.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

I think Bolton and his warmongering team don't care about international law considerations  but these aspects will have an impact on how many countries will react to this evolving crisis.

Where the long quote from the "lawfareblog" fails and falls apart is the presumption that this was a "military drone."

Anybody could have put that drone up there.  For example, that drone could have been launched by Lloyd's of London to monitor the passage of ships it insured through the area, and various responses to it, to determine insurability and possible claims.  Just because it is a "drone" does not mean it is a military or hostile aircraft. 

Again, methods are known to remove drones from airspace without destruction.  One is to launch an aircraft and have it "nudge" a wingtip by using air pressure between the wings to change its direction.  Another might be to scatter chaff in front of the drone to blind its radar and comm signatures. You see the point: lots of space in there before violent destruction.  You cannot go by what the Israelis do as some sort of "legal precedent;" the Israelis are notorious international law-breakers, they do what they do with impunity and laws be damned.  The Israelis are notorious for killing civilians, extending that policy to drones is no big deal for them.  As a practical matter, the Israelis have become the new Prussians of the Middle East. 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Where the long quote from the "lawfareblog" fails and falls apart is the presumption that this was a "military drone."

Anybody could have put that drone up there.  For example, that drone could have been launched by Lloyd's of London to monitor the passage of ships it insured through the area, and various responses to it, to determine insurability and possible claims.  Just because it is a "drone" does not mean it is a military or hostile aircraft. 

Again, methods are known to remove drones from airspace without destruction.  One is to launch an aircraft and have it "nudge" a wingtip by using air pressure between the wings to change its direction.  Another might be to scatter chaff in front of the drone to blind its radar and comm signatures. You see the point: lots of space in there before violent destruction.  You cannot go by what the Israelis do as some sort of "legal precedent;" the Israelis are notorious international law-breakers, they do what they do with impunity and laws be damned.  The Israelis are notorious for killing civilians, extending that policy to drones is no big deal for them.  As a practical matter, the Israelis have become the new Prussians of the Middle East. 

I may be wrong but usually civilian drones don't fly with the identification transponder turned off .

[James Regan + 1,776]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Where the long quote from the "lawfareblog" fails and falls apart is the presumption that this was a "military drone."

Anybody could have put that drone up there.  For example, that drone could have been launched by Lloyd's of London to monitor the passage of ships it insured through the area, and various responses to it, to determine insurability and possible claims.  Just because it is a "drone" does not mean it is a military or hostile aircraft. 

Again, methods are known to remove drones from airspace without destruction.  One is to launch an aircraft and have it "nudge" a wingtip by using air pressure between the wings to change its direction.  Another might be to scatter chaff in front of the drone to blind its radar and comm signatures. You see the point: lots of space in there before violent destruction.  You cannot go by what the Israelis do as some sort of "legal precedent;" the Israelis are notorious international law-breakers, they do what they do with impunity and laws be damned.  The Israelis are notorious for killing civilians, extending that policy to drones is no big deal for them.  As a practical matter, the Israelis have become the new Prussians of the Middle East. 

Jan Iran knew exactly what they were firing at drones of all types have a signature. We can get software and Apps ourselves to detect drones, imagine what the military has available.

I think with the current situation in the area no one other than with military or nefarious activities would be flying drones in the SOH.

https://detect-inc.com/drone-detection-defense-systems/

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

41 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Are you serious?!!?  That's the most hilarious thing I've ever heard! 

Would the US have done that under a different president? 

Nothing hilarious about it.  The idea was to do a "shock and awe" demonstration of Total Doom right across Iran, walking those exploding nukes up to the doorstep of Tehran.  I think it would have scared the bejesus out of them.  Nothing like a series of nuke blasts getting closer and closer to focus the mind. 

As to doing that under another President, sure.  Truman would have done that.  He certainly would have done that in Korea if he had the hardware available.  He would have been forced to do that against the Chinese Army, that pushed over the Yalu 300,000 strong and was wiping out the Americans.  When the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir got rolling, the US/UN forces were 30,000 against 120,000 Communist Chinese troops.  You can  bet your last dollar that MacArthur and Truman would have nuked the Chinese positions if they had the tactical nuclear weapons available that US Commanders have today. 

The other Presidents that would have used tactical nukes in those types of conditions were Nixon and Kennedy. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

I may be wrong but usually civilian drones don't fly with the identification transponder turned off .

