#'then they recovered some land...and then the Arabs invaded' | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

giftofshewbread · 3 years ago

Text

It’s Sin (Prophecy Update)

By Daymond Duck Published on: August 29, 2021

On Aug. 17, 2021, LifeSiteNews reported that conservative Bishop Joseph Strickland warned that “we are suffering as a world because of our sins (promoting abortion, homosexuality, and oppressing ordinary citizens) and failing to recognize God as the Creator and true author of life.”

Strickland urged Christians to stand for the “truths of the faith” and said, “They (godless world leaders) can kill us, seriously curtail our freedoms, but they can’t take away the very essence of who we are: free beings that can choose to say yes to God or not.”

This writer agrees with the bishop.

America’s problem is sin: political corruption, judicial corruption, moral corruption, the Church is lukewarm and declining, etc.

We’ve thrown God out of our schools.

We’ve thrown God out of our courts.

We’ve thrown God out of our government.

We’ve thrown God out of our homes.

We’ve thrown God out of our churches.

We’ve drenched our land with the blood of innocents (abortion).

We have openly blasphemed our God for ages, in books, movies, and the media, but even Christians have come to regard it as ‘normal.’

We have elected unbelievers to rule over us that want to establish a godless world government and religion.

These are not the characteristics of a Christian nation or sins that a holy God will tolerate forever from a nation that was created under God.

Payday has arrived for America and the world, and it is our own fault.

There is still hope for individuals that have truly accepted Jesus as their Saviour (the Rapture), but there is no hope for those that have joined the Church without truly trusting in Jesus (unless they do it before they die or before the Rapture).

Hopefully, this writer is wrong, but it is possible that America has reached a point of no return, that God has already decided to bring our sin-filled nation down, and it’s possible that America will never recover.

One, concerning the impact of Afghanistan’s fall on world government and wars and rumors of wars:

Many Americans don’t believe Biden is in charge, and there are calls to remove him, but removing him won’t remove America’s godless shadow government (the CFR and their minions) or alter their efforts to establish a one-world government by 2030 or sooner. If the shadow government orders Biden removed, it will be because they are afraid he will cost them control of the House and/or Senate, and they don’t want to risk that.

The debacle in Afghanistan has convinced many world leaders that America can no longer be relied upon to lead the free world (America’s military is still strong, but America’s civilian leaders are corrupt, inept, and unreliable. U.S. Sec. of State Blinken admitted receiving a cable from about two dozen diplomats warning that the Taliban could seize Afghanistan in a hurry if Biden removed the troops. An Audit uncovered by the group called “Open the Books” listed 600,000 weapons; 75,000 Humvees, armored personnel carriers, tactical vehicles, mine-resistant vehicles, etc.; $200 million dollars worth of drones; 208 planes/helicopters in Afghanistan).

China now believes it can attack Taiwan and get away with it.

North Korea now believes it can attack South Korea and win because America’s leader is weak and indecisive.

Russia, Iran, and Turkey now believe they can march into Israel, and the U.S. will do nothing.

China, Russia, and Iran have now scheduled joint military drills in the Persian Gulf for later this year or early next year.

Israel now knows that her enemies no longer fear her number one ally (the U.S.), and Israel must now act in Israel’s own best interests.

The EU now knows that something is wrong in America, and the EU must build up its military if the EU wants to remain free.

America is no longer the world’s number one superpower, and the decline of America is just what the globalists needed to bring in their godless one-world government and religion. (George Soros gave millions to the campaigns of the Clinton’s, Obama and others who were in favor of weakening America to eventually bring in the NWO. George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and the Rockefellers were also strong supporters of the NWO.)

As Jan Markel so often says, “Things are not falling apart; things are falling into place” (lining up exactly the way the Bible says they will at the end of the age).

Update one: On Aug. 18, 2021, the U.K. Parliament held Pres. Biden in contempt for withdrawing from Afghanistan and called his decision “catastrophic” and “shameful.” This reflects the thinking of one of America’s strongest allies.

Phase 1 of the Globalist plan to establish the New World Order was to create trading blocks of nations, and many trading blocks are now in existence.

Phase 2 of the globalist plan to establish the New World Order is to remove America as the undisputed leader of the free world and replace it with leaders from ten groups of nations (Ten Kings). It is the opinion of this writer that America has been deliberately disgraced, world leaders will soon say Biden is not mentally capable of leading the free world, the U.S. must be replaced – they will select ten leaders from ten trading blocks of nations, and the U.S. will be in the trading block known as the USMCA (United States, Mexico, and Canada).

Phase 3 of the globalist plan to establish the New World Order is for the Ten Kings to empower one man to rule over the entire world. This will be done after the Rapture.

In addition to seeing the global development and advancement of technology and policies that will lead to the Mark of the Beast – forced compliance, development of passports or passes, a demand for government databases to track people, a demand to prevent the unvaccinated from entering stores to buy or sell, the spread of anti-Christian rhetoric, etc. – we are seeing the development of the government that will use that technology and force the Mark upon the world.

Remember that the goal is to have it up and running by 2030 or sooner if possible.

It is likely that Satan’s man with a plan is alive and well right now.

This writer also believes that God is showing us these things to remind us of what Jesus said in the Book of Revelation, that He knows the end from the beginning, and there is a great need for us to repent of our sins.

Two, the Bible teaches that the Kings (plural) of the East will invade the Middle East during the Tribulation Period (Rev. 16:12).

The Bible doesn’t identify the Kings of the East, but many prophecy experts have long expressed the opinion that they will include China, North Korea, and other nations.

China now has the largest navy in the world; China is expected to soon be the number one economy in the world; China has built a railroad and highway to the Middle East; China has already reached out to the Taliban government in Afghanistan; and China is seeking to negotiate a deal with the Taliban to mine an estimated one trillion dollars of essential minerals in Afghanistan.

Three, on Aug. 20, 2021, it was reported that even though the Biden administration says it is evacuating people from Afghanistan for free, a State Dept. official admitted that they are charging U.S. citizens up to $2,000 per person to get them out (more for non-U.S. citizens).

The Taliban has taken over the banks and emptied the ATMs, so some evacuees are being forced to take out a loan from the U.S. government.

Four, concerning persecution, on Aug. 22, 2021, it was reported that Christians are facing imminent death in Afghanistan, women and young girls are facing rape, beatings, and forced marriages (candidate Biden said he is a good Catholic and he loves women and children).

Five, concerning persecution and the days of Noah (great wickedness): on Aug. 24, 2021, the Head of the UN Human Rights Council said she has received credible reports that the Taliban is executing civilians and members of the Afghanistan Security Forces.

The blood of these victims is on the hands of those (the shadow government and Mr. Biden) that have deliberately weakened the U.S.

Six, concerning the refusal to let people buy and sell unless they take the Mark of the Beast during the Tribulation Period (Rev. 13:15-18): on Aug. 20, 2021, it was reported that some very large French supermarkets in areas where there is a high rate of Covid are requiring people to show a valid government-issued Covid pass before allowing them to enter to purchase food.

The only two ways to get a valid government-issued Covid pass are: 1) proof of vaccination, or 2) proof of a negative Covid test in the last 72 hours.

For years, Bible prophecy teachers have been saying this is coming.

Some French citizens are refusing to be vaccinated, and thousands are protesting by marching and demonstrating.

During the Tribulation Period, those that refuse to take the Mark will be killed.

Seven, concerning peace, Israel and the Arabs: on Aug. 13, 2021, Israel and Morocco announced that they will open reciprocal embassies within two months.

Eight, concerning deceit:

we were told that candidate Biden didn’t know anything about Hunter’s business dealings with other nations (Hunter’s laptop proves otherwise);

we have been told that America is back (but America is going down);

that domestic terrorists plotted to take over the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, (but the FBI found little to no evidence of that);

that there is no crisis on our border (but children are in cages and Covid is being deliberately spread from there);

that there is no crisis in Afghanistan (but it is now a terrorist state);

that U.S. military leaders advised Biden against pulling our troops out of Afghanistan before he removed our people and weapons (but he trusted the Taliban instead of trusting our military leaders);

that there was no election fraud (but the Arizona audit proves there was);

that masks offer no protection (but everyone should wear a mask);

that a vaccination will protect us from Covid (but we need a booster shot because vaccinated people are getting Covid);

Climate Change is the greatest threat to America (but sin is the greatest threat to America);

Biden will unite America (but he says all white Republicans are racists), etc.

There is no reason not to tell these whoppers because big tech and most of the media ignore them.

The Satanic Antichrist will have to be terrible to out-deceive this administration.

Think about it; Democrats impeached the previous president over something he didn’t say in a phone call.

Nine, here is some of this writer’s thinking on what we may be seeing:

Islam believes in world government and world religion, but the Radical Muslims want it to be an Islamic world government and world religion.

They are fighting and dying to accomplish that.

God will allow a world government and world religion to rise and exist for seven years (the Tribulation Period), but it will not be Islamic.

Some Muslims will perish in the Psa. 83 war (if that is an end of the age prophecy, and this writer believes it is).

Some Muslims will perish in the destruction of Damascus (Isa. 17).

Some Muslims will perish in the attempted Russian-Islamic invasion of Israel (Ezek. 38-39).

Some Muslims will perish when the Antichrist plunders Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia during the Tribulation Period (Dan. 11:43).

It is likely that some will perish when the Kings of the East invade the Middle East during the Tribulation Period (Rev. 16:12).

