear war with Russia 'within a year', senior general warns Quote:Nato risks a nuclear war with Russia within a year if it does not increase its defence capabilities in the Baltic states, one of the alliance's most senior retired generals has said.
General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Nato’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe between 2011 and 2014, said that an attack on Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia – all Nato members – was a serious possibility and that the West should act now to avert “potential catastrophe”.
He has written a fictional book 2017 War with Russia, but told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the events it describes were “entirely plausible”.
General Shirreff said: “The chilling fact is that because Russia hardwires nuclear thinking and capability to every aspect of their defence capability, this would be nuclear war.
“We need to judge President Putin by his deeds not his words,” he added. “He has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine. He has used force and got away with it.
READ MORE David Cameron is right. The EU, not Nato, has prevented war in Europe Nato warns there is 'justified concern' Isis will carry out nuclear attack in Europe Nato and Russia are finally back in business with each other- and the diplomatic victory is Russia's Donald Trump is right about one thing: Nato is obsolete Donald Trump condemns Nato as 'obsolete' and demands reform or replacement “In a period of tension, an attack on the Baltic states… is entirely plausible.”
Nato members would be obliged under Article 5 of its founding treaty to come to the defence of another member if it came under attack.
General Shirreff said that Mr Putin could be persuaded into an intervention in the Baltic by a “perception” of weakness in Nato, and predicted that, as in Crimea, the Russian president would present his actions as an act of defence to protect the large Russian-speaking minorities in those countries.
Nato has already stepped up defences in the Baltic states, but General Shirreff said that it needed to “raise the bar sufficiently high for any aggressor to say it is not worth the risk." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-risks-nuclear-war-with-russia-within-a-year-senior-general-warns-a7035141.htmlI agree 100% with this...most people don't understand how likely (1% chance) that Russia will use it Nuke weapon..and it weakens not strength that will lead to it, Putin (Russia) will do things, if they believe they can get away with it... Putin, didn't believe that Germany and Italy would destroy the business they built up Russia and agree with sanctions, but when Russia Shot down MH17 , this change everything and those countries had no choice it weakens that start next war, not strength Edited by adrtho: 19/5/2016 03:31:42 AM
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
West and Russia on course for war, says ex-Nato deputy commander Quote: Former British general predicts Russia will seize territory in eastern Ukraine and invade Baltic states, sparking war
A startling claim that the west is on course for war with Russia has been delivered by the former deputy commander of Nato, the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff.
In a book published on Wednesday, 2017 War With Russia, Shirreff argues that the events in Crimea have destroyed the post-cold-war settlement and set the stage for conflict, beginning next year.
In a chilling scenario, he predicts that Russia, in order to escape what it believes to be encirclement by Nato, will seize territory in eastern Ukraine, open up a land corridor to Crimea and invade the Baltic states.
Shirreff, who was deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014 and before that served in Northern Ireland, Iraq and the Balkans, is risking his reputation by making such a bold prediction. But he claims his narrative is closely modelled on his Nato experience of war-gaming future conflicts.
His scenario is specific, naming Latvia as the first of the Baltic countries to be invaded, in May next year. Such specifics open him to potential ridicule.
At the book launch at London’s Royal United Services Institute, he heavily caveated the scenario by saying it was still avoidable provided Nato took the necessary steps to pre-position forces in large enough numbers in the Baltic states. Nato is planning to make a start on just such a move at a Nato summit in Warsaw in July.
Faced with scepticism from journalists at the book launch – the Baltic states, unlike Ukraine, are members of Nato, and Russian action against any of them would in theory trigger a response – Shirreff said history was full of irrational decisions by leaders.
He said Putin could invade the Baltic states and then threaten nuclear action if Nato threatened to intervene.
Shirreff’s warning about the danger posed by Russia is echoed in the foreword by US admiral James Stavridis, former supreme allied commander Europe, who writes: “Under President Putin, Russia has charted a dangerous course that, if it is allowed to continue, may lead inexorably to a clash with Nato. And that will mean a war that could so easily go nuclear.”
