The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Realignment - Middle East

Realignment - Middle East

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Ok, now we open a topic on a whole new level, how exactly is the Middle East to function in this decade?

Let's look at what we have there now, shall we?

The developing situation is interesting, the Shi'ah control Syria, Lebanon, most of Iraq and are likely to end up disputing ground with the Taliban in Afghanistan (Greater Persia reached from Lebanon to Pakistan).

Now, the other interesting features are the rule of King Abdullah in Jordan, the potential oil wealth of Georgia/Azerbajain and the Kurdish peoples in the middle of it all, who now have massive oil wealth of their own, in Northern Iraq.

So what we have is the gradual joining together of the old Shi'ite enclaves, with several nations left in the middle, who will not, dare not, fall to the Shi'ah. At the same time, the Sunni Muslim majority (which has long been preoccupied with Israel), is waking up to the fact that they will soon be facing a Nuclear Persia, while only one Sunni nation to date has that capacity (and is perhaps too busy looking the other way).

The status quo, everyone against Israel and Israel alone in the Middle East cannot long survive enlightened self-interest by the Kurds, the Georgian's and even by Jordan itself (relations between the Bedouin and the Shi'ah have long been poisonous). The Kurd's need weapons, so do the Jordanian's, so too Georgia (and even Azerbaijan). There is a major realignment in process, Jordan too has been caught in the middle and must now choose sides.

Having written the same, I'm happy to argue it*

* Be aware, I am unwilling to even contemplate answering off-topic trolling by people who are determined merely to irritate.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Thursday, 20 January 2011 2:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well hello Aaron.. brother of Moses :)

Your question is "how is the middle east to function?"

Answer..simple. Israel must assert it's sovereignty over the full West Bank, and Gaza also.

She should draw as many Jews from around the world as possible, to repopulate the 'valley of dry bones' (Ezekiel 37)

Gaza'ns and Westbank Arabs should be relocated to either Jordan or around the world in small groups.

Jerusalem will be re configured with increasing Jewish population, and any Arab resistance must be firmly squashed, and any 2nd offence individuals to be deported.

Jerusalem was.. is and always will be the eternal capital of Israel.

*fixed* (seriously)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 20 January 2011 4:08:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no presumptions of predicting the future, especially since the inhabitants of the Middle-East are not reputed to act rationally.

The situation is that Iran today is akin to Nazi Germany in the 1930's and everything must be done to stop it. Iran must be isolated and this requires forsaking historical disputes and joining forces against the ultimate danger, not just to the ME, but to the whole world.

Specifically,

1. Continued and stronger economic sanctions against Iran.

2. Israel should make peace with Syria, at the cost of the Golan Heights, in order to remove Syria from the axis of evil. The peace treaty must clearly state that Syria must disengage from Iran and the Hezbollah.

3. A stronger and more effective UN-supported European force to enforce Security-Council resolution 1701 in Lebanon, eradicating Hezbollah and arresting any of its members found with arms. A further UN resolution to allow that force to pursue Hezbollah missile caches also beyond the Litani river.

4. Israel to accept the Saudi peace plan, putting behind the Palestinian conflict and becoming a strategic ally of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, all other Sunni countries, Turkey and former Soviet republics.

5. Strong missile-defence batteries to be deployed all around Iran's borders. All borders around Iran to be tightly closed. No ships to be allowed to leave Iranian ports before being thoroughly searched (to prevent nuclear bombs from being delivered by sea, then blown at Israeli/Saudi/European sea-ports).

6. Targeted assassinations of the most extreme Iranian leaders.

That's the only way to save the world, if only those parties could act rationally...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 21 January 2011 3:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you as well as anyone must know that the Alawite al-Assad's (ie. Shi'ah sect) are not going to isolate Iran, they are supporting the Shi'ah in Southern Turkey and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The only realistic allies in the immediate region are King Abdullah II and the Kurds (who are also jammed in between the greater Persian Empire).

The difficulty that will come if the Palestinian's declare Statehood on the West-bank, is that based upon a real and perceived danger of them falling to Hamas/Hezbollah, Jordan is quite likely to invade (Jordan is at peace with Israel, the Hashemites will never be at peace with Shi'ah), having no desire to be bounded by enemies on 3 sides.

That said, there is much in favor of a pipeline to Haifa through Jordan from Kurdistan. Given the evil that is Iran and the likelihood that they will once again block the Arab/Persian Gulf, there are many who would be relieved to see such a development.