Russia and China are already wooing Afghanistan, and this writer is not sure which group Afghanistan will wind up in (the Russian-Islamic invasion of Israel or the Kings of the East), but this writer is sure that Afghanistan will wind up in the right group and Jehovah will not allow Allah to have His (Jehovah’s) glory.

Jehovah could even be drawing the Taliban into a coalition that will soon be defeated and an embarrassment to Allah.

This writer believes that Russia, China, Iran, and other radicals will now think an evil thought (America is weak; America is preoccupied with Covid, Climate Change, the Woke culture, etc.; it is time to strike; time to plunder Israel; time to create an Islamic Caliphate, etc.).

The prophesied end of the age wars and rumors of wars could be on the horizon.

Biden abandoned billions of dollars of high-tech weapons in Afghanistan; some are already finding their way to Russia and China, but they are nothing compared to the power of God.

The globalists will use the defeat of these nations to establish a world government and religion under the Antichrist and False Prophet.

America’s problem is sin, and I believe we are the only generation in history that could be the terminal generation.

Finally, are you Rapture Ready?

If you want to be rapture ready and go to heaven, you must be born again (John 3:3). God loves you, and if you have not done so, sincerely admit that you are a sinner; believe that Jesus is the virgin-born, sinless Son of God who died for the sins of the world, was buried, and raised from the dead; ask Him to forgive your sins, cleanse you, come into your heart and be your Saviour; then tell someone that you have done this.

3 notes · View notes

ruminativerabbi · 5 years ago

Text

Occupiers

For most Americans, ancient history is, well, ancient history. I say that in a jokey way, but the truth is that the history of ancient and medieval times is covered—to the extent it is covered at all—in our American high schools in a cursory way that by its nature cannot possibly lead students to a clear understanding of the specific way in which the roots of the modern world in all its political, inter-ethnic, and polarized complexity are to be found in much older times. Yet an argument could be made—and a cogent, compelling one at that—that there is no real way to understand the present other than as a function of the past, including the distant past. And this is particularly true, I think, of today’s Middle East: to understand the place of Israel in the world without any knowledge of the specific way modern Middle Eastern reality is rooted in antiquity is basically impossible. And yet I see, day after day, people writing about Israel on various web sites and in newspaper articles who seem to have no firm grounding in the study of ancient or medieval history at all.

The period I’d like to write about this week has the distinction of being (and by far) both the most obscure and the most crucial for any who wish to understand today’s Middle East. I’ll begin with the events of 614 C.E.

There are some years that themselves are famous. 70 C.E. is sort of in that category. 1492 definitely is. So is 1776. But who has ever heard of 614? And yet a convincing and fully cogent argument could easily be made that modern Jewish history began in 614 and that the events set in motion that year reverberate to this day in the region. Let me explain in more detail.

That Rome once ruled the world is the rare fact about ancient times that actually is known to almost all. The fact that the Roman Empire eventually split in two and that its two halves met their respective ends almost a full millennium apart, not so much. But that single detail is at least subtly crucial to understanding today’s Middle East. The Western part collapsed in 476 C.E. when the last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustus—a hapless weakling with an unfortunate overbite—was obliged to hand over his throne to a man named Odoacer, the leader of the Germanic tribes who had successfully invaded the Italian peninsula and established themselves as the new overlords of Rome and its provinces. So that was the end of Rome in Italy. But the Eastern part of the empire, eventually called Byzantium after the original name of its capital city, continued to exist for many centuries and only met its end when the capital, by then called Constantinople, fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 precisely five hundred years and two days before my birth. And that detail continues to echo throughout the Middle East today.

Ancient Israel was part of the Roman Empire. That too is relatively well known. Christians know it because the gospel narrative is set in Roman Judaea. And Jews—or at least traditionally observant ones—know it because we are still fasting on the Ninth of Av each summer to commemorate, among other catastrophes, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the first century when the Jews revolted against their unwanted Roman masters. But what happened after that? That’s where the thinking of even relatively sophisticated students of today’s Middle East gets seriously fuzzy.

To get a running jump at 614, let’s start three years earlier when, in 611 C.E., Iran (then called Persia) went to war with Byzantium and invaded from the east. Things went back and forth for a while, but then, in 613, the Jews of Byzantine Israel joined with the Persians to revolt against the Byzantines. And it worked too: in 614, the Persians, fighting alongside about 20,000 Jewish supporters—including men famous in their day but long since forgotten by all like Nehemiah ben Hushiel or Benjamin of Tiberias—captured Jerusalem. It was a bloody war. According to some ancient historians, the siege of Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of about 17,000 civilians. Another 4500 or so, taken first as prisoners of war, were eventually murdered by the Persians at the Mamilla Pool, then a man-made lake just outside Jerusalem and today the site of a very popular upscale shopping mall. Another 35,000 or so were exiled to Persia. But, as it always seems to, the tide eventually turned. By 617, the Persians determined that their best interests lay in making peace with the Byzantines even if it meant betraying their Jewish allies. And that is just what they did. In 628, the shah of Iran, King Kavad II, made peace with his Byzantine counterpart, a man named Heraclius. The Jews surrendered and asked for the emperor’s protection, which was granted. That lasted about twelve minutes, however: before the ink on the treaty was dry, a massacre of the Jews ensued throughout the land and Jewish residency in Jerusalem was formally forbidden.

And now we get to the good part. Or at least to the relevant part for the situation as it has devolved down into our day. Just ten years later, in 648, the Byzantine Empire was invaded again, this time by the Islamic State that had grown up after Mohammed’s death in 632. (This is the empire ISIS today would like to restore.) The Byzantines retreated, the Muslims took over, and Israel was then ruled by Muslim Arabs until the Crusaders arrived a cool four and a half centuries later in 1099.

It was a tumultuous time. The Islamic State was called a caliphate. (Is this starting to sound familiar?) There were several. The first, named the Rashidun caliphate, ruled Israel from Medina in what is today Saudi Arabia. Then power passed to the so-called Umayyad caliphate that ruled from Damascus. And then, eventually, power passed from the Umayyads to the third caliphate, called the Abbasid Caliphate that ruled from Baghdad.

At first, life under Arab occupation wasn’t that bad. Historians estimate that there were between 300,000 and 400,000 Jewish residents in Israel in those days. Umar, the second caliph of the Rashidun caliphate, eventually permitted Jews to return to Jerusalem. The famous Pact of Umar promised Jewish families security and safety, but also classified Jews as dhimmis, i.e., as non-Muslims whose presence in Islamic lands was begrudgingly to be tolerated as long as they accepted their second-class status and agreed to pay a special tax, called the jizya, that was levied against non-Muslims. Things were dismal, but tolerable. But tolerable didn’t last, particularly after the Arabs built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in 691 and the Al-Aksa Mosque in 705. By 720, Jews were banned from the mount, the holiest site in all of Judaism.

And so did the Arabs come to Byzantine Palestine, a land that had been the Jewish homeland even then for one and a half millennia. The progression of foreign overlords feels almost endless, particularly if we count off the years since biblical times. The Babylonians ruled Israel for a mere 48 years before the first Persian occupation of the land, the one featuring such famous personalities as King Cyrus and King Darius, began and lasted for 206 years. The Romans ruled for 388 years, then were succeeded by the Byzantines. They ruled for 297 years until, as noted above, the Persians returned in the 7th century for a paltry seventeen years. Then the Byzantines returned for a decade and were followed by the Arabs, who ruled the land for 461, until they themselves were cleared out by the Crusaders starting in 1099, who ruled for 192 years.

Working all that data yields the semi-astounding result that, in the almost two thousand years from the time the Babylonians laid siege to Jerusalem in biblical times until the Crusaders were finally defeated once and for all by the Mamluks (yet a different version of Arab invader), the Jews were able to restore Jewish sovereignty to the Land of Israel and rule over themselves for precisely one single century, the one stretched out between the Maccabean victory over King Antiochus in 164 B.C.E. and Romans’ successful invasion of the land a century and a year later in 63 B.C.E. That’s a lot of years of occupation by a wide range of occupiers.

When I read modern columnists who seem to know nothing of Jewish history talking about the “occupation” and meaning the presence of Israelis in the parts of the Land of Israel that were lost to Jordan in 1948 and recovered more than half a century ago in 1967, I see red. I am fully sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, who have been pawns in a game not of their own devising for more than seventy years and who truly do deserve to be treated justly, fairly, and decently. But when I notice people stigmatizing Israelis as occupiers of their own homeland without reference to the fact that Arabs first came to Israel when their armies invaded in the seventh century and occupied the land for centuries until they were finally defeated by invading armies from the West—that seems, to say the very least, to martial half-truths in the defense of an already-adopted argument.

To understand where things in Israel are now, it’s necessary to take the long view. I understand that not everybody can take the time to earn a Ph.D. in ancient history. But to write authoritatively about the Middle East without appearing to have any knowledge of history, to reference Israelis as occupiers of Arab land without appearing to know that the Arabs themselves came to Israel as an army of occupation—that could be, I suppose, a mere oversight prompted by an abysmal ignorance of history. But why is it that I don’t think that? Not even a little bit!

#Israel #Heraclius #Kavad II #Romulus Augustus #Byzantium #Caliphate

1 note · View note

antoine-roquentin · 6 years ago

Link

Thirteen hours before Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learned from the presidential Twitter feed that he was being fired, he did something that President Donald Trump had been unwilling to do. Following a phone call with his British counterpart, Tillerson condemned a deadly nerve agent attack in the U.K., saying that he had “full confidence in the U.K.’s investigation and its assessment that Russia was likely responsible.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had called the attack “reckless, indiscriminate, and irresponsible,” but stopped short of blaming Russia, leading numerous media outlets to speculate that Tillerson was fired for criticizing Russia.