Typically not.  That said, transponders do fail. And they don't fail sitting in the garage. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

57 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Where the long quote from the "lawfareblog" fails and falls apart is the presumption that this was a "military drone."

Anybody could have put that drone up there.  For example, that drone could have been launched by Lloyd's of London to monitor the passage of ships it insured through the area, and various responses to it, to determine insurability and possible claims.  Just because it is a "drone" does not mean it is a military or hostile aircraft. 

Again, methods are known to remove drones from airspace without destruction.  One is to launch an aircraft and have it "nudge" a wingtip by using air pressure between the wings to change its direction.  Another might be to scatter chaff in front of the drone to blind its radar and comm signatures. You see the point: lots of space in there before violent destruction.  You cannot go by what the Israelis do as some sort of "legal precedent;" the Israelis are notorious international law-breakers, they do what they do with impunity and laws be damned.  The Israelis are notorious for killing civilians, extending that policy to drones is no big deal for them.  As a practical matter, the Israelis have become the new Prussians of the Middle East.  

To be fair though, Israel's enemies don't exactly play by the rules.  Being nice when your enemy has no inhibitions is a losing game. 

In other words, I'd say the Israelis and the Arabs deserve each other. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

I suppose the drone flights are quite frequents in this area so the Iranian know how to identify and track them. The downed drone was on it's way back and I think the Iranian radars were monitoring its path  since the moment it reached the Hormuz Strait at he beginning of the flight.

They had plenty of time to double check it wasn't an airliner .

IRGC Aerospace Force commander Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said "a Boeing P-8 Poseidon was accompanying the drone with 35 airmen on board. "This aircraft also violated our air borders. We could have shot it down, but did not do so, because, having shot down the drone, we'd sent a warning to the American terrorist forces"

Hajizadeh also told reporters that Iran had issued the US military two warnings before shooting down the drone. "Unfortunately, when they failed to reply...and the aircraft made no change to its trajectory...we were obliged to shoot it down," (quoted by Tasnim).

 

On the legal aspects of this crisis I've found his interesting article :

https://www.lawfareblog.com/iran-shoots-down-us-drone-domestic-and-international-legal-implications

Here is a long quote from this article :

 

I think Bolton and his warmongering team don't care about international law considerations  but these aspects will have an impact on how many countries will react to this evolving crisis.

 

 

Interesting. If that account turns out to be true (who knows these days) then the Iranians showed the expected level of restraint before attacking the drone.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

To be fair though, Israel's enemies don't exactly play by the rules.  Being nice when your enemy has no inhibitions is a losing game. 

In other words, I'd say the Israelis and the Arabs deserve each other. 

In today's context, probably true enough.

But let's remember how all this got started.  The British promised the Arabs both ownership and control over the Middle East of the (former) Ottoman Empire lands "if" the Arabs became irregular combatants on the side of the British Army.  So, the Arabs did that.  Then, when that war was over, the British made a deal with the French, called the Balfour Declaration, that created the so-called "Palestinian Mandate," the original Israel where Europe could go dump its Jews.  Now keep in mind that Jewish families, especially Orthodox families, were large.  The Jews multiplied, shunned the locals they had dropped in on, and made themselves unpopular  (not a good game plan).  Jews had periodically been "pogromed" out of Western Europe and into Russia, there again Pogromed, and eventually settled in Poland and Germany. And a sizable number also ended up in France and England, where again they made themselves largely unpopular. 

So the issue withing Western circles was: what do we do about the "Jewish Question"?  And the solution, in part, was  to go and establish a separate "Jewish enclave," called Palestine, and go park the European Jews there in the old grounds of the battle of David vs. Goliath, never mind that that was several thousand years ago and the Jews had left and headed into Russia and Poland and Europe for the past several thousand years.  So this idea of Balfour did not exactly go over well with the locals. 

Things got worse once the first Jews started showing up and formed the Irgun a guerrilla force that specialized in assassinations of British Officers and troops.  When the blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem then the lid blew off.  Ultimately Europe simply dumped Europe's remaining Jews onto Palestine, where they promptly did "ethnic cleansing" at the point of a gun, forced the locals out of there and into refugee camps mostly in Jordan, and then stole the land (and demolished the Palestinian houses).  and that does not exactly make you friends,  now does it?

