Modeste

Notice i said" It should be noted that prior to British intervention Jews,Muslims & Christians all worshipped in relative peace " I never said they lived in relative peace. I said they Worshipped in relative peace, as comparatively that is no longer the case at all in Jerusalem. There's is plenty of footage and historical artefacts that show Jews, Muslims and Christians during the late 1800s early 1900s living and worshipping 'side by side' in Jerusalem. The Crusades aren't relevant to my initial point. Please can we stick to what I've actually said instead of these inferences. I never said the current Western conflict with IS was 'solely' because of the redrawing of the Near East after WWI. But i did say it is one of the reasons for the current inflammation in the region, namely Iraq. Whereby IS have and are attempting to redraw regions in Iraq & Syria as it seeks to widen the influence and establishment of its Caliphate.

No where in my post did i imply or say it was all the West's fault so i suggest you stick to what i said rather than your non-sequitur and somewhat irrelevant casual inferences on the history of the region. I thought it was quite evident from my post that i'm referring to the recent history of the region that has spawned the issues in the region post WWI. If you want to discuss the history of the region and what you deem as relevant to the modern day conflict post WWI i'm more than happy to discuss that.

Thats a dispute the British created in the run up to WWI, which culminated in the Balfour Declaration. It should be noted that prior to British intervention Jews,Muslims & Christians all worshipped in relative peace in the region for approximately 1500 years. The religious and political sentiment of the day prompted the Mandate for Palestine by the British which was aided and abetted by wealthy Jewish lobbys in Europe and in the USA. That situation though was ultimately about geo-strategic and commercial control of the Near East by Western powers. The result of Colonial intervention and the carving up of the Near East which in turn created new country's and new boarders by the British, is one of the key reasons why the region is so inflamed to this day. So what you have now is a battle against competing ideology's, and so called or rather nebulous 'values' whereby the secular fundamentalism of the West is pitted against religious fundamentalism/extremism in the Near East and across North Africa. Ironically at its very core this isn't even a conflict that has religion as its root cause. Western foreign policy has continually over the decades created numerous entity's all of which have served a geo-political or strategic purpose. In essence Al-Nusra, Al-Shabab, Boko-Haram, FSA, ISIS, Al-Qeada, Taliban etc are all one and the same. Some are the result of blow back some are direct creations of Western intervention all of which have served to inflame and incite the present Wars raging across the region. In line with Bible prophecy though the attack on religion does appear extremely close as the situation daily is fomenting, as the West continues to funnel arms into the region. The attacks by the various factions and militias are getting worse and worse leading to even greater regional and global instability.

We seem to be going around in circles here. Whether they're investigative, editorial etc is academic. The point is as iv already explained you can only build an informative view from the available sources you have access to. I only mentioned those sites because Shawnster asked for some of my sources under the presumption they were a secret. I frequent many other sources and how i formulate my opinion much like most people do is based on the sources i have access to. You can only then formulate an objective and possibly subjective opinion based on said sources. I don't think its necessary to pedantically a belabour a point about political neutrality when i've already explained myself. We clearly have different views on the matter. There's nothing wrong with that. But to dismiss every source and replace that with only skepticism isn't helpful for those that have an interest in the situation as do i. Again we can be drawn into discussion on pedantic detail which wasn't the intention of my post nor of the 'false flag' issue that you have taken exception too. In hindsight i would have prefaced that with the word alleged but i type quickly as thoughts come to me and certainly wasn't expecting to be taken to task on what in my opinion could be construed as minutae. I can present many definitive counters to the opinions/facts you've mentioned above that paint an entirely different story to what you claim. But that wouldn't lead to productive discussion of which we'd only be discussing different sides of the same coin. Fundamentally we don't even disagree. So ill leave it there.