But in the months that followed his departure, press reports strongly suggested that the countries lobbying hardest for Tillerson’s removal were Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were frustrated by Tillerson’s attempts to mediate and end their blockade of Qatar. One report in the New York Times even suggested that the UAE ambassador to Washington knew that Tillerson would be forced out three months before he was fired in March.

The Intercept has learned of a previously unreported episode that stoked the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s anger at Tillerson and that may have played a key role in his removal. In the summer of 2017, several months before the Gulf allies started pushing for his ouster, Tillerson intervened to stop a secret Saudi-led, UAE-backed plan to invade and essentially conquer Qatar, according to one current member of the U.S. intelligence community and two former State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.

In the days and weeks after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and closed down their land, sea, and air borders with the country, Tillerson made a series of phone calls urging Saudi officials not to take military action against the country. The flurry of calls in June 2017 has been reported, but State Department and press accounts at the time described them as part of a broad-strokes effort to resolve tensions in the Gulf, not as an attempt by Tillerson to avert a Saudi-led military operation.

In the calls, Tillerson, who dealt extensively with the Qatari government as the CEO of Exxon Mobil, urged Saudi King Salman, then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir not to attack Qatar or otherwise escalate hostilities, the sources told The Intercept. Tillerson also encouraged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to call his counterparts in Saudi Arabia to explain the dangers of such an invasion. Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar’s capital city, is the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to some 10,000 American troops.

Pressure from Tillerson caused Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the country, to back down, concerned that the invasion would damage Saudi Arabia’s long-term relationship with the U.S. But Tillerson’s intervention enraged Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and effective ruler of that country, according to the U.S. intelligence official and a source close to the Emirati royal family, who declined to be identified, citing concerns about his safety.

Later that June, Mohammed bin Salman would be named crown prince, leapfrogging over his cousin to become next in line for the throne after his elderly father. His ascension signaled his growing influence over the kingdom’s affairs.

Qatari intelligence agents working inside Saudi Arabia discovered the plan in the early summer of 2017, according to the U.S. intelligence official. Tillerson acted after the Qatari government notified him and the U.S. embassy in Doha. Several months later, intelligence reporting by the U.S. and U.K. confirmed the existence of the plan.

The plan, which was largely devised by the Saudi and UAE crown princes and was likely some weeks away from being implemented, involved Saudi ground troops crossing the land border into Qatar, and, with military support from the UAE, advancing roughly 70 miles toward Doha. Circumventing the U.S. air base, Saudi forces would then seize the capital.

On June 20, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters that Tillerson had “more than 20 calls and meetings with Gulf and other regional and intermediate actors,” including three phone calls and two meetings with Jubeir. “The more time goes by, the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE,” she said....

According to one news report, Tillerson was frustrated with the White House for undercutting him, and his aides suspected that the line in Trump’s prepared Rose Garden remarks had been written by UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a powerful D.C. player who maintained “almost constant phone and email contact” with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, according to Politico.

At the time, Kushner was personally handling much of the administration’s diplomacy with the Gulf states, and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were choosing to go through him instead of the U.S. defense or intelligence establishments. Kushner communicated directly with the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE using the encrypted messaging service WhatsApp.

Some Gulf watchers speculate that the incentive for the planned invasion may have been partly financial. Saudi Arabia’s “cradle to grave” welfare system relies on high oil prices, which plummeted in 2014 and have not fully recovered. Since the current king came to power in 2015, the country has spent more than a third of its $737 billion in reserves, and last year, the Saudi economy entered a painful recession. In response, the government has looked for ways to raise money, including by selling shares in the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco.

“It’s unsustainable,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and 30-year CIA officer, in a lecture last November. “In the three years since [King Salman] ascended to the throne, one third of Saudi Arabia’s reserves have already been spent. You don’t need to have an MBA from the Wharton school to figure out what that means six years from now.”

If the Saudis had succeeded in seizing Doha, they would potentially have been able to gain access to the country’s $320 billion sovereign wealth fund. In November of last year, months after the plan collapsed, the Saudi crown prince rounded up and detained dozens of his relatives in the Ritz-Carlton Riyadh, forcing them to sign over billions in privately held assets. The government justified the detentions as a corruption crackdown, but it allowed the state to recoup billions in assets for government use.

Beginning in the fall of 2017, the crown princes in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi began lobbying the White House for Tillerson’s removal, according to the source close to the Emirati royal family and another source who is close to the Saudi royal family.

american-gulf collusion is of course bipartisan and doesn’t merit any investigation

141 notes · View notes

fapangel · 7 years ago

Note

Since you're the only anti-Assad guy I seem to be following, what exactly is the case for removing him? I've looked at the issue multiple times and I can't seem to find any sort of benefit to removing Assad that would outweigh the significant cost of doing so, with the added downside that it only shores up more power for Saudi Arabia. I really don't see what we stand to gain.

Well, lemme spell it out: Assad is playing for the other team - to wit, Iran has troops in the country backing up Assad right now, and we all know about Russia’s direct support and troops in-country, as well. This whole Qatar conflict? Kicked off days after Trump told the Saudis to stop fucking about and start self-policing. The Qataris are tight with the Iranians who are tight with the Russians. See how this works? Syria has simply become the latest battleground in a very long, very old proxy war between the United States and Russia for global influence.

Now whether or not you believe the claims of the Russians that they’re just “defending themselves” and that tiny Baltic states would be existential threats to a nation with ten times their population, land mass and budget if they join NATO is up to you, but I think we can both agree that Putin has decisively committed Russia to a new conflict with the West. We are in a new Cold War as we speak, and as a new generation is learning, the Cold War was anything but - it was simply fought by proxy.

Egypt is a good example, here. Mubarak was a bastard, and the military junta he represented are still oppressive bastards, who’ve successfully stifled any hope of free democracy in Egypt from the Arab Spring. But they’re our oppressive bastards. And that’s pretty much as good as you can hope for in the Middle East... that is, unless you’re willing to commit your nation to a very expensive, bloody ten year war to invade one of those states and shield and nurture a nascent democratic government against a decade of upheaval, war, and attempts to kill it until it can stand on its own. *Cough cough.* And that’s the price you have to pay. That is, by Donald Rumsfeld’s own admission, why Bush Sr. didn’t remove Saddam - it would’ve created a power vacuum which would’ve been filled by a new SOB. It’s the clearest example of “the devil you know versus the devil you don’t” you could ask for. And that’s from the guy who’d preside over the invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr!

If it wasn’t for ISIS and the Russians/Iranians, we’d be doing right now what we’ve done for decades - not give a shit about Syria. ISIS is the real problem. I’ve heard some people opining that ISIS would never have been a problem if not for “our meddling.” Those people are fucking retarded. The Arab Spring, in case they missed it, was (and is) a big fucking thing - decades upon decades of oppression, suffering and rage finally boiled over, and it hit the Middle East like a goddamn brick. If you really think that half-assed “bombing campaign” of Obama’s and Hillary’s was the deciding factor in Gaddafi finally leaving Libya by riding a bullet to hell, you’re delusional. Fuck, even Saddam was almost ousted by the Kurds after the Gulf War - a short bombing campaign could’ve taken out Saddam and replaced him with allies of ours (allies during the Gulf War,) and saved us all the later bloodshed, but apparently Bush Sr. didn’t want to take that big roll of the dice. Hindsight, 20/20, etc. But don’t think that they only managed it because we’d trashed their military: the Kurds have been rebelling since the 30s, and they’ve taken their chances at other times Iraq was vulnerable, like during the Iran-Iraq war. Note that the Iraqi regime was desperate enough against this uprising to employ chemical weapons against what was nominally their own people. And remember that we’re not the only ones that “meddle” in other nations - the Turks, who fucking hate the Kurds, were balls-deep in that shit as well to restrain and hamper Kurdish efforts to form an independent state.

Long story short, there’s no guarantee that ISIS wouldn’t have toppled many if not most of these states all on their own, aided by the internal fragility of many of these regimes and the many other groups seeking to topple them - including all the moderate, anti-Islamist rebels. Yes, they exist. The only people who deny it are the fucking Russians who’re making a point of bombing them. The best proof of this is Syria itself - a nation with one of the largest and best-equipped armies in the Middle East (short of Egypt) has been fighting a civil war for five years and is still struggling - and to be blunt, if the Russians and Iranians hadn’t came to their aid in 2015, Assad would be swinging from a rope right now. And even with their support - well, just look at the fucking livemap. They’ve got American-backed Kurds kicking the shit out of ISIS in most of the important areas to the north, ISIS has lost almost all of its major support bases in Iraq, like Mosul, and they still are struggling to make headway. (The US is now actively backing the moderate rebels, true, but considering that ISIS was always more competent and dangerous than most of the moderates, the fact that the moderates are fighting ISIS too, and that the most potent local anti-ISIS forces, the US-baked YPG Kurds, didn’t get involved in force until recently, with American backing, I’d say that’s a wash at best.) You can scroll back through the months (and years) on that map - do so, and note how much the colors on the map change, and for whom. Northern Homs is a pocket of resistance that seemingly refuses to die, and those major urban areas in the North are decisively stubborn - the government managed to take Aleppo (with intensive Russian airstrike support) but it cost them dearly and they’re still struggling to expand those gains. And apparently, the Russians are maintaining order in Aleppo with their own military police, so the Syrian government can spare forces for offensives.