Shirreff insists that retention of a nuclear deterrent is essential. “Be under no illusion whatsoever – Russian use of nuclear weapons is hardwired into Moscow’s military strategy,” he writes.
He describes Russia as now the west’s most dangerous adversary and says Putin’s course can only be stopped if the west wakes up to the real possibility of war and takes urgent action.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/18/west-russia-on-course-for-war-nato-ex-deputy-commander?utm_content=buffereb5d2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:adrtho wrote:Draupnir wrote:adrtho wrote:getting Kerry name wrong, i think he well on the way to being drunk :lol: the new anti- Russian union..Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland and USA Yeah, because all of those countries have traditionally loved Russia, especially considering there's only been twelve actual wars between The Swedish Empire/Finland and Russia and that's not even counting the Winter War campaign of World War II. You are literally retarded. Edited by Draupnir: 18/5/2016 06:12:11 AM are you just going to follow me around the 442 chat site and call me retarded? Nope, you just so happen to pop up and say stupid shit everywhere you go. here , your Defense Minister talking about Russia the Norwegian are very worried right now, they very happy when US troops come to Norway http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/05/17/intv-amanpour-ine-erikesen-soreide-norway.cnn/video/playlists/amanpour/
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Russia under suspicion after sabotage of Swedish telecom mast Quote:The suspected sabotage of two telecommunications masts – key parts of Sweden’s infrastructure – has reignited fears of foreign spies and the readiness of depleted security services in a country on the frontline of growing tensions with Russia.
A 300-metre-high mast in south-western Sweden collapsed on Sunday in what police say was sabotage. Police suspect either a prankster, local extremists or international saboteurs and have contacted the country’s spy service to investigate.
West and Russia on course for war, says ex-Nato deputy commander Read more “We are 100% certain the tower has been sabotaged,” police head investigator Jan Johansson told the Aftonbladet newspaper. “It could be something international, that they want to test what happens when taking out a mast like this.”
The state-owned Teracom telecommunications company has upped security and surveillance after Sunday’s incident.
In early May, a cable to another mast in the same region, dedicated to rescue services communications, was cut off. On Tuesday, the bomb squad was called to investigate a suspicious package near another mast in central Sweden, police told local media, but the package turned out to be harmless.
Police confirmed to Reuters that there were two suspected incidents of sabotage on 4 May and on Sunday but did not confirm possible international links.
However, regardless of who ultimately proves to be responsible for the incidents, for most Swedes, any official pointing the finger at international sabotage immediately signals Russia amid a return to the kind of cold war paranoia that once permeated the Nordic region http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/18/russia-under-suspicion-after-sabotage-of-swedish-telecom-mast?CMP=twt_gu
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:For those of you interested in the broader historical reasons for the constant instability and authoritarianism that exists in the Middle East, this is an interesting article that explains the whole Sykes-Picot carve up that happened post-WW1: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21698442-sykes-picot-carve-up-led-century-turbulence-unintended-consequences?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/unintendedconsequences[size=8]Sykes-Picot and its aftermath[/size] [size=7]Unintended consequences[/size] The Sykes-Picot carve-up led to a century of turbulence May 14th 2016 | From the print edition THE MODERN FRONTIERS of the Arab world only vaguely resemble the blue and red grease-pencil lines secretly drawn on a map of the Levant in May 1916, at the height of the first world war. Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot were appointed by the British and French governments respectively to decide how to apportion the lands of the Ottoman empire, which had entered the war on the side of Germany and the central powers. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Sazonov, was also involved. The war was not going well at the time. The British had withdrawn from Gallipoli in January 1916 and their forces had just surrendered at the siege of Kut in Mesopotamia in April.  