Shakyamuni

What do these people do when their absurd predictions never come true? Do they even notice? Or are they already focused on the next one?

Tallest_Skil

cuckchan shitposting

reposted

It’s the current year all right.

birds_sing

I disagree. The Iran missile stuff is either:

  • Completely false. Iran doesn't actually have intercontinental missiles and this is just a lie to justify invading and then redrawing the borders . Much like how when Iraq was invaded and immediately after Iraqi parliament began the process of dividing Iraq into Kurdish Iraq, Shia Iraq, and Sunni Iraq. And also similar to what is being attempted in Syria.

  • Or it is true, They do have or are developing intercontinental missiles and Iran is preparing to defend itself against having its borders redrawn.

Also, if Iran and the US were still friends, then Iran wouldn't have stopped using the American dollar for trade.

pitenius

The tip for me that this is a roleplayer is the free energy jab at the end. Like that's a gateway to prosperity. Taking down the energy infrastructure is bigger than taking down Iran. CIA/OSS has taken down Iran before, but free energy? That shits in the pot of all of the green movement (who needs windmills? who needs Soylendra?) and the old guard (who needs Exxon? who needs nuclear plants?).

Tell me more about these borders...

azide

Free energy is bullshit. The law of conservation of mass/energy has been shown to be very robust. There are almost certainly better methods of energy production than we have now but that energy has to come from somewhere whether it's the sun or hydrogen and boron for dense plasma focus fusion.

Let's assume that you could make a machine that makes energy with no input. Then you still have to defray the capital costs of the machine as well as whatever maintenance it requires. That still isn't free.

birds_sing

Well you asked for it.

Here's an article about the borders thing . But understand that this article containing the map was written back in 2006. Things change over time. Anyways here's my take on a lot of this, and some of what's happening and has happened.

Back story is that when the borders in the Middle East were drawn up, they were drawn by Western powers to gain resources and land with little regard for who lived there. An example would be in Iraq there were 3 groups that didn't get along. The Kurds, the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. Another example is that the Kurdish people were divided across 3 countries. Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. So there is always these different groups fighting for power within the countries, and groups split between countries.

So in 2006 a think tank made a map of what the countries should look like. Where new borders should be drawn, and with even a few new countries added. Hoping that this would stop the fighting within the countries and stop other countries from trying to put their group in power in a neighboring country - Like Iran's government is Shia, so they will try to make sure Iraq has a Shia government. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is Sunni so they will try to put Sunnis in power in Iraq. If there is a separate Sunni Iraq and Shia Iraq, then Iraqis won't be fighting amongst themselves, and Iran and Saudi Arabia won't be fighting with each other either. So it all sounds like a good idea, right?

Now imagine you're the leader of say, Syria. Someone says that 1/4 of your country is going to the Kurds and another 1/4 is going to the Islamic State. You loose all that land, all those resources, and also your population drops by half. You will have half the land, half the oil, half the taxpayers. Which means you'll probably only be able to afford half your military and your giving away half your oil, half your pipelines, etc. You'd say, "No fucking way!"

Meanwhile the Kurds and the Sunnis are talking to NATO and Western countries telling them that if they help make their new countries a reality, that they'll pay them with some of the oilfields that will be in their new country. Now if you were the leader of Syria you'd probably call up Russia and say that they could have a couple oilfields if they stopped them, right?

But to go back a bit - When the US went into Iraq (by lying about WMDs) and took out Saddam Hussein. They installed a government that started the legislative framework to divide Iraq into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish Iraq. Just like the map shows. But Sunni and Kurdish Iraq extend into Syria. Then the US claims Syria is attacking its own people (another lie), to justify starting and funding a civil war that would lead to Syria dividing and end up looking just like the map.

You still with me? Now to have a Kurdish state you need the population to be ethnically Kurdish. So you need to remove everyone who isn't an ethnic Kurd. So you need to do an ethnic cleansing. If you kill them all, then the people around the world will be outraged and you'd have to stop the ethnic cleansing. But if you could relocate most of them, instead of killing all of them, that would be a lot better. So now we have a shitload of Syrian refugees.

Conspiracy time - Trump says he won't take in as many Syrian refugees. So now Canada (a member of NATO and who's funding, arming, training, and fighting alongside the Kurds ) has to take in far more refugees. So there's a false flag attack where they make it look like a Canadian white kid shot up a mosque. Now anyone (especially politicians) who oppose allowing in way, WAY more refugees is a racist Islamophobic white supremacist.

Anyways, there's a lot of questions that will be answered over time. Turkey - they had that coup (or fake coup) attempt last year and their president used that to take over the press and give himself more power. So did he do that to make sure Turkey doesn't loose 1/3 of their country to the Kurds? Or did he do it to make sure it got handed over? Iran - News is coming out that they now have intercontinental ballistic missiles. Is that true and they're preparing to defend themselves and trying to preventing their country from getting split and loosing land? Or is it a lie so that the US or another country can say that they're a direct and immediate threat to justify an invasion? Then there's been shit happening between Yemen and Saudi Arabia for nearly the last 2 years, and it hasn't been talked about. And you'll notice that their borders are supposed to move according to the map.

Trump said (before he was elected) that he would wipe out ISIS, and would work with Russia instead of going to war with them. But that was before he was president, and now that he knows what backroom deals have been made, how much the US has invested in this, and what the US has to lose or gain, there's no telling what he'll do.

You might think that redrawing the borders in the Middle East is a good idea. It does sound like a good idea at first, but look at British India. It was split into India and Pakistan. Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan (the same type of thing they're trying to do with the map). They've been on the verge of war with one another since their split. And the only reason they haven't had an all out war is because they've got a shitload of nukes pointed at one another. And those are two countries that don't have a bunch of oil, or limited amount of water. Also, if you look at the map, Pakistan a nuclear power, is supposed to loose a bunch of land too.

So only time will tell how this all plays out. It isn't going very fucking well so far.

But in the end, almost all of the world's problems right now can be linked back to that map. That fucking map.

pitenius

Wow. This makes a lot of sense, especially from a conspiracy angle.

Here's the problem: TFA says "International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war. The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants."

That sounds good to guilt-ridden Whities, steeped in identity politics, but borders are also strategic. Look at that map: Free Kurdistan and Sunni Iraq are landlocked deathtraps awaiting genocidal plunder. Also, I wonder how the rulership for Islamic Sacred State would be decided -- keep the House of Saud? Is it being split to receive the "Saudi Homelands Independent Territories", aka "The Empty Quarter"? (That's some bad naming there -- SHIT? I'm tempted to call shenanigans, but ... it looks legit. Seriously. Was that deliberate?)

Also, these borders are for locals to decide. The Middle East still operates by city states or empire/caliphate. The problem is that city states are too easily exploited by nation-states, so they cobbled together something. It's like Pakistan -- why a country? To fight with India? Why not separate Punjab state and Kashmir, then give Afghan back to Afghanistan? Oh, because Independent Kashmir is a landlocked rump state soon to be starved and manipulated by its neighbors.

Why not return to the 1960s model of Pan-Muslim socialism supported by oil? Because the US would lose?

DearClaudio

I don't disagree with this being an excellent and possibly true theory.

My only question is, why would they want to settle the disputes in that area at all? They use these wars to fill their ever growing coffers. Maybe they will just keep moving on from there to another section of underdeveloped countries? Separating these countries to a point of extreme nationalism doesn't seem to be the way to push a globalist agenda.