If anyone tells you that the Syrians are on the “verge of winning,” they’re worse than stupid - they’re either a fucking Russian shill, or they’re a mistake of evolution. There was - and is - every reason to fear that Assad might eventually lose, Russian/Iranian support be damned. The Russians remember very, very well how thoroughly they were fucked in Afghanistan. I chatted with a Russian man who fought in Afghanistan one night (in a highsec corp I was awoxing at the time, incidentally,) and the stories he told were fucking hair-raising - about how when the AK-74s ran out, they issued AK-47s, and when those ran out, they issued SKSs and when those ran out they started handing out fucking Nagants. Trust me, the Russians have no fucking interest in a quagmire - they’re constantly watching their Return on Investment, and nothing beats an actual war for polishing up your personnel, practical experience and organizational structures, especially when you’re trying to recover from two decades of under-investment and decay. Just look at how fucking hard ISIS is still fighting, and how bloody the advances are even for the YPG backed by US/coalition airpower - with the Kurds, the Russians (nominally,) the Syrians, the moderates and the Americans all allied against them, and after most of their infrastructure has been blown, blasted or bayoneted out from under them.

What am I getting at, here? Simple - America’s not the only one in the world that can effect a regime change. Sometimes you don’t get to choose whether or not to knock someone out of the game - because plenty of other forces are willing to do it for you. In that case your best bet is to hope to have enough influence to see that the next group in power is the least terrible one you can manage - because if you don’t, the Russians sure as fucking hell will.

Of course, that’s all assuming that we want to remove Assad. Frankly, I believe the Trump administration - and the defense department - when they say they don’t want to remove Assad. I am anti-Assad, and so is Trump, and the Defense Department, and anyone else who doesn’t like mass-murdering cunts. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t serve our purposes better alive than dead, however, because it’s likely that Assad will end up permanently ruling a lot less of Syria than he used to.

To wit, even after Iranian and Russian support flowed in to prop up the regime, Syria was - and still is, outside of US-backed offensives - a bloody stalemate. Gaining ground in one area meant losing it in another. For a long time now, neither “side” in this conflict (regime alliance versus everyone fucking else) have had the power to really overwhelm and defeat the other conclusively. The relatively static frontlines in many places really illustrate that. Many places that changed hands have done so multiple times and likely will again. Neither Russia nor Iran wish (or can afford) the resource investment to change that, and the Turks only care because REEE KURDS. There’s an excellent chance that Syria might end up as East Syria and West Syria, with the modern-day frontlines defining much of the eventual states they will become, much like North and South Korea. (Which was another war were Russia and America were dicking with each other by proxy.) What do you think the Kurdish interest in taking ground in northern Syria is? Why do you think the Turks (who’ve been fighting Kurdish rebels in their own country for decades,) are screeching so hard about Kurds taking vast swathes of territory just south of their border? The Kurds finally have what they’ve always wanted, in Northern Iraq - an ethnic Kurdish state - but there’s Kurds in Syria, Turkey and even Iran. And for obvious reasons (say, many decades of murder, oppression, marginalization, having their people gassed, etc.,) they’re quite eager to take as much ground as they can to form a contiguous Kurdish state.

So why the hell would we eliminate or depose Assad - and have to jump through the many, many hoops that follow as we try to influence, second-guess and react to whatever successor state we get out of the throw (because even loaded dice can come up snake eyes,) when we can neuter Assad, and leave him mostly powerless to fuck with us, or give the Russians more influence in the region? Someone fighting all-out just to hang on to half of what he used to have is someone too busy to fuck with you and yours much, you know?

And we’re accomplishing this all for far less investment in troops, weapons, aircraft, etc. as we used in Iraq and Afghanistan when we were doing most or all the fighting with our own soldiers, too. We’re playing the same ROI game that Russia is, and we’re doing pretty well.

So, yeah. The “case for removing Assad” is that he’s hostile to us, our allies, and our interests, he’s a tool and boon to our dedicated global rivals and enemies the Russians, he’s in bed with other problematic and constant threats like Iran, and last, but not least, he’s a mass-murdering cunt who’s on the ropes and is fighting for the existential survival of his state and himself, which is literally what WMD exists to guarantee. But like most hostile mass-murdering cunts who are hostile to us and are in bed with our enemies, that just means we should remove him IF, and ONLY IF, a good opportunity presents itself. Usually the math is against it - it’s been against taking out the Norks for five goddamn decades, and it took the Norks developing the bomb - and a delivery system for the bomb - and vast upheavals in the Cold War geopolitical order - to even begin to nudge that needle. And considering that we’ve got many better options to neutralize the threat Assad poses - and that they’re going well - its quite unlikely that we’re going to move against Assad himself. Why would we take the Syrian regime out of the fight when that’d just free up more ISIS fighters to inhibit our own forces and goals, which apparently include helping the YPG to grab vast swathes of territory?

tl;dr That’s what ACTUAL realpolitik considerations look like. Half the fuckwits on /pol/ make vague noise about unpragmatic regime change before sucking Assad off like some kind of fucking hero.

When someone’s sucking a dictator’s cock, be wary about how they characterize the position of their detractors.

6 notes · View notes

sociologyquotes · 8 years ago

Text

Winston Churchill: Britain’s “Greatest Briton” Left a Legacy of Global Conflict and Crimes Against Humanity

“The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Churchill “the greatest ever Prime Minister”, and Britons have recently voted him as the greatest Briton to have ever lived.

The story that British schoolbooks tell children about Churchill is of a British Bulldog, with unprecedented moral bravery and patriotism. He, who defeated the Nazis during World War II and spread civilisation to indigenous people from all corners of the globe. Historically, nothing could be further from the truth.

To the vast majority of the world, where the sun once never set on the British empire, Winston Churchill remains a great symbol of racist Western imperialist tyranny, who stood on the wrong side of history.

The myth of Churchill is Britain’s greatest propaganda tool because it rewrites Churchill’s true history in order to whitewash Britain’s past imperialist crimes against humanity. The Churchill myth also perpetuates Britain’s ongoing neo-colonial and neo-liberal policies, that still, to the is day, hurt the very people around the world that Churchill was alleged to have helped civilise.

The same man whose image is polished and placed on British mantelpieces as a symbol of all that is Great about Britain was an unapologetic racist and white supremacist. “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”, he once bellowed. As Churchill put it, Palestinians were simply “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.”

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission:

“I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

It is unsurprising that when Barack Obama became President, he returned to Britain a bust of Churchill which he found on his desk in the Oval office. According to historian Johann Hari, Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for daring to resist Churchill’s empire.

Apart from being an unrepentant racist, Churchill was also a staunch proponent of the use of terrorism as a weapon of war.

During the Kurdish rebellion against the British dictatorship in 1920, Churchill remarked that he simply did not understand the “squeamishness” surrounding the use of gas by civilized Great Britain as a weapon of terror. “I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes, it would spread a lively terror,” he remarked.

In the same year, as Secretary of State for War, Churchill sent the infamous Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the IRA. The group became known for vicious terrorist attacks on civilians which Churchill condoned and encouraged.

While today Britons celebrate Churchill’s legacy, much of the world outside the West mourns the legacy of a man who insisted that it was the solemn duty of Great Britain to invade and loot foreign lands because in Churchill’s own words Britain’s “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Churchill’s legacy in the Far East, Middle East, South Asia and Africa is certainly not one of an affable British Lionheart, intent on spreading civilization amongst the natives of the world. To people of these regions the imperialism, racism, and fascism of a man like Winston Churchill can be blamed for much of the world’s ongoing conflicts and instability.

As Churchill himself boasted, he “created Jordan with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon,” thereby placing many Jordanians under the brutal thumb of a throneless Hashemite prince, Abdullah. Historian Michael R. Burch recalls how the huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze” because Churchill carelessly drew the expansive boundary after a generous lunch.

Churchill also invented Iraq. After giving Jordan to Prince Abdullah, Churchill, the great believer in democracy that he was, gave Prince Abdullah’s brother Faisal an arbitrary patch of desert that became Iraq. Faisal and Abdullah were war buddies of Churchill’s friend T. E. Lawrence, the famous “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Much like the clumsy actions in Iraq of today’s great Empire, Churchill’s imperial foreign policy caused decades of instability in Iraq by arbitrarily locking together three warring ethnic groups that have been bleeding heavily ever since. In Iraq, Churchill bundled together the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra that was predominantly Shiite, Baghdad that was Sunni, and Mosul that was mainly Kurd.

Ask almost anyone outside of Iraq who is responsible for the unstable mess that Iraq is in today and they are likely to say one word, either “Bush” or “America��. However, if you asked anyone within Iraq who is mainly responsible for Iraq’s problems over the last half century and they are likely to simply say “Churchill”.

Winston Churchill convened the 1912 Conference in Cairo to determine the boundaries of the British Middle Eastern mandate and T.E. Lawrence was the most influential delegate. Churchill did not invite a single Arab to the conference, which is shocking but hardly surprising since in his memoirs Churchill said that he never consulted the Arabs about his plans for them.

The arbitrary lines drawn in Middle Eastern sand by Churchillian imperialism were never going to withstand the test of time. To this day, Churchill’s actions have denied Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds and Palestinians anything resembling true democracy and national stability.

The intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced directly back to Churchill’s door at number 10 Downing Street and his decision to hand over the “Promised Land” to both Arabs and Jews. Churchill gave practical effect to the Balfour declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland, resulting in the biggest single error of British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Churchill’s legacy in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya in particular is also one of deep physical and physiological scars that endure to this day.