See the attached map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg). Jordan is just at the base of that and the Northern Iraqi desert is all that lies between linking Kurdistan and Jordan. Also note the proximity of both Azerbaijan & Georgia to Kurdistan in the North. A pipeline to the Med, that bypassed Turkey, would be in everyone's best interest. What would be required? Jordan to step up to the plate and assume control over the Sunni North of Iraq up to Kurdistan.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Friday, 21 January 2011 9:34:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The other major benefit of this, would be that the Kurds could be armed (and heavily), giving Iran war on three fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan & Kurdistan. Neither of the little Corporal's managed to survive that, I cannot imagine the Iranian's managing it either. By arming the Georgian's, the capacity remains to keep the resurgent bear at bay, thus keeping certain classes of weapons out of the hands of the Iranians (if you believe the Russian's, which I don't).

A single change to the map, basing it on ancient tribal boundaries, splitting the Sunni center of Iraq from the Kurdish North and the Shi'ah in the South, would provide a solid corridor for oil, trade and weapons right through the heart of the Shi'ah empire, from the Mediterranean to the Caspian. Quite frankly, if Turkey hadn't changed sides so rapidly, this wouldn't be a possibility, but the Kurds are being attacked on all sides, with not a single party thereto being a friend of Israel.

A heavily armed Kurdistan is Iran, Turkey & Syria's worst nightmare, whereas the Sunni in central Iraq would probably be a whole lot more comfortable under a Sunni regime (which is not the case at present).
Posted by Aaron 1975, Friday, 21 January 2011 10:13:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaron.. arming Geoegia ? I hardly think the Russians will allow that.

When the Ottomans came rampaging toward Georgia back in the days..the Georgians called for Russian help...which was promised... but then at the critical moment it was withdrawn. The Georgians suffered.

The Rational of the Russians was that a weak Georgia was better than a strong one.

Re-alignment in the Middle east has been going on since Napoleon
..for those interested

http://napoleon1er.perso.neuf.fr/E-Napoleon-Jews.html
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 21 January 2011 10:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Russian's are very aware of the fact that Georgia is close to Israel, if the Russian's continue to arm Syria, then Slavs can be removed from certain Georgian enclaves, whatever happens, happens in their own backyard. Turkey will not be thrilled to encounter heavily armed (and armoured) Kurd's, then again, maybe they should pick their allies a little better?

Iraq is going to split, the central Iraq area, including Tikrit, etc. is mainly Sunni, that is the reason for the continued violence between them and the Gov't. Iraq, as originally designed, was never governable without war crimes, Saddam & Co. didn't commit them all for fun. It can either fall into line with the Hashemite's (who as Bedouin, represent the bulk of the desert area) or make their own State (but where they'll get support from who knows? They'll need to defend themselves from Syria, Iran/Iraq, Jordan & the Kurds)...

The benefit of Jordan taking up the bulk of the area is that it would cut the supply lines for Hezbollah in Lebanon and could, potentially, see the al-Assad dynasty overthrown by the Sunni majority. After all, they have every bit as much blood on their hands as Saddam ever had.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Friday, 21 January 2011 12:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaron,

There is no escape from forsaking old rivalries. Just as Israel should do its part, so does Turkey need to forsake its dispute with the Curds. Without Turkey the situation is hopeless because Iran could smuggle nuclear weapons through Turkey to Mediterranean ports.

The Palestinians are no serious threat. If they, once they receive their statehood, still come under Hamas rule, then not only Jordan, but Israel itself will re-invade, this time with Saudia's blessings. It will take just one day.

Russia will understand that Iran is as dangerous to itself as to the rest of Europe.

A large proportion of Iraqi Shiites belong to a different sect that does not support Iran.

The Alawite regime in Syria is opportunistic, it only cares about staying in power there and will happily change its allies if it serves that purpose.

An oil pipeline through Haifa is welcome as ever.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 21 January 2011 2:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aaron, please give me your synopsis on how far you think the Ruskies would go to keep the caliphate at bay. Personally I think they are prepared to go a fair distance at max velocity when it eventually comes to it and that is the basis on which to prognosticate IMO.

I would like your ideas on that as well Mr Gore.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 21 January 2011 3:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOG.. I think you have all pretty much nailed it.