It then gets far worse, with current policies, more confiscations of land, more shootings of Palestinian civilians, and the deliberate effort to create a psychological state wherein the Palestinians view themselves as a conquered people.  So you get these "roadblocks" where the locals have to unload the cargo from their trucks at arbitrary points and carry it all into the bay of a waiting truck on the other side of that roadblock - and do that several times between farm and market.  It is just appallingly abusive - and the world shrugs.  That simply entitles the Likud to keep on doing more and more, and so you degenerate it even further (as if that were possible - but it is). 

The hatred that has been built up today is what fuels all of the Middle East violence, including the attacks on US soldiers and the destruction of New York city by airliner attacks.  And I predict it will continue indefinitely until the West removes the Jews from Israel and sends them somewhere else - possibly back to Poland.  Either way, it is today a huge mess, for which the British are mostly to blame, and the Likud Party a close collaborator. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

In today's context, probably true enough.

But let's remember how all this got started.  The British promised the Arabs both ownership and control over the Middle East of the (former) Ottoman Empire lands "if" the Arabs became irregular combatants on the side of the British Army.  So, the Arabs did that.  Then, when that war was over, the British made a deal with the French, called the Balfour Declaration, that created the so-called "Palestinian Mandate," the original Israel where Europe could go dump its Jews.  Now keep in mind that Jewish families, especially Orthodox families, were large.  The Jews multiplied, shunned the locals they had dropped in on, and made themselves unpopular  (not a good game plan).  Jews had periodically been "pogromed" out of Western Europe and into Russia, there again Pogromed, and eventually settled in Poland and Germany. And a sizable number also ended up in France and England, where again they made themselves largely unpopular. 

So the issue withing Western circles was: what do we do about the "Jewish Question"?  And the solution, in part, was  to go and establish a separate "Jewish enclave," called Palestine, and go park the European Jews there in the old grounds of the battle of David vs. Goliath, never mind that that was several thousand years ago and the Jews had left and headed into Russia and Poland and Europe for the past several thousand years.  So this idea of Balfour did not exactly go over well with the locals. 

Things got worse once the first Jews started showing up and formed the Irgun a guerrilla force that specialized in assassinations of British Officers and troops.  When the blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem then the lid blew off.  Ultimately Europe simply dumped Europe's remaining Jews onto Palestine, where they promptly did "ethnic cleansing" at the point of a gun, forced the locals out of there and into refugee camps mostly in Jordan, and then stole the land (and demolished the Palestinian houses).  and that does not exactly make you friends,  now does it? 

It then gets far worse, with current policies, more confiscations of land, more shootings of Palestinian civilians, and the deliberate effort to create a psychological state wherein the Palestinians view themselves as a conquered people.  So you get these "roadblocks" where the locals have to unload the cargo from their trucks at arbitrary points and carry it all into the bay of a waiting truck on the other side of that roadblock - and do that several times between farm and market.  It is just appallingly abusive - and the world shrugs.  That simply entitles the Likud to keep on doing more and more, and so you degenerate it even further (as if that were possible - but it is). 

The hatred that has been built up today is what fuels all of the Middle East violence, including the attacks on US soldiers and the destruction of New York city by airliner attacks.  And I predict it will continue indefinitely until the West removes the Jews from Israel and sends them somewhere else - possibly back to Poland.  Either way, it is today a huge mess, for which the British are mostly to blame, and the Likud Party a close collaborator. 

I would be shocked by that if I weren't familiar with the history of Islam, esp. in the Arab world.  Millions slaughtered and enslaved, countless European women forced into harems, non-Muslims regularly oppressed - it was three ring sh*t show.  Lest anyone think that was ancient history, I note that the US built its first navy specifically to combat their barbarism.  They don't seem to have stopped. 

Europe had two chronic problems: Middle Easterners who refused to assimilate into Western society, and Middle Easterners who constantly exported violence.  Letting those two groups fight each other is an elegant solution.

Like I said, they deserve each other. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The other Presidents that would have used tactical nukes in those types of conditions were Nixon and Kennedy. 

Every time I learn something about Jimmy Carter, it's because he failed. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Every time I learn something about Jimmy Carter, it's because he failed. 