Still, the Allies agreed that Russia would get Istanbul, the sea passages from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and Armenia; the British would get Basra and southern Mesopotamia; and the French a slice in the middle, including Lebanon, Syria and Cilicia (in modern-day Turkey). Palestine would be an international territory. In between the French- and British-ruled blocs, large swathes of territory, mostly desert, would be allocated to the two powers’ respective spheres of influence. Italian claims were added in 1917. But after the defeat of the Ottomans in 1918 these lines changed markedly with the fortunes of war and diplomacy (see map). The Turks, under Kemal Pasha Ataturk, pushed foreign troops out of Anatolia. Mosul was at first apportioned to France, then claimed by Turkey and subsequently handed to Britain, which attached it to the future Iraq. One reason for the tussle was the presence of oil. Even before the war, several Arab territories—Egypt, north Africa and stretches of the Arabian Gulf—had already been parcelled off as colonies or protectorates. Even so, Sykes-Picot has become a byword for imperial treachery. George Antonius, an Arab historian, called it a shocking document, the product of “greed allied to suspicion and so leading to stupidity”. It was, in fact, one of three separate and irreconcilable wartime commitments that Britain made to France, the Arabs and the Jews. The resulting contradictions have been causing grief ever since. In the end the Arabs, who had been led to expect a great Hashemite kingdom ruled from Damascus, got several statelets instead. The Maronite Christians got greater Lebanon, but could not control it. The Kurds, who wanted a state for themselves, failed to get one and were split up among four countries. The Jews got a slice of Palestine. The Hashemites, who had led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans with help from the British (notably T.E. Lawrence), were evicted from Syria by the French. They also lost their ancestral fief of the Hejaz, with its holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to Abdel Aziz bin Saud, a chieftain from the Nejd, who was backed by Britain. Together with his Wahhabi religious zealots, he founded Saudi Arabia. One branch of the Hashemites went on to rule Iraq, but the king, Faisal II, was murdered in 1958; another branch survives in a little kingdom called Transjordan, now plain Jordan, hurriedly partitioned off from Palestine by the British. Israel, forged in war in 1948, fought and won more battles against Arab states in 1956, 1967 and 1973. But its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was a fiasco. The Palestinians, scattered across the Middle East, fought a civil war in Jordan in 1970 and helped start the one in Lebanon in 1975. Syria intervened in 1976 and did not leave Lebanon until forced out by an uprising in 2005. More than two decades of “peace process” between Israel and Palestine, starting with the Oslo accords of 1993, have produced an unhappy archipelago of autonomous areas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Morocco marched into the western Sahara when the Spanish departed in 1975. The year after Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979, Iraq started a war that lasted eight years. It then invaded Kuwait in 1990, but was evicted by an American-led coalition. The Suez Canal and vast oil reserves kept the region at the forefront of cold-war geopolitics. France and Britain colluded with Israel in the war against Egypt in 1956 but were forced back by America. Yet America soon became the predominant external power, acting as Israel’s main armourer and protector. After Egypt defected from the Soviet camp, America oversaw the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. It intervened in Lebanon in 1958 and again in 1982. American warships protected oil tankers in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. And having pushed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, America stayed on in Saudi Arabia to maintain no-fly zones over Iraq. In response to al-Qaeda’s attacks on Washington and New York in September 2001, America invaded Afghanistan in the same year and then Iraq in 2003. “Lots of countries have strange borders,” says Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut. “Yet for Arabs, Sykes-Picot is a symbol of a much deeper grievance against colonial tradition. It is about a whole century in which Western powers have played with us and were involved militarily.” [size=4]From the print edition: Special report [/size] I cannot understand how people are comfortable with the fact that two anglo's decided on the borders of the arab world. No wonder there is so much hostility. Were these men given historical context to make some kind of informed decision?
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote: I cannot understand how people are comfortable with the fact that two anglo's decided on the borders of the arab world.
No wonder there is so much hostility.
Were these men given historical context to make some kind of informed decision?
It was all based on spheres of influence - eg where Britain and France already had some influence, control, ability to project military power. Then it got further complicated with the discovery of oil. They did not take into account natural "nations" of people to create their nation-states around. In fact, it was for a long time British policy to make sure that their colonies had opposed groups to ensure the locals would stay divided and at each others throats, and therefore less likely to be able to join together to kick out the British. Typically, they would find a minority group, put leaders from that group into puppet positions of power. They would then become dependent on the british for security, resources etc because the majority grouping would be kept from power, and therefore be antagonistic towards this newly elevated elite. Quite clever strategy, but with terrible consequences for history. They took a page out of the Romans playbook!