Its not Shawnster. Crimea has been area of geo-strategic politco-military interest for Russia for hundreds of years and prior to the Crimean War (because of the Crimean Peninsula) when the British and Russian Empires clashed. As I've already explained Russia has billions invested in Ukraine's economy, that allow for free trade and the movement of labour across Ukrainian/Russian boarders. Matter of fact Russia continues to subsidise Ukraine with Russian gas even though Ukraine has been in arrears for months. Russia's obviously not going to idly stand by and watch its economic interests trampled by the new kids on the block the Troika, who have just given Ukraine an (IMF) $18Bn loan based on the conditions of this latest cease fire. Which means Poroshenko's hand was essentially forced so he can keep the lights on in his country which likely means as was the case with the previous cease fires this one won't last. And Ukraine seems to have expressed interest in joining both the EU and NATO. Ukraine though does not boast the level of Geo-Strategic and Economic control that Russia and the EU/USA have. Of course not. I didn't know you wanted me to name/mention specific websites. Most of them are financial from Arabian Money to ZeroHedge or MarketOracle. I thought i already explained this..... I'm entirely sure why its being implied that i seem to have some partiality in this discussion, presumably to Russia. As I've already emphasized i do not. I'm not taking sides. I'm more than aware that the pushing and shoving between these two Kingdoms is the work of Satans Earthly Organisation. We know this and i don't think i need to explain that to fellow brothers/sisters here. But there is obviously nothing wrong with having a healthy discussion on the matter or on issues that affect mankind, humanity or our fellow brothers and sisters. Like the Awake i like to 'Watch the World'.

From a variety of on-line sources which are not blogs or conspiracy websites. Primarily what is now dubbed as the Alternative Media which i compare with the MSM.

Geo-strategic and Economic. Russia doesn't want NATO forces on its boarders. It also wants to retain its economic ties and interests in Ukraine.

I don't agree. The available evidence does make the attack in my opinion look like a false flag. The plane was shot out of the sky. Therefore its destruction was intentional. By whom as we both know is not known. Again no i do not and no im not defending any side in this conflict. I've already explained that to you. What i am attempting to explain is the facts of the incidents and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from the said available evidence.

Its impossible to draw any concrete conclusion because of the dearth of misinformation produced after the event. The West accused Russia of the attack and offered no evidence to back up its claim. This isn't the first time this has happened as nearly two years ago a similar case happened in Syria over Chemical Weapons attacks where Russia presented evidence to the UN that was summarily ignored. Russia on the other hand presented their evidence to 'Independent' investigators and to the U.N. on MH17. They allegedly had Satellite imagery proving there was no Russian involvement. Ukraine on the other hand refused pointedly to provide any evidence of any of its accusations and nor did it cooperate with the investigators, in some cases hindering the investigation into the incident. The USA did the same refusing to provide evidence of its claims of Russian involvement in MH17. Either way that plane was definitely shot down as proven by the wreckage and remains of the plane. You can make of that what you will but those are the facts the arbiters in the issue, UN et al, were and are aware of. Just for clarity my post is not about apportioning blame. Nor do i visit conspiracy websites/blogs. Contrary to 'how' you seem to have read my post i have no partiality to any side in this affair. But rather what i'm attempting to explain that the MSM narrative has painted a very one sided affair based primarily on half truths. In addition MH17 is anything but debunked by any political government connected to the event. Matter of fact no government to my knowledge has claimed it was a false flag. False flags have been happening since empires began. They're part of the political tool and arsenal of World governments and economic empires. May be this or isn't a false flag. But what we do know is Russia provided evidence to the U.N that it had no involvement and the MSM have been silent on the MH17 affair since.

We both know there is no such thing as 'upstanding' nor morally sound country. The problem with the issue in Ukraine is there sheer amount of deliberate disinformation that has been repeated ad naseum by Western press. Both sides have their own agenda that much is obvious. Agendas aside the fate of the Crimeans would have been the same as the rest of Ukraine if Kiev was still in charge.

Ukraine was stable prior to 2014. Its relationship with Russia was fine. Things only took a nose dive when the Maidan protests started which had nothing to do with Russia. Russia isn't interested in annexing Ukraine. Ukraine has its own sovereignty, or at least what's left of it that Russia has indicated for at least a year now that its content to work with. The so called 'Pro-Russians' (who are actually Ukrainians) rebel factions want their own autonomous region away from Kiev and the West of Ukraine. They're not fighting to be annexed by Russia. Of which those separatists demands have been included in the latest Minsk agreement.