Not really.  Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which had Egypt recognize Israel and sever the link between Egypt and Syria (the old United Arab Republic stuff) and start down the road to something starting to resemble "peace."  He did a lot of work on that, and I would say succeeded where others either failed or just shrugged. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which had Egypt recognize Israel and sever the link between Egypt and Syria (the old United Arab Republic stuff) and start down the road to something starting to resemble "peace."  He did a lot of work on that, and I would say succeeded where others either failed or just shrugged. 

Fair enough.  I just wish he'd had bigger balls. 

[Dog Whisperer + 4]

  Some make it sound like the US is the only country running surveillance on other countries. The Russians did, and probably still do, used to send crates with high tech listening and recording gear through the United States and pick it up on the other coast and analyze it's data.  They also have flown recon over other countries including military bases and were never shot down.  Iran has been trying to get a war started and make it look like someone else caused it but so far no one has take the bait. Anyone remember the Cuban Missile crisis? We came closer than anyone realizes to war so this is not the first President to take a stand. Remember President Regan bombing the Presidential palace in Libya after they took a shot at one of our Navy jets ( which ended bad for them) ? Iran wants to agitate and see how far they can push everyone who isn't on their side. It's not the first and it's not the last.

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I would be shocked by that if I weren't familiar with the history of Islam, esp. in the Arab world.  Millions slaughtered and enslaved, countless European women forced into harems, non-Muslims regularly oppressed - it was three ring sh*t show.  Lest anyone think that was ancient history, I note that the US built its first navy specifically to combat their barbarism.  They don't seem to have stopped. 

Europe had two chronic problems: Middle Easterners who refused to assimilate into Western society, and Middle Easterners who constantly exported violence.  Letting those two groups fight each other is an elegant solution.

Like I said, they deserve each other. 

Here we can see how fast the Arabs or Moors claimed the Beirã Med as far as India to the Atlantic, so this shows were all to blame and the cycle continues. It’s called Evolution.

But as a Brit I must say we did make a mess of Palestine and for what Oil.

[SERWIN + 749]

   The Iranians seem to have forgotten about one pure and simple fact. They were at war on and off(mostly on) with Iraq for what, 30 years? Neither side could gain enough of an advantage to win and be done with it. When the US and Allies went into Iraq, it took what, 3 days to absolutely devastate the Iraqi army and chase them all the way back home. The only mistake then was stopping at the border. What do the Iranians think is going to be so different with this scenario? Do they really believe they can take on a superpower and actually win? Or even hold us off for more than say, 30 minutes? So I ask you, are you ready to watch the action on CNN for a couple of days and see the utter annihilation of the Iranian army? That's what will end up happening if this continues to escalate, we will bring all the forces into Iraq and roll over the border for a Sunday drive in the country. Then the rest of the whiners in the world will be making that special sound they are so good at making and we will have to listen to the complaints. Like it or not, the Iranians are fanatical enough to use a nuke if they can make one.

   Do the whiners understand that the fanatics are commanded by Allah to destroy anyone that is not practicing their religion? They don't care if you are on their side or not right now, if you are not following Allah, you are an enemy. It will only be a matter of time until they turn their eyes on you and your personal jihad will commence. Iran having nukes would be devastating to the world at large. Granted they would probably only get one shot and the game would be over from the retaliation that would happen almost immediately, but they would be sure to get some really good shots in before the end game, like planting nukes in various cities around the world and setting them all off at once....

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

8 minutes ago, James Regan said:

But as a Brit I must say we did make a mess of Palestine and for what Oil. 

They made the rules; y'all just played the game. 

And while we're on the subject, Britain contributed a lot to the technology, wealth, and prosperity of the nations it allegedly oppressed.  The history of colonialism isn't all evil. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

38 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Britain contributed a lot to the technology, wealth, and prosperity of the nations it allegedly oppressed.

Not really.  Britain ran everything in the Colonies on the cheap.  Take for example India.  Britain constructed the railroads totally on the cheap, primarily as a means to move their occupying troops around.  IT did nothing for the betterment of the natives, who were referenced as "wogs."  The Army refused to allow any native person, no matter of what rank, to enter an Officers Club, and the idea that a Wog would date a "white woman" was beyond their comprehension.  

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

Australia became a dumping ground for Britain's criminals and other undesirables.  Surplus Irish were deported to Canada and the USA.  Hard to argue that the British were such a benevolent lot. 

[Toranaga + 49]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

In today's context, probably true enough.

