Why this Blog?

A place where I can lament the changing times; for eccentric comments on current affairs and for unfashionable views, expressed I hope, in cogent style; also occasional cris de coeur largely concerned, I regret to say, with myself.


I welcome your comments, so do please write. Please note however that all comments are moderated prior to publication. Whilst I fully appreciate that life can be frustrating, nevertheless, abuse, SMS language and illiteracy will not be tolerated!

Wednesday 3 October 2012

Serious Matters in the Middle-East

The news that Turkey, exasperated by the Syrian army firing into its territory has, for the first time responded in kind, will quite obviously have set alarm bells ringing around all the NATO countries.

Turkey has a large, powerful army; Bashar al-Assad would I think, be very unwise to permit further provocations.

And since the famously secular Turkish Army (carrying on the traditions of Ataturk) would perhaps not entirely find an opportunity to demonstrate its might to its current Islamic masters  unwelcome, al-Assad should be doubly cautious. 

The fact that I think that al-Assad should disappear up his own bottom is another matter of course.

Until the next time


Anonymous said...

There must enough oil for America to invade one of them for liberation purposes only.

regards Mr.O

Paul said...

Syria has oil of course, but I do not think that Turkey has much, if any (too lazy to look at CIA World Fact Book.)

However I doubt your conspiracy theory can hold much water; whatever the conspiracy theorists might say - they said that the US was in Iraq to "steal" their oil... - I do not believe that the US is in the business of "stealing" oil. This of course does not obviate actions by powerful global business interests, but even then more or less everybody gets paid - unless you think of Equatorial Guinea; a pity Mark Thatcher's chums were not successful really.

Meanwhile from the New York Times comes the following:

Citing U.S. Fears, Arab Allies Limit Syrian Rebel Aid

In an exclusive report in Sunday’s New York Times, Robert F. Worth writes that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funneling money and small arms to Syrian rebels for months but that they have not provided heavier weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles, that could allow opposition fighters to bring down government aircraft, take out armored vehicles and turn the war’s tide.

The countries have held back, officials in both nations said, in part because they have been discouraged by the United States, which fears the heavier weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists. As a result, the rebels have just enough weapons to maintain a stalemate, and the war grinds on. Providing rebels with heavier weapons “has to happen,” Khalid al-Attiyah, a state minister for foreign affairs in Qatar, said. “But first we need the backing of the United States, and preferably the U.N.”

Anonymous said...

As 1999 ended and the new millennium began; there were 7 nations who were not controlled by the Rothschild owned Central Banking System. They were:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

TODAY Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Libya are NO LONGER on that list.


Paul said...

By coincidence the subject of Rothschilds came up in a conversation I had with an old friend last weekend whilst I was staying with him on the south coast. He was a significant banker in his time (e.g. a managing director at Salamon Smith Barney - a division of Citibank. ) He told me that Rothschilds were not vastly significant these days though still fairly big in France. So I don't understand what you mean by the "Rothschild-owned central banking system" Rothschild is simply not that big.

Now Citibank, Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan, may well be another matter altogether. But even so, if "the brothers" have taken over, and the U.S. is the "great Satan" what difference does it make?

Paul said...

P.S. Of course the new millenium began on 1st Jan 2001.

Anonymous said...

pedant !

Paul said...

Mais oui! Comme toujours!