Of greater consequence to truth and history should be a man’s actions, not merely his words. Whilst Churchill has become one of the most extensively quoted men in the English speaking world, particularly on issues of democracy and freedom, true history speaks of a man whose actions revolved around, in Churchill’s own words, “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples”.

One such war was when Kikuyu Kenyans rebelled for their freedom only to have Churchill call them “brutish savage children” and force 150,000 of them into “Britain’s Gulag”.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins, highlights Churchill’s many crimes in Kenya in her book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Professor Elkins explains how Churchill’s soldiers “whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects”, all in the name of British “civilization”. It is said that President Obama’s grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured from Churchill’s men.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved how in Bengal in 1943 Churchill engineered one of the worst famines in human history for profit.

Over three million civilians starved to death whilst Churchill refused to send food aid to India. Instead, Churchill trumpeted that “the famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” Churchill intentionally hoarded grain to sell for profit on the open market after the Second World War instead of diverting it to starving inhabitants of a nation controlled by Britain. Churchill’s actions in India unquestionably constituted a crime against humanity.

Churchill was also one of the greatest advocates of Britain’s disastrous divide-and-rule foreign policy.

Churchill’s administration deliberately created and exacerbated sectarian fissures within India’s independence movement, between Indian Hindus and Muslims that have had devastating effects on the region ever since.

Prior to India’s independence from Britain, Churchill was eager to see bloodshed erupt in India, so as to prove that Britain was the benevolent “glue holding the nation together”. For Churchill, bloodshed also had the added strategic advantage that it would also lead to the partition of India and Pakistan. Churchill’s hope was this partition would result in Pakistan remaining within Britain’s sphere of influence. This, in turn, would enable the Great Game against the Soviet empire to continue, no matter the cost to innocent Indian and Pakistanis. The partition of India with Pakistan caused the death of about 2.5 million people and displaced some 12.5 million others.

According to writer, Ishaan Tharoor, Churchill’s own Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery, compared his boss’s understanding of India’s problems to King George III’s apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries Amery vented that “on the subject of India, Churchill is not quite sane” and that he didn’t “see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s.”

Churchill shared far more ideologically in common with Hitler than most British historians care to admit. For instance, Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he shared in common with Germany’s Nazi leadership, who were estimated estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number. Churchill drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation, which mandated that the mentally ill be forcibly sterilized. In a memo to the Prime Minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, “the multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race”. He also helped organise the International Eugenics Conference of 1912, which was the largest meeting of proponents of eugenics in history.

Churchill had a long standing belief in racial hierarchies and eugenics. In Churchill’s view, white protestant Christians were at the very top of the pyramid, above white Catholics, while Jews and Indians were only slightly higher than Africans.

Historian, Mr. Hari, rightfully points out, “the fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu ‘savages’ is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.”

Amid today’s Churchillian parades and celebratory speeches, British media and schoolbooks may choose to only remember Churchill’s opposition to dictatorship in Europe, but the rest of the world cannot choose to forget Churchill’s imposition of dictatorship on darker skinned people outside of Europe. Far from being the Lionheart of Britain, who stood on the ramparts of civilisation, Winston Churchill, all too often, simply stood on the wrong side of history.

Churchill is indeed the Greatest Briton to have ever lived, because for decades, the myth of Churchill has served as Britain’s greatest propaganda tool to bolster national white pride and glorify British imperial culture.”

---from the article Winston Churchill: Britain’s “Greatest Briton” Left a Legacy of Global Conflict and Crimes Against Humanity by Garikai Chengu

#sociology #winston churchill #britain #british imperialism #western imperialism #imperialism #racism #white supremacy #war crimes #great britain #europe #colonialism #colonization #fascism #crimes against humanity #genocide #eugenics

20 notes · View notes

quranreadalong · 6 years ago

Text

ROMAN VS PERSIAN PISSING CONTESTS: A HISTORY (PART 1)

Friends: it is time for some 7th century geopolitics.

The next surah, called “The Romans” (meaning what we now call the Byzantines/people of the Eastern Roman Empire), deals with a certain conflict between the Romans in question and their eternal foes, the Sassanids of Persia. This was just the latest conflict in a series of wars between Romans and Persians, dating back over 700 years. While the western Roman Empire was busy being dead and Germanic, the eastern one was still alive and kicking, and it frequently came into conflict with the other big regional power.

Unfortunately for both of them, the particular war in question happened to end just a few years before the Islamic conquest began, after the two sides had depleted their militaries and committed themselves to rebuilding damaged territories. With their attention focused on rebuilding and their troops exhausted, both empires were left deeply vulnerable to attacks from a region they had mostly ignored--the south. The Persians wouldn’t survive the Islamic conquest; the Byzantines would lose most of their territory and huddle in Anatolia (Turkey), where they somehow lived on for several hundred years, before another army of Islam came for them.

Around the time of Mohammed’s birth, the region looked like this. The conflicts between Rome/Byzantium and Persia had already shaped the entire Middle East for centuries, and their wars would eventually cause an invasion of Mecca itself in a very roundabout way. We’ll talk about that later. But the point is, this is the world that 7th century Arabs were living in, and we should probably explore how it got that way! You can read a lot more about everything I’m gonna talk about at the amazing free resource site Encyclopedia Iranica, but this.... seven or eight-part series will be as brief a rundown as possible.

The Byzantines controlled the Levant, Anatolia, Egypt, and the coastal cities of North Africa, as well as Greece, a smattering of other territories in southern Europe, southern Italy, and the surrounding islands at various points. Its allies and vassal states included modern-day Armenia and Georgia to the north and the lands of the Ghassanid Arabs to the south, in what is now Jordan and southern Syria. Like the united Roman Empire that preceded its existence, at its peak the Byzantine Empire’s lands essentially encompassed the Mediterranean coastal region as a whole.

On the Persian side, Sassanid territories included virtually all of modern-day Iran, half of Iraq, and parts of modern-day -stan countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan. It also directly controlled the pointy part of the Arabian peninsula, the part now encompassing the UAE and some of Oman. Its vassal states and allied territories included statelets to the east, further into what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan; some to the north, around what is now Azerbaijan; and many to the south. The southern territories in the Persian sphere included the lands of the Lakhmid Arabs, which incorporated parts of modern-day Iraq, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia; southern Arabia was also under Persian control.

The interior of the Arabian peninsula was not directly affiliated with either empire, and the merchant cities in the region seem to have traded with lands allied with both of them. Mohammed’s home region, the Hijaz, seems to have been more closely-tied to the Byzantine lands and those of their Ghassanid allies, which was probably mostly due to their geographical location. Judging solely by Islamic sources, people in the Hijaz had more exposure to Byzantine Syria than Persia. Both the Quran and the ahadith make it clear that Mohammed himself (and his followers) also preferred the Byzantines to the Persians for religious reasons. Christians were less-bad than the “polytheistic” Zoroastrians.

Looking at the map, it seems obvious why the Byzantines and Persians would periodically fight each other--they were two huge empires separated only by their Arab vassal states in the south and the Caucasus nations in the north, with both competing for regional influence, wealth, and trade routes. But understanding how they came to be rivals requires looking back centuries, before the Roman Empire split in half and before the Sassanids even existed.

From the 300s BC to the 100s BC, most of the land that would later make up the Sassanid Empire, along with large chunks of Anatolia, Arabia, and the Levant, was under the control of the Seleucids. This was one of the dynasties founded by Alexander the Great’s generals; the general in this case was named Seleucus, thus the name.

Some time in the mid-200s BC, the Seleucids faced some issues with one of their eastern regions. Around what is now northeastern Iran, a man named Andragoras was serving as the governor of the province of Parthia when he declared himself the independent ruler of the territory and refused to pledge allegiance to the empire. Andragoras was doomed to death and failure and is now a historical footnote, but the people who killed him would go on to achieve greatness. These were the otherwise-obscure nomadic Parni people, originating somewhere east of Parthia, who took advantage of the chaos to kill Andragoras and take over his newly-independent kingdom. Their chieftain, Arsaces, declared himself the king of Parthia. His descendants went on to integrate themselves into the local culture, becoming Parthians. The territory became essentially a vassal state, though it was no longer fully controlled by the Seleucid government.

Around 50 years later, the Seleucids were feeling pretty good and decided that it was a good time for a new conquest spree. They had a prime target in mind: Greece--specifically the province of Macedonia, the homeland of their ancestors. The king of that territory had recently been rendered nearly powerless, and Greece as a whole seemed up for grabs.

Unfortunately for them, the people who rendered said leader powerless also wanted Greece, and they were prepared to fight for it. These were the Romans, in their Republic days. It was the first conflict that pitted the Romans and Persians against one another, and it wouldn’t even be close to the last.

The Romans were only just beginning to make waves outside of Europe at the time, and the Seleucids likely underestimated them. They banked on their troops’ experience, anti-Roman sentiment in Greece (cuz of the whole invading thing), and the involvement of everyone’s fave Carthaginian, Hannibal. But what was supposed to be an easy land grab quickly turned into a clusterfuck. Within four years, the Persians would be entirely pushed out of Greece and would also be pushed out of most of Anatolia--all the way east, to the part north of Cyprus.

The war was not a fun time for the Seleucids, to put it mildly. The Romans kicked their asses and made them pay a whole lot of money in exchange for peace, beginning the long, slow downfall of the empire as a whole. By 150 BC, civil war broke out in Persia, and the Seleucids would never recover from it. Vassals and breakaway provinces battled for domination in the chaos. The Parthians again declared their independence, this time permanently. But they were no longer satisfied with just an independent province. They wanted more.