But let's remember how all this got started.  The British promised the Arabs both ownership and control over the Middle East of the (former) Ottoman Empire lands "if" the Arabs became irregular combatants on the side of the British Army.  So, the Arabs did that....

How this got started ....  maybe it's that the Muslims can't stand it that non-Muslims were put down in "their" land and are running the place? Never mind that the Muslims conquered it from mainly Christians so is it really theirs?  It was reconquered by Christians, who then gave it to a subset of Jews who are Zionists, who intend to fight to stay there.  How about the relentless, violent expansion of Islam that began in approximately 650 A.D. and only stopped (temporarily?) on a large scale, organized basis due to the overwhelming military superiority of the opposition. Small groups called "terrorists" still obey the Koran and wage jihad:   Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [https://quran.com/9]

The jizyah is a tax. The U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  So Islamic nations try to chip away at the number of non-Muslims in every generation with the tax.  If the non-Muslim is not humbled, extreme violence is an option. The remaining Greek Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire were exterminated or forced out when they showed disloyalty- Armenia and the Greeks on the West Coast of Turkey who had been there since ~800 B.C.. That was in 1918-1920s.  2 million Christians captured and deported from Hungary. Many millions of Russians and Ukrainians captured and deported into slavery by Muslim raiders. The list goes on. [https://www.academia.edu/37917376/The_Ottoman_Genocide_against_Greek_Orthodox_Christians]  

A writer named Graeme Wood did extensive interviews with ISIS sympathizers [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/]     His conclusion:  "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."

[Toranaga + 49]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Britain ran everything in the Colonies on the cheap.  Take for example India.  Britain constructed the railroads totally on the cheap, primarily as a means to move their occupying troops around.  IT did nothing for the betterment of the natives, who were referenced as "wogs."  The Army refused to allow any native person, no matter of what rank, to enter an Officers Club, and the idea that a Wog would date a "white woman" was beyond their comprehension.  

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

Australia became a dumping ground for Britain's criminals and other undesirables.  Surplus Irish were deported to Canada and the USA.  Hard to argue that the British were such a benevolent lot. 

I have no intention of defending colonialism, but compare the outcome of former British colonies to former Spanish colonies. I'd rather be from Kenya, Barbados, Jamaica than Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic.  I'd rather be from India than from Mexico.  Compare Hong Kong to whatever.  

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

10 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

   The Iranians seem to have forgotten about one pure and simple fact. They were at war on and off(mostly on) with Iraq for what, 30 years? Neither side could gain enough of an advantage to win and be done with it. When the US and Allies went into Iraq, it took what, 3 days to absolutely devastate the Iraqi army and chase them all the way back home. The only mistake then was stopping at the border. What do the Iranians think is going to be so different with this scenario? Do they really believe they can take on a superpower and actually win? Or even hold us off for more than say, 30 minutes? So I ask you, are you ready to watch the action on CNN for a couple of days and see the utter annihilation of the Iranian army? That's what will end up happening if this continues to escalate, we will bring all the forces into Iraq and roll over the border for a Sunday drive in the country. Then the rest of the whiners in the world will be making that special sound they are so good at making and we will have to listen to the complaints. Like it or not, the Iranians are fanatical enough to use a nuke if they can make one.

   Do the whiners understand that the fanatics are commanded by Allah to destroy anyone that is not practicing their religion? They don't care if you are on their side or not right now, if you are not following Allah, you are an enemy. It will only be a matter of time until they turn their eyes on you and your personal jihad will commence. Iran having nukes would be devastating to the world at large. Granted they would probably only get one shot and the game would be over from the retaliation that would happen almost immediately, but they would be sure to get some really good shots in before the end game, like planting nukes in various cities around the world and setting them all off at once....

The US could do all that, but it's probably cheaper to isolate and ignore them.  Let them rot in their little corner of the world; there's nothing in it we need. 

If the terrorism continues, implement travel bans.  If the terrorism escalates, put bombs through government buildings & command structures until their attitude is adjusted.  Don't completely destabilize the country like we did Iraq; just keep the leadership in check. 

Or go after their infrastructure. If they're spending money on terrorism, then they don't need that money.  Destroy every refinery, pipeline, port, and major bridge.  Cull their power generation until they can barely support basic necessities.  Ensure nothing goes in and nothing comes out.  They'll be too poor to care what's happening outside their borders.  