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Risk warning for tourist ‘crush’ this summer in Spain Environmentalists have warned that Spanish cities could have severe overcrowding, gridlock traffic and dirty water as Spain's summer resorts are booking out already.
Packed beaches, gridlocked traffic and unclean water are among the warnings for potential holidaymakers in Spain this summer.
Environmentalists have warned that Spanish cities could become severely overcrowded, and that their infrastructure may be unable to cope with the ‘crush’.
“This will be a crazy year,” said Gerard Hau, a spokesman for the Grup Balear d’Ornitologia Defensa de la Naturalesa (GOB) in the Balearic Islands.
“The infrastructure will not cope. Mallorca is booked out. We will have serious problems this summer.
“People come here to enjoy life, but they are stressed because they can’t get a seat on the buses – there aren’t enough buses. Already we have 60,000 rental cars on this island.”
The influx of tourists is despite the Foreign Office labelling Spain as a high risk destination following the discovery of several Islamic Terrorist plots aimed at tourists in Spanish hotspots.
The environmentalists have warned of overbookings, gridlocked streets and high levels of stress.
They also suggest there may be issues with water and sewage networks, meaning tourists will not even be able to cool off in the sea.
© Olive Press Spain
http://www.expatica.com/es
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol they will all be porcelain white British whales. -PB
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
This is massively oversimplified. But I reckon that the British giving Palestine to the Jewish screwed up the whole region (arguably the whole world) big time and is the source of the majority of problems the West has with Islam today.
After the war, the British and Americans were absolutely exhausted. They didn't want to fight anymore. There was, with good reason, lots of sympathy for the Jews after the world saw pictures of Birkenau.
The Jews, understandably, became resolved to ensure that never again would they be exterminated. They wanted a homeland. They went, en masse, to Palestine and agitated, through brutal terrorist means, for the British to relinquish control of that territory.
If the Second World War hadn't occurred, it's almost impossible that the British would have given up Palestine to the Jews only.
And, frankly, they shouldn't have done. The idea of a country belonging only to people of one race and religion is anathema. You can't create a state on the basis of "never again". You create a state on the basis of values like liberty, equality and brotherhood. Those values are the most important things and more important than seeing one particular race is not eliminated. If you honour those values, no race will be eliminated. Instead, if you create a state on the basis of "never again", values like freedom, equality and brotherhood can be abused in order to justify the "never again".
The lessons of the Second World War should have taught the British of the dangers of a state based on race and religion.
The British should have just flooded Palestine with troops. There should also have been stacks of American, Canadian, Australian, etc. soldiers there.
Good Arabs, who had valiantly fought for the British during the war, were ruthlessly betrayed by the British decision.
Even if the place was never decolonised, it would be preferable for Israel to be a massive British Army base today than what it is.
The people blowing up British soldiers willy nilly should have been given no leeway.
Instead, ultra-nationalist Jews got their way and embarked on campaign of ethnic cleansing of each and every Arab in areas where they wanted. It was disgraceful and, little or no better than what the Nazis did to them.
Moderate Arabs became antagonised and, either in Israel, or having fled elsewhere in the Middle-East, developed a deep hatred for Israel. That legacy exists to this day. For a long time, it has basically been a tenet of US foreign policy to back Israel to the hilt, such is the power of the Jewish lobby in the States. The actions of the US in other parts of the Middle-East, such as Iran, gave rise to even more hatred of the US in the Muslim world.
So basically what the whole Israeli independence thing did was it triggered off a chain of events sowing division all throughout the Arab world. Arabs who previously had no reason to hate the United States and the West were so horribly affected by this chain that there's now this false dichotomy in the minds of many; Islamic extremism or American/Israeli imperialism.
Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:23:14 PM
Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:24:07 PM
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
We get it, youre a sympathizer but you can write this in UO not this thread
Edited by scott21: 19/5/2016 10:46:21 PM
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
That was written directly in response to a post above
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:This is massively oversimplified. But I reckon that the British giving Palestine to the Jewish screwed up the whole region (arguably the whole world) big time and is the source of the majority of problems the West has with Islam today.
After the war, the British and Americans were absolutely exhausted. They didn't want to fight anymore. There was, with good reason, lots of sympathy for the Jews after the world saw pictures of Birkenau.
The Jews, understandably, became resolved to ensure that never again would they be exterminated. They wanted a homeland. They went, en masse, to Palestine and agitated, through brutal terrorist means, for the British to relinquish control of that territory.
If the Second World War hadn't occurred, it's almost impossible that the British would have given up Palestine to the Jews only.
And, frankly, they shouldn't have done. The idea of a country belonging only to people of one race and religion is anathema. You can't create a state on the basis of "never again". You create a state on the basis of values like liberty, equality and brotherhood. Those values are the most important things and more important than seeing one particular race is not eliminated. If you honour those values, no race will be eliminated. Instead, if you create a state on the basis of "never again", values like freedom, equality and brotherhood can be abused in order to justify the "never again".
The lessons of the Second World War should have taught the British of the dangers of a state based on race and religion.
The British should have just flooded Palestine with troops. There should also have been stacks of American, Canadian, Australian, etc. soldiers there.
Good Arabs, who had valiantly fought for the British during the war, were ruthlessly betrayed by the British decision.
Even if the place was never decolonised, it would be preferable for Israel to be a massive British Army base today than what it is.
The people blowing up British soldiers willy nilly should have been given no leeway.
Instead, ultra-nationalist Jews got their way and embarked on campaign of ethnic cleansing of each and every Arab in areas where they wanted. It was disgraceful and, little or no better than what the Nazis did to them.
Moderate Arabs became antagonised and, either in Israel, or having fled elsewhere in the Middle-East, developed a deep hatred for Israel. That legacy exists to this day. For a long time, it has basically been a tenet of US foreign policy to back Israel to the hilt, such is the power of the Jewish lobby in the States. The actions of the US in other parts of the Middle-East, such as Iran, gave rise to even more hatred of the US in the Muslim world.
So basically what the whole Israeli independence thing did was it triggered off a chain of events sowing division all throughout the Arab world. Arabs who previously had no reason to hate the United States and the West were so horribly affected by this chain that there's now this false dichotomy in the minds of many; Islamic extremism or American/Israeli imperialism.
Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:23:14 PM
Edited by quickflick: 19/5/2016 10:24:07 PM I think that is somewhat of an over-simplification, as I note you yourself stated. I think the underlying issue is the inherent instability of the artificially created states. This led to "strongman" authoritarian rulers to hold the countries together. Iraq under Saddam is the classic example. The whole Israel-Palestine thing did not help, but I don't agree that is at the root of the problems in the middle east. I think it is actually an amplifier of the existing issues. If you had surrounding arab nations that were democratic, with strong institutions, rule of law etc, you wouldn't have had the various wars against Israel in the 1960s, you would have likely had less terrorism, and more diplomatic pressure, economic embargoes etc. The Palestine issue has been a convenient figleaf for brutal arab dictators to hide behind to justify their brutality to their own people. Certainly I am not defending many of the things Israel has done. And I definitely agree that a modern state created on the basis of a religion is not what should be done. However, it is far too convenient to use this conflict to justify all the dictatorships throughout the region. I really think so much of it goes back to Sykes-Picot. And I think the middle east will continue to fragment, and countries split up, until a new equilibrium is reached. There may not be a formal legal break up of countries. But, the Kurds in northern Iraq are a good example of a de facto state within a state. This type of artificial creation of borders also explains a lot about the conflicts in many African countries that were former colonies.
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
who to say there wouldn't have been more war with out The Brit and fogs making lines in the sand...it not that the middle east is a peace love place, they have always been at war...add oil to the mix
as the yanks pull out, you going to see the sunni vs shiite war, as there always have been ...you should all be thanking god the yanks keep the place safe (in way)
|
|
|