Hmm this isnt really true. And is mostly the skewed narrative from the Main Stream Press. Russia has historical, cultural and more importantly economic ties with Ukraine that go back hundreds of years. It was after all part of Russia. It's not in Russia's best interest at all for Ukraine to implode, nor for millions of refugees to spill over into neighbouring Russia, nor is it in their interest for a full scale Civil War to be occurring on their boarder. Economically Ukraine has a lot of value to Russia, of which the Ukrainian economy is entirely intertwined with Russia. Now Russia only ceded Crimea as A) Crimeans voted to secede rather than be governed by the Right wing Neo-Nazi's that are ethnically cleansing the East, of which the Crimeans choose wisely as their fate would have been the same as the West & East of Ukraine and Russia took advantage of the unrest in West to regain territory that was strategically lost to NATO who have reneged repeatedly on agreements made between the US\NATO and Russia when Gorbachev was in power after the end of the Cold War. While the West seems to want to make a big fuss about the annexation of Crimea fundamentally the Crimeans voted for it 'Democratically'. To the tune of 90% + which was internationally observed. Either way their alternative would have been governance by the Nazi Junta in the West whose primary goal is the expulsion of ethnic Russians and the eradication of what they deem as subversive Russian influence. As for Pro Russian rebels this has been repeated a lot in the MSM. The reality is those so called 'Pro Russian' rebels are actually Ukrainians. Russia does not have a military presence in the country nor is Russia trying to undermine the current 'illegitimate' government of Ukraine. Russia needs an end to violence in order to secure its boarder and its trade relationships with Ukraine. Again Russia does not require a 'Pro Russian' governance in Ukraine. It was the USA who ploughed billions into destabilizing Ukraine via covert means in order for NATO to encroach even further on Russian boarders as NATO post cold war is desperate to remain relevant in a Post Cold War World, and seems to be more than happy repeating Cold War rhetoric in order to re-enforce USA/NATO Geo-strategic hegemony. Ultimately though the violence of the Maidan instigated by US subversive tactics was for the Troika to assume economic control of Ukraine while severing ties with Russia which resulted in Yanukovoch being ousted as he didn't agree to the Troikas demands. This has presented a number of problems to Europe. As A) Ukraine is not a member of NATO. European Nations are having to foot the bill to fund Ukraine with the Troika extending loans to Ukraine that it can't pay service, all of which are subsidized by European taxpayers when Ukraine isn't even part of the EU. And C) Europe is badly affected, especially Germans by the economic sanctions on Russia which are counter productive and hurting the European Economy(s) as well as the Global Economy, namely Oil and the dollar. Thus by and large what is happening in Ukraine isn't about Ukraine retaining its sovereignty nor is it about the protecting the lives of Ukrainians. As Ukraine's future will be determined by Brussels. But rather this dispute is actually a battle of Economic Geo-strategic and political control by Western banking cartels who are more than happy to saddle Ukraine and mire its economy in debt (just like Greece) that it cannot repay as the country is simply insolvent, and what's left of the productive portions of the economy have been ruined by War. The West ergo Europe/NATO/USA actually had the audacity a year ago not to include Russia in negotiations for a peace settlement. Nearly 6000 lives later and a false flag MH17, and a balkanised Ukraine, it is still at the square root of zero. And all they've done is replace one Oligarch with another. The same Oligarch whose been begging the USA for 'lethal aid' that Mr Obama said is an option. The Wests strategy in Ukraine is the height of insanity. They seem to have no problem with Neo-Nazi's running the country as long as they're doing Victoria Nulands bidding and the bidding of the Troika.

Washington have already sent 'aid' to Ukraine. In other words they are arming Pro-US\Kiev forces in Ukraine and have been doing so covertly since the Maidan Protests started. There were ceasefires before all of which collapsed. The situation in Ukraine is very precarious now. Millions of Ukrainians are fleeing into Russia. The same nation the West is blaming for the destabilization.... Its in Russia's best interest for this Civil War on its boarder to end. The USA\UK frankly don't care as a conflict in Western Europe is unlikely to affect them other than economically. Ukraine is being balkanised as we speak. The country is completely insolvent. Its currency has collapsed. Its economy is in ruins. And Brussels is fiddling while Ukraine burns. And only nation that continues to help Ukraine economically is Russia who have economic interests in the country that stretche back decades.

Hmm i know Federal Law supercedes States Law but i always thought the States had the right under the constitution to determine what was lawful or not with the supreme court only intervening in rare circumstances? Obviously a big lobby is behind this for it to make it to the supreme court. But under the constitution unless the constitution requires an amendment i don't know how States Rights can be over turned? Or am i reading/interpretating this wrong?

Doesn't each state effectively have its own soverignty? So wouldn't states rights prevail as per the constitution with the state having the right to choose as it see's fit? I'm sure there must be a gay lobby that has this covered though. With all the momentum behind so called gay 'civil rights' i wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court somehow ruled the States as unconsitutional..