With several other provinces already in outright revolt due to the civil war, the Parthians didn’t have to work too hard to expand their territory. They were able to take over what is now northern Iran without much of a problem, then quickly pushed all the way west near modern-day Baghdad. Within ten years half of Iran and parts of Iraq (as well as nearly everything east of Iran) were under Parthian control, and the Seleucid government was helpless to stop them. Ten years later, the last real Seleucid king was dead, and the Seleucids were reduced to tiny fragments that would be assimilated into the newly-huge Parthian Empire within a century.

For their part, the Romans weren’t sure what to make of the Parthians. They had grown annoyed by the weak, bickering Seleucids and didn’t really care that they were gone, but the Parthians were growing awfully strong, awfully fast. Within a century of the Roman-Seleucid war, Pissing Contest #2 would erupt.

⇚ previous day | next day ⇛

#historylesson #ar rum #quranreadalong #surah 30

0 notes

dailykhaleej · 5 years ago

Text

Arab Information’ 1970s ads a quirky trip down memory lane

LONDON: If anybody had been in any doubt concerning the reality of the opening line of L.P. Hartley’s 1953 novel “The Go-Between” — “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” — they want solely take a trip down the memory lane that’s the Arab Information archive.

Launched on Sunday April 20, 1975, as Saudi Arabia’s first English-language newspaper, for the previous 45 years Arab Information has been the nation’s go-to paper of file, masking regional and world occasions for the good thing about nationals and expats alike.

On the identical time, nevertheless, it has constructed a useful archive of up to date protection of occasions that serves as a first draft of historical past for future generations — and a reminder that the previous is certainly a international nation. Maybe nothing illustrates the gulf between then and now a lot because the adverts to be discovered within the earliest problems with the newspaper, a lot of which replicate social historical past within the making.

Difficulty No. 115, from Aug. 31, 1975, for instance, options a flurry of adverts for heavy-duty road-making equipment, reflecting the 1970s increase in freeway development (“We do not operate on the moon (not yet!),” brags E.A. Juffali & Bros, importer of the Barber-Greene vary of asphalt-laying machines, “but our machines are worthy of the space age.”).

One other advert in the identical situation, positioned 4 years earlier than the Iranian revolution and the seizure of Makkah’s Grand Mosque by spiritual extremists, speaks of a relaxed nationwide liberality to which Saudi Arabia is barely now returning. “Sexy Musk Oil, another product from Europe,” readers are advised in an advert subsequent to a story about deliberate Arab-Israeli peace talks in Geneva, is “the real feminine perfume.”

Adverts for perfumes — all, naturally, from Europe — are a recurring theme through the paper’s early years, together with an ever-present subtext that can remind social historians that all through the world within the 1970s, sexism was nonetheless the norm. The scent Caron Paris, reads one advert from September 1975, “is the kind of French every woman understands.”

Alongside the ads, within the period of pre-political correctness, cartoons imported from the US inform a related story (Spouse, holding steering wheel, to horrified husband: “Promise you won’t laugh when I tell you what I did with the car?”).

However the adverts inform different tales, unique to the quickly reworking and vibrant Saudi financial system, fueled by the stream of oil, which by 1976 had hit a file Three billion barrels per 12 months. All through the 1970s, the paper’s categorized ads recorded a interval of virtually frantic entrepreneurship as companies giant and small sought to revenue from the Kingdom’s speedy improvement.

A Bombay-based employment company, “supplying all kinds of personnel to various employers in the Arab Countries,” affords a multitude {of professional}, expert and unskilled employees, together with “doctors, nurses, engineers, mechanics, drivers, carpenters, masons, typists, clerks, etc.” Alongside an advert for suspended ceilings, positioned by a firm in France, is one other providing cranes for rent, full with “expert American operators.”

For these making huge quantities of cash from Saudi Arabia’s improvement increase, discreet worldwide banking companies are provided by the Overseas Commerce Financial institution, “your private banking connection in Switzerland.” In the meantime, an American producer of modular, pre-cast concrete and metal buildings, “suitable for homes, apartments, offices, warehouses, schools, hospitals, etc.,” urgently seeks a distributor within the Kingdom.

On July 16, 1977, many companies anxiously awaiting the arrival of products from abroad — more and more in demand amongst expats and locals as oil wealth flowed via the financial system — would have been relieved to learn that three container ships operated by Sea-Land had arrived on the port of Dammam, the place “delivery orders are ready for pickup” from the workplace of brokers Rezayat Buying and selling.

All through its first decade, Arab Information carried common port-movement notices, which converse eloquently of a nation growing quickly and closely reliant on imported items. On someday in 1977 alone, greater than 80 vessels docked in Jeddah and Dammam, carrying the whole lot from chickens, watermelon and wheat to timber, metal and cement.

Different adverts all through the 1970s function reminders of how a lot the world has modified. In December 1979, 10 years earlier than Nikon produced the world’s first industrial digital single-lens reflex digicam (if you happen to have no idea what that’s, ask your grandparents), a half-page advert for a Kodak Colorburst reminds posterity that again then the closest factor to the still-distant age of immediate digital images had been Polaroid-style cameras (once more, ask your grandparents).

In a reminder that the primary desktop laptop, or phrase processor, had nonetheless not arrived to revolutionize the worlds of enterprise and leisure, an advert for a male secretary positioned in December 1979 calls for 60-70-words-per-minute shorthand — and ability in “IBM typing.”

An advert from Dec. 13, 1979 positioned by Algosaibi Meals congratulated the royal household after the tip of the 10-day siege of the Grand Mosque in Makkah. (AN)

The Apple II, the world’s first profitable (though by as we speak’s requirements prehistorically clunky) house laptop, had been launched by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 1977 (on the phenomenal worth of roughly $5,500 in as we speak’s cash). The primary IBM private laptop, nevertheless, wouldn’t begin reworking workplace life till its launch in August 1981.

For a reminder of simply how boxy most vehicles was, look no additional than web page 5 of the difficulty of Dec. 5, 1979, the place none apart from former world champion boxer Muhammad Ali, nonetheless two years away from an overdue retirement, promotes the virtues of “seven world champions” from Toyota on behalf of Saudi automobile firm Abdul Latif Jameel. “When it comes to boxing, I am the champ!” Ali declares, along with his left fist raised. “But when it comes to cars and trucks, nobody can beat Toyota!”

With hindsight, some adverts are traditionally poignant. On Dec. 8, 1979, the Lebanon Vacationer Workplace, seemingly optimistic that the devastation of the civil struggle that had derailed the nation’s financial system was behind it, positioned an advert declaring that the previously well-liked vacationer vacation spot was “back in business, back ‘en route’.”

Readers of Arab Information had been urged to return and revel in Lebanon’s 3,797 luxurious lodge bedrooms, wide selection of sports activities actions and leisure, 30 convention halls, 81 banks, absence of foreign money change laws and “4,000 telex lines to help you take full advantage of the restriction-free trading.” However the hope that Lebanon was on the highway to restoration was untimely. Two years later, Israel invaded the nation.

Generally, the adverts of the previous transcend the on a regular basis. All through December 1979, nestling between invites to go to the second Saudi Arabia Motor Present on the Jeddah Worldwide Expo Heart to view “America’s finest” new vehicles, and for expats to spend two nights over Christmas at Al-Hada Sheraton lodge, might be discovered sombre reminders that the Kingdom’s path to improvement and modernization was removed from clean.

Within the situation of Dec. 13, 1979, printed 9 days after the tip of the 10-day siege of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, a number of firms took out giant adverts congratulating the management.

“We rejoice in the resounding victory of the Saudi forces over the band of renegades responsible for desecrating Islam’s holiest shrine, the Holy Kaaba,” learn one half-page advert from Algosaibi Meals, which congratulated King Khalid, Crown Prince Fahd, Prince Abdullah “and the valiant Saudi people.”

Inside weeks, 63 of the captured terrorists had been executed in eight cities throughout Saudi Arabia, however the nation was to pay a excessive worth for the victory. The seizure of the mosque shocked the whole Islamic world and, coming because it did within the wake of the Iranian revolution, provoked considerations that the Kingdom was embracing Western methods too quick, too quickly, resulting in a reversal of modernization from which Saudi society is barely now recovering.