I've just taken the 'brute force' approach :) It has a remarkable record of actually working.

But all those competing factions you have all mentioned will inevitably become proxies for the wealthy west in it's competitive struggle for influence and resources... We can't see them as they are hidden.

Which is why I don't pontificate too much about them all.. I know history too well.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 21 January 2011 7:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Shi'ah in Iraq have little option but to go along with Al-Sadah, he has the power (power in the region, as ever, being based upon the number of armed follower's willing to join Allah ASAP) in the region, and seems brutal enough to be able to impose his will on the majority in Southern Iraq.

That currently still being contested in the Sunni heartland around Tikrit, etc. There is no feasible solution to the bloodshed than to split the two halves of Iraq along those lines. That means there would have to be a Sunni ruler, acceptable to the west, who could rule over not just the city dwellers, but also the vast areas of desert and the Bedouin therein. The only real options are either the Al-Saud's or the Hashemite's from Jordan. As the two houses have no love for each other, it would make little sense to appoint Al-Saud's to neighbour Jordan. So that leaves the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan, which has a long history with Central Iraq.

From Mosul north, give the Kurd's the homeland they need (and have waited centuries for), they have enough oil to be self-sufficient provided they have an outlet for the same. Turkey for reasons of a population explosion in the undeveloped areas (quite a lot of which is either claimed by the Kurds or the Shi'ah minority), has chosen it's partners for the dance. With the airfields in Kurdistan, Turkey is no longer a necessary evil in terms of NATO or even in the war on terror. If the Kurd's were armed sufficiently to see off the incursions/predations of the Turkish/Iranian/Syrian Armies (and the enemy of mine enemy is my friend), then the flow of oil should be safe. Jordan is one of Israel's better neighbour's, also one which has long had western military assistance & training. It would provide a powerful potential ally against encroachment from the South.

Such an idea would move the major battlegrounds of the next decade away from Israel's borders, while offering a potential solution to a lot of major problems, jobs, oil, etc.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Saturday, 22 January 2011 7:52:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I honestly believe that except for a couple of areas of extreme significance, the Israeli Government would be best served by allowing Jordan to invade and retake the West-Bank. After all, the King has no reason to see any benefit (and a whole lot of threat considering they killed his Grandfather) from Palestinian terrorists. Jordan, while having achieved less than Israel with the same starting points, has achieved a hell of a lot more than the Palestinian Authority. Let the Palestinian's have their homeland, or to extend Jordan.

I cannot imagine how the Iranian's are going to smuggle Nuclear missiles through Turkey any more easily than they currently do through the Persian Gulf, especially if the Kurd's are armed well enough to carve a massive chunk out of the borders of both Iran and Turkey. If the Kurd's then choose to help the Azerbaijani's to reclaim their territory from the Armenians, who exactly will the Armenian's turn to for help? Turkey? Not likely. With the drying up of supplies from Iran via Syria, Hezbollah will be critically weakened (with no ground route & no air route, they would have to go via the Suez).

The Hashemite succession to the throne of Iraq, even a much shrunken Iraq, would see a strong line of support. The neighbouring kingdoms, Jordan & Iraq, both under Hashemite rule, have the greatest potential to quieten that region. On top of that, the Hashemite's are not great friends of the al-Assad's, of Turkey (or the al-Saud's), the al-Husseini clan or of anything to do with Shi'ah. While a long way from perfect, they are probably the pick of the bunch. They are also armed by the UK, with the Challenger 1 MBT & F16's, so the regime is obviously not on the axis-of-evil list.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Saturday, 22 January 2011 8:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who are wondering, the incumbent claimant to the Throne of Iraq, given that the Republic has failed, would be either Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%27ad_bin_Zeid) or his son, Prince Zied bin Ra'ad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeid_Ra%E2%80%99ad_Zeid_Al-Hussein), onetime Ambassador to the USA, and Jordan's Permanent Ambassador to the UN. As the Kingdom was abolished by a Coup, which saw the advent of the Republic of Iraq, obviously with the demise of the Republic, the Kingdom could equally be seen as legitimate (especially with the help of most of the Security Council). The problematic Sunni section of Iraq, would then be under a legitimate ruler, who could quite probably be prevailed upon to allow the Kurd's to declare their autonomy & Statehood.