Or make a point of bombing any visible, military target into oblivion.  Make it clear to the population that their military is impotent.  Teach them to fear the sky. 

Or whatever.  The point is that a massive invasion would be counterproductive; there are cheaper ways to bring leaders to heel. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

24 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Britain ran everything in the Colonies on the cheap.  Take for example India.  Britain constructed the railroads totally on the cheap, primarily as a means to move their occupying troops around.  IT did nothing for the betterment of the natives, who were referenced as "wogs."  The Army refused to allow any native person, no matter of what rank, to enter an Officers Club, and the idea that a Wog would date a "white woman" was beyond their comprehension.  

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

Australia became a dumping ground for Britain's criminals and other undesirables.  Surplus Irish were deported to Canada and the USA.  Hard to argue that the British were such a benevolent lot.  

Touche.

On the other hand, there ended up being plenty of opportunity in Australia and Canada, and India had no railroads prior to the British.  It wasn't all bad. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

27 minutes ago, Toranaga said:

How this got started ....  maybe it's that the Muslims can't stand it that non-Muslims were put down in "their" land and are running the place? Never mind that the Muslims conquered it from mainly Christians so is it really theirs?  It was reconquered by Christians, who then gave it to a subset of Jews who are Zionists, who intend to fight to stay there.  How about the relentless, violent expansion of Islam that began in approximately 650 A.D. and only stopped (temporarily?) on a large scale, organized basis due to the overwhelming military superiority of the opposition. Small groups called "terrorists" still obey the Koran and wage jihad:   Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. [https://quran.com/9]

 The jizyah is a tax. The U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  So Islamic nations try to chip away at the number of non-Muslims in every generation with the tax.  If the non-Muslim is not humbled, extreme violence is an option. The remaining Greek Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire were exterminated or forced out when they showed disloyalty- Armenia and the Greeks on the West Coast of Turkey who had been there since ~800 B.C.. That was in 1918-1920s.  2 million Christians captured and deported from Hungary. Many millions of Russians and Ukrainians captured and deported into slavery by Muslim raiders. The list goes on. [https://www.academia.edu/37917376/The_Ottoman_Genocide_against_Greek_Orthodox_Christians]  

A writer named Graeme Wood did extensive interviews with ISIS sympathizers [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/]     His conclusion:  "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam."

It makes me wonder why Western Civilization didn't burn every Quran, raise every mosque, and execute every Imam.  There was a brief period in history when Westerners had both the means and the will to do so.  The means are still there, but the will has weakened. 

Or maybe the point of allowing millions of Muslims into Western civilization was to teach the average person what Islam is like.  With enough of that nonsense, and they'll redevelop the will. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

46 minutes ago, Toranaga said:

I have no intention of defending colonialism, but compare the outcome of former British colonies to former Spanish colonies. I'd rather be from Kenya, Barbados, Jamaica than Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic.  I'd rather be from India than from Mexico.  Compare Hong Kong to whatever.  

Let’s not get started on the Portuguese 

[James Regan + 1,776]

Looks like I won’t be taking this route anytime soon, I must say Iran is beautiful from the air very diverse and rugged countryside you could see the culture from 30,000ft

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  Britain ran everything in the Colonies on the cheap.  Take for example India.  Britain constructed the railroads totally on the cheap, primarily as a means to move their occupying troops around.  IT did nothing for the betterment of the natives, who were referenced as "wogs."  The Army refused to allow any native person, no matter of what rank, to enter an Officers Club, and the idea that a Wog would date a "white woman" was beyond their comprehension.  

Over in China, Britain went to war to force the import of opium it collected on the Afghan Frontier, to sell to the Chinese and enslave them.  That particular humiliation is still felt by the Chinese today.  Not very nice, all things considered. 

Australia became a dumping ground for Britain's criminals and other undesirables.  Surplus Irish were deported to Canada and the USA.  Hard to argue that the British were such a benevolent lot. 

We should also consider the law systems put in place and sanitation the school system and let’s not forget the commonwealth. I don’t know of any other colonial power that left a lasting footprint of mostly positive infrastructure. Yes a lot of bad calls but the end game was always to deliver the country back in good shape. 

Hong Kong 🇭🇰 as we speak is proof of a colonial success!

What did the Romans ever do for us??? 😂 

Edited June 21, 2019 by James Regan