Many adverts present how the world has modified. (AN)

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3eDepO0 via IFTTT

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years ago

Text

'The situation is very vulnerable': Christians faces extinction in once multicultural Iraq

The official story is that northern Iraq is at peace. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has largely been defeated; the Iraqi Army and its allies are in charge. But for Christians, the persecution continues. Those who can are getting out. Those who stay are preparing themselves for more violence. "Things are bad more than any other time," Fr Behnam Benoka tells me at his church in Bartella, a ghost town protected, if that's the right word, by soldiers with Kalashnikovs. "It's harder even than before Isil." Isil was a nightmare, the worst one can possibly imagine. But Christians say that having left their homes to escape Sunni fundamentalism, they've returned to find their lands are now dominated by Shia militia sponsored, allegedly, by Iran. Christianity, they fear, faces extinction in what was once a multicultural society. My guide on this trip is Fr Benedict Kiely, an English priest who runs a charity called Nasarean.org that provides advocacy and aid for Iraqi Christians. He knows a man who knows a man who gets us through countless checkpoints, themselves a brazen display of the contest to control the region known as the Nineveh Plains. Nineveh lies north and east of Mosul, traditionally regarded as home to the tomb of the prophet Jonah; so old is the Christian community here that the men in our car speak conversational Aramaic, the language of Jesus. Under Saddam Hussein Christians enjoyed relative tolerance and stability. Many were middle-class and some held positions in the ruling Baath Party, all of which would later make them a target for retribution. It’s estimated that the Christian population has fallen from around 1.5 million under Saddam to about 250,000 today, a decline that began under the dictator. In the late Nineties, Saddam found god in a bid for legitimacy. Islamic religious education was encouraged and young radicals went to Saudi Arabia for instruction. In the car, Yohanna Towaya, a Christian who previously lived and worked in Mosul as a professor, divides history into “before 2003 and after 2003.” The West invaded in March of that year. In September, he recalls, the Islamic mullahs in Mosul began to preach that “the Christians are infidels and also aiding the Americans.” Islamists took effective control, sponsored, he says, by al-Qaeda. Grafitti on Our Lady cathedral, Mosul, Iraq, reads "Entry forbidden upon the order of the Islamic state" Credit: Tim Stanley They kidnapped Christians, ostensibly to raise cash for the anti-American resistance. Mr Towaya’s own brother and brother-in-law were taken while working in the fields: men approached them with guns and said “come with us”. Mr Towaya shrugs: “This was ordinary.” The kidnappers set their ransom at $500,000, an absurd sum, but the Towayas knew a general who was able to negotiate the men’s release. If anyone couldn’t pay, the victim was beheaded and their body dumped in the street. Mr Towaya says that between 2003 and 2014, “The majority [of Christians] left Mosul and went to the [surrounding] Nineveh plains”. Some fled abroad, to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, even Syria. His own family returned to their ancestral home in Qaraqosh on the Plains. But something even worse was coming. On June 10, Isil - an army of Sunni Jihadists Hell-bent on building a new empire - captured Mosul. Mr Towaya explains: “On the first day, they didn’t say anything about Christians. Christians were very comfortable in the first week. But after 15 days, they asked Christians to leave town. They must leave, or convert, or be killed.” On August 6, Isil expanded into the Nineveh Plains, including Mr Towaya’s town. An estimated 125,000 Christians took to the road and drove east, to Kurdistan. Overnight, the Kurdish city of Erbil became a giant camp. Refugees slept on building sites or in the streets. As for what happened in occupied Mosul, one can see with one’s own eyes. At noon, a man weaves through the traffic in a daze; he is missing both arms. That was one of the ways Isil dispensed its justice. The eastern half of Mosul is recovering from the war but the western, older and more Christian part is still a wasteland. Isil went on an orgy of destruction, including blowing up the famous leaning minaret at the al-Nuri mosque, where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared the foundation of the Isil caliphate. Its green dome still stands, just, in a field of bricks and concrete. There are likely still to be bodies underneath. Amazingly, human beings live among the ruins. The first few shops to return were barbers and men’s clothes. Iraqi men like to look good. I see almost no women. The toppled remains for the Al-Tahira Church in Mosul Credit: Tim Stanley The courtyard of the Syriac cathedral doubled as a firing range. The dome of the Chaldean Al-Tāhirā church, which dates from the 18th century, was blown off the tower and landed upside down on the roof; it sits there like a giant spinning top. On the walls of the cathedral of Our Lady is written in Arabic: “Entry forbidden on the orders of the Islamic State.” Climbing the stairs, past rooms with no floors, I discover a scattered pile of Christian instructional books; a sign of how fast people had to flee and, given that they’re still lying there, that hardly anyone has been back since. No wonder. Isil had a very special purpose for churches. It turned them into torture chambers. From the top of Our Lady, Fr Benedict points out across the street to the bell tower of the Dominican Church. That’s where they hanged people. Not everyone got out. We drive to a Kurdish suburb to meet a Christian family who stayed in Mosul during the occupation and, in order to survive, publicly converted to Islam. They bear the classic signs of trauma: they joke, they scream, they shout. After an impassioned argument - as much with himself as anyone else – the son tells his story. He speaks in a detached monotone, as if recalling something that happened to someone else. I agree to withhold his name. He says: “When Isil conquered Mosul they were as angels. They said they came to save us from injustices. The people who left before because of danger came back: Isil gave aid to the people. They had their laws and their propaganda and they punished people [but] they had an administration and it gave order. All the Christians who stayed converted and they liked it” - at first. Under Isil, conversion to Sunni Islam was mandated: he was told either his family should do it or they would all be killed. So, they did. They had to submit to the new laws of the city, which were enforced by a religious police force. “All are forced to go to the prayers. If [the religious police] see someone in the street, not in the mosque, they will punish you. If you are three minutes late, they punish you.” Men had to wear beards and were forbidden from smoking; the religious police would sniff their fingers to see if they’d obeyed the commandment. Women were told never to go out unaccompanied by a male relative. They had to wear the head-to-toe niqab, including gloves. If the religious police saw an exposed finger, they would bite it. Many women had never before worn the niqab and they kept falling over in the street. If a man who wasn’t a relation helped them up, he’d be punished. Television was banned. I ask if the city was quiet. He shakes his head. “All the time there is explosions and drone strikes. All the time there is shooting.” There were foreigners among Isil: he saw a Chinese fighter. ISIL fighters celebrate on vehicles taken from Iraqi security forces in Mosul in 2014 Credit: Reuters It seems that Isil did take the family’s conversion at face value but “sometimes they asked you about religion and if you couldn’t answer, they punish.” What exactly did he mean by “punish?” It was a trial without witnesses or lawyers. Those found guilty were taken to a spot opposite the market and that’s where Isil would “cut their hands and head off. They would gather all the people with loudspeakers to see and to hear.” He was present at an execution by defenestration. “At 4pm… we see people gathering. They brought someone from a car and took him up to the third floor and threw him off. He died.” His executioners then “came out [of the building] and threw stones at him.” They stoned a dead body. In October 2016, the Iraq Army and Shia militia liberated Mosul from Isil, along with the Nineveh Plains. This family, now free to leave Mosul, went to a refugee camp. They now have to live with the stigma of having converted. Mr Towaya returned to Qaraqosh to find that his brother’s house, next door to his own, was missing: evaporated by a bomb. Mr Towaya’s house had been occupied by Isil. There was a pile of books and clothes lying on the floor waiting to be burned but, he assumes, the Jihadists took fright and ran before they could light it. Almost no one went back to Mosul. Fr Benedict says he was the first Western priest to have visited the city, very shortly after liberation. The bodies had been removed but detritus remained. “We saw sludge, literally sludge where a body had lain days before. That and beard hair”, so much of it he thought at first that he was looking at carpet. Isil fighters shaved their beards off before slipping away into the villages and rural population. They’re not entirely gone: this week, the Iraqi military announced a sweep of the countryside to dig out Isil cells. But even if Isil’s local power base is lost, even if there is no hunger for the return of the caliphate in Mosul, there are signs that Sunni fundamentalism is being replaced by Shia chauvinism with long-term objectives. In the course of this mass movement of people across northern Iraq, the Christian population fell but the concentration of Shabak Arabs grew, a mostly Shia ethnic group boosted by the pro-Iran Shia militia. In the view of Fr Benoka, a new coalition of interests “want to force [the Christians] from our lands.” Fr Benoka in his rebuilt church in Bartella, Nineveh Province Politics and civil society are in pieces; the armed forces are in control of the Plains. They harass citizens and they are turning the screws on business and culture. It’s become expensive to lease shop space in Nineveh, which rules impoverished Christians out of the marketplace, and those who do run a store, says Fr Benoka, are targets of a covert boycott. “All the Muslims have orders: do not buy from Christians.” In Bartella itself, the Shia “put their loudspeakers on top of the public library”, direct them at the Christian areas, and “start broadcasting their prayers all day, starting at 4.30 am… They are also putting Shia religious monuments [in front of] our Christian historical sites” to dwarf them and reclaim the landscape. This I saw for my own eyes: on the road in front of the town now stands a large portrait of the Shia hero Ali, with his famous lion. The Shia militias can accurately say “We are not killing Christians,” complains Fr Benoka, but “what kind of life can a Christian lead?” The priest estimates there were around 85,000 Christians living in Nineveh’s towns before Isil; he thinks there is probably less than a third left. If there is a war between the United States and Iran, the region could be a battlefront. The young and educated are getting out fast, although not to Britain or America. Iraqi Christians report that the UK isn't handing out visas, while the number of Christian refugees admitted to America has fallen by 98 per cent in two years under Donald Trump. The Trump administration prefers to focus resources on making life better on the Plain: they are paying to remove rubble and on every street corner of Qaraqosh is a garbage can donated by Washington. Yet Nineveh is being ethnically cleansed – not just by the violence of Jihadis but, under this fragile peace, by poverty and insecurity. Persecuted Christians I meet with Archbishop Bashar Warda at his cathedral in Erbil, which was once packed with refugees. He recently told a British audience that his people face “extinction”. With me he calculates that “the situation is very vulnerable” and the West is not doing enough. Iraq’s Christians need jobs and investment, yes, but they also need the West to recognise honestly what is happening. I explain that some Western governments like to think of themselves as “colour blind” – as favouring neither one religious group nor another, and especially not Christianity, which they see as Western and privileged. The Bishop is appalled: “Christians have been targeted, persecuted, so you have to help them.” If the West’s policy is to aid anyone who is suffering – in an objective fashion – then necessity dictates they help the Christians because “it happens to be Christians this time.” Is Britain saying “we can’t help you because you are Christian?” he asks. “That is a type of discrimination. You help those who need help. That is the criteria.”