As the Dynasty is also the Legitimate Ruler's of Syria, they are seriously unlikely to get on well with the al-Saad regime, nor are they likely, given the history, to allow terrorists to operate from their soil (NB Black September). As descendant's of the Prophet, they would have every bit as much religious support from the Sunni as the Al-Sadr's have from the Shi'ah.

As to the Russian support for the Caliphate, actions talk louder than words I'm afraid. Supplying SAM's & advanced ATGM's to Iran, a fact many choose to ignore, demonstrates the Russian mindset. Israel (or other western Countries) supplying weapons to Georgia to use against Russia, is about the only bargaining chip available to stop the supply of weapons to a demonstrably evil regime. Strangling Iran by reducing the flow of weapons, from North Korea & Russia, while engaging it on 3 fronts, seems almost like a prelude to a preemptive strike of some sort (if one were paranoid enough to believe in such behavior)...
Posted by Aaron 1975, Saturday, 22 January 2011 8:42:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaron.. any regime is only as 'legitimate' as the power it can call upon to stay there.

I note with interest the recent development in South Lebanon, controlled by Hizbollah... where a very dejected looking Walid Jumblat declared the Druze will support Hizbollah, for reasons he outlined.

http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=204765 'pressure'

//He told members of his party that insisting on Hariri as the country's new prime minister would lead to "catastrophic consequences" for the security of the Druse party, himself, and the Druse population in Hizbullah-controlled areas.// rather says it all.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 23 January 2011 7:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Short-term, most assuredly... The options of the Druze population are extremely limited, support the Cedar Revolution & get killed in their bed by Hezbollah, or remove support for the same and be ignored by Hezbollah. Unfortunately, the media isn't interested in the terror and murder inflicted continually by these organisations, it isn't news unless Israel or the US are involved (well, from one view, it isn't news, terrorists are people who use terror to achieve their aims).

If the gutless terrorist loving media would only look at what is going on presently in Lebanon - Hezbollah is threatening to take over the Country if they are indicted by the International Court for the car bomb that killed the President of Lebanon. Not only is that an admission of guilt, but a flat out statement that they have no interest in answering for their actions (kind of ironic given their supporter's want everyone else to answer for theirs, no?)...

A government, a Nation, a member of the UN, held to ransom by terrorists, who do as they please and threaten to destroy everything if they are held to account? A better picture of Hezbollah and the evil it represents could not be drawn. Yet these are the cowards that are given enormous attention when they draw the ire of other nation states who have no intention of being held to ransom. Lebanon could be free of them, but it would take intestinal fortitude of an order they haven't shown to date.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Sunday, 23 January 2011 9:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a truly pompous, arrogant, misinformed bunch you are. You are doing exactly what France and Britain did post WWI divvying up the Middle East to the advantage of the West. Ensuring that there will be divisions between Arab countries for decades to come exactly what Bush and Blair envisaged when they illegally invaded Iraq. Have a bunch of armchair generals finished or do we have to put up with more nonsense and wet dreams from bloodthirsty, ignorant, arrogant racist?
Posted by Ulis, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 1:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ULIS was that a self description?
You do not have to put up with anything.
But in the west you are free to think as you wish, so too are we.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 6:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course ULIS disgusting statements reveal the OTHER side of the same coin which he criticizes.......i.e.. Sectarian Arab Shia political interests which give absolutely ZERO consideration for the racist suffering inflicted on the Druze and Christians in Southern Lebanon by Hezbollah.

Thanks Ulis.. at least we know where YOU stand.

So..Ulis.. you've chosen your side.."Imperialist Iran and it's proxy Syria and Hezbollah"

We have ours "Western interests and our proxy the non Shia lebanese."

6 of one, half dozen of the other.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 26 January 2011 7:53:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found this thread interesting shame it stalled I am watching Egypt and am interested in the out comes a great deal depends on what happens here in the next 6 months.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 29 January 2011 3:09:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, was off doing some things...

Yeah the situation in Egypt is of extreme interest, I note the Armoured and Heavy Armoured Forces on the Streets, which seem to be, more than anything else, reducing the worst of the excesses of the Police (from whom the Gestapo could have learned a lot). The President has lost control, not only of the Streets and the People, but more tellingly, of the military.

Of particular interest, despite the Iranian Cleric's calling it an Islamic Revolution, this doesn't appear to have major overtones of that. In fact, with the heavy weapons under the firm control of the military, I'd strongly suspect that a Military Interim Government is more likely than an Islamic Republic.