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

July 12, 2019 at 06:16PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

itsiotrecords-blog · 7 years ago

Link

http://ift.tt/2wgIxvn

Aviation is a relative newcomer to the field of battle. Though balloons would begin seeing significant use as aerial recon platforms in the 1860s, the first use of air power as we think of it would not begin until World War I, a mere 100 years ago. Since then a number of battles have taken place that would shake the heavens, alter the course of wars, and change how we viewed the sky.

#1 Black Friday On the morning of February 9, 1945, British Royal Air Force aircraft spotted a number of ships in and around Førde Fjord, Norway. Most of the ships were German cargo ships, filled with raw materials vital for the struggling German war industry. One, however, was a German destroyer, the Z33. In accordance with Costal Command orders, a force of approximately 45 British Beaufighters and Mustangs swooped down on the Z 33, ignoring the cargo ships. In the air over the fjord, 12 Fw 190s came to the defense of the Z33. By the end of the day the Germans had lost four planes, while the British had lost 10 — almost a quarter of their force. Their target was damaged, but would survive. After the loss of so many aircraft and pilots for little gain, Coastal Command changed its standing orders. Cargo vessels were prioritized over warships for the remainder of the war.

#2 Black Tuesday Russia maintains to this day that it never sent any of its aircraft into Korea during the Korean War. In spite of this, the air over “MiG Alley” was full of MiG-15s being flown by Russians. One, First Lieutenant Semyon Jominich, is credited as having scored history’s first jet-on-jet shoot down. Black Tuesday was a particularly bloody day for American pilots in Korea. On that day the United States put 106 aging B-29s in the air on a daylight mission to bomb targets in North Korea. Escorting them were 30 F-84 Thunderjets. In response, the Russians launched 30 MiGs. The Soviets outperformed their American opponents, shooting down 10 B-29s and four Thunderjets. Six more aircraft returned to base too badly damaged to be repaired. Only two Russian planes were damaged, and only one pilot was injured. Both Soviet planes and the pilot would all return to combat quickly. In the wake of this disaster, American bombing raids were halted for three months.

#3 El Mansoura Israel’s military is often viewed as a scrappy underdog winning battles it should lose. The air battle over El Mansoura would damage that reputation. In October 1973, a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel. On October 14, the Israeli Air Force launched 160 aircraft in an attempt to cripple the Egyptian Air Force. Their targets were the Egyptian airbases of Tanta and El Mansoura. Their goal was to bomb the runways, rendering the Egyptians incapable of taking off. Egyptian radar detected Israel’s F-4 and A-4 aircraft, and 62 Egyptian MiG-21s scrambled to counterattack. Led by future president Hosni Mubarak, the MiGs darted toward the formation of Israeli fighters. Israel’s heavy bombs proved to be a significant liability in the ensuing dogfight. To regain the maneuverability and speed needed to compete with the MiGs, the Israeli pilots were forced to jettison their bombs. 17 Israeli fighters were shot down during the 53 minute dogfight. Egypt only had three of their own aircraft shot down, although another three ran out of fuel and crashed after the battle. Not one of Israel’s objectives were achieved.

#4 The Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to establish a defense zone against the Lebanon based Palestine Liberation Organization. Their advance stalled on the 7th, blocked by a Lebanese division in Ein Zahalta. To regain momentum Israel needed to launch air strikes, but they risked high casualties due to the presence of Syrian surface-to-air (SAM) missiles in the Bekaa Valley. To counter the SAM batteries, Israel tricked the Syrians into revealing their positions by using drones as decoy targets. With the batteries located, F-15 and F-16 fighters began swooping in to pick them off. In response, Syrian commanders scrambled over 100 Mig-23s and Su-20s to stop the attack. Though outnumbered, Israel successfully jammed Syrian radio communication while maintaining its own radio network. This let Israel successfully coordinate their response to the Syrian fighters. By the end of the two and a half hour operation, 29 Syrian fighters had been shot down and only two SAM batteries were still in operation. Israel had not lost a single plane. With Bekaa Valley neutralized, the Israeli Air Force savaged Lebanese forces in Ein Zahalta. Lebanon and Syria would agree to a ceasefire by 6:00 AM on June 10. Israel would retain its buffer zone until 2000.

#5 The Battle of Saint-Mihiel The United States wasn’t ready for war when it joined World War I in April, 1917. By 1918, however, America was more than prepared. U.S. General John Pershing insisted that America be given command over a portion of the front line. What he got was the Saint-Mihiel salient, a triangle of German held territory driven deep into Allied lines. Four previous attempts to eliminate the salient had failed, with terrible loss of life. Pershing immediately rose to the challenge. As part of his planning, he gave command of the entire American Army Air Force in Europe to a young Signal Corp Colonel named Billy Mitchell. When the Americans began their offensive against the salient on September 12, Mitchell flung almost 1,500 aircraft into action. His targets had been specifically selected through coordinated planning with the infantry and tank divisions. This “combined arms” approach overwhelmed the German defenders in the air and on the ground. A salient that had stood for four years fell in two days, and the war ended in two months. Combined arms tactics are used to this day.

#6 The Dieppe Raid On August 19, 1942, 6,000 mostly Canadian troops landed at the French port of Dieppe. Their objective was to seize the port, destroy the coastal defenses, gather intelligence on the Germans and render the port inoperable. The British Royal Air Force put over 1,000 aircraft in the air. While some of the force were bombers intended to soften the defenses for the landings, most were fighters. They were there specifically to destroy Germany’s air force, the Luftwaffe. Germany responded with only 200 Fw 190 fighters and Dornier Do 217 bombers. Despite facing five to one odds, the Luftwaffe downed nearly 10 percent of the British aircraft while losing only 23 fighters. 25 Luftwaffe bombers were also lost. The attacking Canadians would lose nearly 68% of their troops, the British Navy lost a destroyer, and the mission was considered an utter failure.

#7 The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot The Battle of the Philippine Sea is the largest carrier battle in history, eclipsing even the Battle of Midway. Hoping to halt American advances in the Pacific by crippling the American carrier fleet, Japan assembled 11 carriers with around 450 aircraft to supplement approximately 300 land-based aircraft in the Mariana Islands. Facing off against them would be 15 American carriers with more than 950 aircraft. Those carriers were there to provide air support for American efforts to capture Saipan from the Japanese. Though slightly outnumbered, in theory the Japanese should have had a significant advantage. The American carriers were tied down defending the beachheads at Saipan, while the Japanese could strike when and where they wished. Unfortunately for Japanese ambitions, significant losses among their experienced pilots at Midway and the Coral Sea had robbed them of critical skills. When the two sides met on the 19th, American pilots were able to score five kills for every one the Japanese accomplished. The Japanese fleet was forced to withdraw with the loss of three carriers and 85% of its air strength, and they would never recover from the defeat.

#8 The Battle of Kursk The Battle of Kursk is often called the greatest battle in history. Around 3,000,000 people were involved. In a battle built on such a prodigious scale, one would rightly expect the associated air battle to be similarly grandiose. Nearly 5,000 aircraft took to the skies. In 1943, Germany launched an attack on the Soviet city of Kursk with two to one odds against them in terms of sheer power. However, they had supreme confidence in the ability of their equipment and tactics as a force multiplier. Germany’s Bf 109 was capable of flying circles around the much less maneuverable Soviet Yak-1, and had significantly more firepower. The Russians lost almost 2,500 planes, while the Germans lost fewer than 800. However, the Russians could easily afford to replace both aircraft and pilots, while the Germans were hard put to make up their losses. Russian air superiority allowed the Soviets to take the offensive and keep it for the remainder of the war. While a relatively unknown battle in the West, Kursk was one of World War II’s most significant turning points, as Germany never again seriously threatened to advance on the Eastern Front.

#9 The Battle of Britain Technically a series of battles and skirmishes, the aerial fighting over the United Kingdom and the English Channel is traditionally viewed as one long, extended battle. Germany wanted to bomb England into submission or gain air superiority in advance of a German invasion. To this end, they hurled over 2,500 aircraft at the embattled island, in the first major battle in history to be fought exclusively by aircraft and anti-air forces. England had fewer than 2,000 aircraft. The Germans were able to attack when and where they liked, while British pilots remained at constant alert for three and a half months. These conditions would break most fighting forces, and by October 31, 1940, Britain had lost nearly 80% of its available aircraft. But the Germans were unable to capitalize on this unprecedented destruction — Luftwaffe losses had come out to nearly 75%. The remaining number of aircraft were insufficient to provide cover for an invasion, the British people remained defiant, and the Nazi war machine had been struck its first significant defeat.

#10 The Air Battle Over Nis In spite of Korea, Vietnam or any other number of incidents during the Cold War, there’s only one time in history that both the United States and the Soviet Union admit to having fought one another in the skies. Horribly, it was a case of friendly fire. Curiously, we know almost nothing about it. On November 7, 1944, an unknown number of U.S. P-38 Lightnings took off on a mission to attack German ground troops near Kosovo. Upon spotting a column of vehicles and marching troops, the Lightnings attacked. Unfortunately, the troops on the ground were Russian. The Lightnings were 250 miles off course in Serbia. Soviet commanders rushed Yak-3 fighters from Nis into the air to protect their soldiers. The two sides collided, aircraft were downed and both sides turned back to base with diminished numbers. Everyone was sworn to secrecy after the incident. The United States apologized. Investigations were buried, leaving many unanswered questions. How did American fighters end up attacking Russian troops? How many planes were involved? How many were lost? It remains a mystery to this day, and we may never know.

Source: TopTenz

#IoTRecords

0 notes