As the Military is predominantly opposed to the Islamic Fundamentalists (strongly so in fact), the chances of this turning into an Islamic Revolution are slim indeed. Then again, the Shah of Iran was provided with the latest in weaponry, F14 Tomcats, Challenger Mk.1's, etc. (actually, the British Army got the Challenger by default after the embargo of Iran, which it was designed to be sent to). The parallels with Egypt which has had "favored nation" status since Anwar El Sadat toppled Nasser and entered into negotiations with Israel, are apparent and I'm sure they are being closely watched. Then again, deserts aren't kind to high-tech weaponry/systems, so a stop on all parts/replacements, would degrade the same (as it has with Iran).

Interesting time, but the level of corruption is devastating. However, what effect this will have on other Countries in the region? Syria would be a VERY interesting case to watch, the most influential families (ie. the Richest) come from a very small minority (Alawite), which is also Shi'ah (whereas the majority of the Country is not). The regime is every bit as cruel (if not more so) as the Egyptian one and corruption is so endemic as to be accepted business practice.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Monday, 31 January 2011 12:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ulis, how exactly is any part of this misinformed? The only really stable Moslem Country in the Region is Jordan under the Hashemite King Abdullah II (having taken the name from His Grandfather, King Abdullah I - who was shot by a Palestinian in 1951). The Hashemite line are the hereditary rulers of much of the region, which is why they garnered the support of the Bedouin Clans during WWI, in the rebellion against Turkey by Sheik Hussein bin Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite). Their hereditary enemies are the Shi'ah (claiming a direct line to Mohhamed's Grand-father & daughter Fatima, puts them directly at the center of the rift between the followers of the non-direct line via Ali, and the followers of the bloodline of the Prophet), the al-Saud's, and the al-Husseini clan.

This discussion is based upon the familial hatreds of, quite possibly the oldest ruling family in the region and whether they should return to ruling the Sunni part of Iraq and/or even Syria. They are actually, in their eyes, the legitimate rulers of both. The only way to stop the internecine bloodletting in Iraq is for it to split upon ancient lines, it is quite interesting in fact, whether the Sunni Iraqi's would prefer a Sunni Ruler from a powerful clan, or to live under the rule of the Shi'ite majority (which means Al-Sadr).

In terms of regional stability, that would be the best possible outcome from a lot of viewpoints. It would allow the Kurds to declare independence (the Hashemite's aren't overly fond of Turkey either, having been suborned by the Turkish Empire for several centuries), which is a valuable plus, while stopping the worst of the incipient civil war in Iraq. It would also isolate Syria and Hezbollah, which is no small benefit.
Posted by Aaron 1975, Monday, 31 January 2011 1:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Finally, Ulis - how is allowing Iraqi's to choose imposing anything on anyone? Granted their choices are limited, but that is the way of the Middle East. In terms of personal freedom & quality of life, Jordan is streets ahead of the "Arab" Countries.

It has a stable legislature, strong support for most basic rights (with exceptions, but less so than Saudi Arabia) and is probably the only way that Sunni Iraqi's have any hope of real peace in this lifetime. They certainly cannot count on the munificence of Muqtada Al-Sadr, or of the dominant Sadr-ist Militia's. Then again, that's payback for what the Sunni minority did (under Saddam) to the Shi'ah majority.

I honestly do not believe that he ascended the throne with his murdered grandfather's name with any lack of knowledge, or absence of understanding, of how the same would be viewed in the region. As a result, I strongly doubt that King Abdullah II has any more interest in "Palestinian" self-determination than that shown by his Grandfather and Father (who between them annexed the bulk of the territory mandated to the Palestinian's by the UN in 1948).

As for imposing an "Arab" ruler on the Palestinian's, that will not be the problem of the Western Allies. Immediately the Palestinian's try and declare independence on the West Bank I'd be expecting to see Jordan reclaim the same, militarily if that is required. Launching an intifadah against Jordanian troops would result in massacres reminiscent of those carried out after the death of Abdullah I, or of those carried out in September 1970 (after a failed Coup by the Palestinian Fedayeen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_%28group%29). The media really won't get the access to report it, which means it will go away rather rapidly (Jordanian troops aren't exactly known for being light-handed in their response to Palestinian protests).
Posted by Aaron 1975, Monday, 31 January 2011 1:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy