Merry Christmas Aleppo

[Harbringe]

I didn;t say I watched 30 - 40 of Aleppo celebration/xmas/happy footage . What I said is in the first line of the opening post "In the last month I have watched about 30 - 40 hours........" . The logistics of that would be a maximum 1 hour 20 min per day to hit the 40 hour claim , for it to be 30 hours it would be an hour a day. Given what was happening and the amount of footage that was being posted overall thats very plausible. Truth is some days I might watch 15 min to a half hour , other days (esp weekends) would watch 4 - 5 hours of it. Quite frankly I'm surprised you would think that was a lot , thats nothing.

 

As for the Eva Bartlett video , the people beside her were Bahman Azad , Donna Nassor and Sara Flounders all private American citizens (no Gov't connections whatsoever) and it was the Syrian Mission that got them the room , but the Syrian Ambassador Jafaari was not in the room at all. These were simply private citizens who have formed a coalition called Hands off Syria. The reason Eva Bartlett is highlighted is because she has been going to Syria to get the evidence directly , as in I witnessed , I video'd , I interviewed and when people try to dispute what she is saying , she backs it up with the evidence. Carla Ortiz will be doing the same when she comes out with her documentary , even Tulsi Gabbard has gone and done the same. (though mostly for herself). And thats what I try to present people going out and doing it for themselves and allowing others simply to look at whats being reported from direct sources , which is what that last video was I posted , whether you or anyone else believes or doesn't believe what these people are saying is up to the viewer.

 

As for the Syrian Mission to the UN , you do understand that is whats used to describe any Nations mission to the UN. As in it would be the US Mission to the UN or the Canadian Mission to the UN , you make it sound like some nefarious plot and its simply the language used in the UN to represent a Nations membership in the UN. As for the photo Amb Jafaari used , it was social media who first jumped on him pointing out it was an Iraqi photo and it was also social media who tracked when the doctored photo first appeared on social media which was almost 3 months after the original had appeared in June of that year. He claimed he did not know it was doctored and most have taken him at his word because he has never done that before or since. That incident came and went very quickly , its likely Syrian intelligence got duped , which is embarrassing enough in and of itself , especially at the UN.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Harbringe

[Lisnpuppy]

((This isn't really addressing the argument here but I think it has some relevance as to the complexity of this matter. I'm also a straight up history geek loving ancient history. Anyway, I recently read a book of Eleanor of Aquitaine who lived-and participated-in the Second Crusade and lived through the third. This was in the 1100s A.D. In both Crusades the city of Aleppo played a role and was fought over tremendously by both sides, changing hands on several occasions. In fact, long LONG before that there was trouble in the City of Aleppo to which the Hittite King Muwatalli sent his brother to them as a diplomat to help sooth issues. Aleppo had fought along side the Hittites when they battled Ramses the Great at the Battle of Kadesh in about 1274 B.C. The Hittites later conquered Aleppo in about 1556 B.C. So these places have been fought over for the past several thousand years or more. Should I do the Fallout thing now? War, war never changes.))

[Aurielius]

((This isn't really addressing the argument here but I think it has some relevance as to the complexity of this matter. I'm also a straight up history geek loving ancient history. Anyway, I recently read a book of Eleanor of Aquitaine who lived-and participated-in the Second Crusade and lived through the third. This was in the 1100s A.D. In both Crusades the city of Aleppo played a role and was fought over tremendously by both sides, changing hands on several occasions. In fact, long LONG before that there was trouble in the City of Aleppo to which the Hittite King Muwatalli sent his brother to them as a diplomat to help sooth issues. Aleppo had fought along side the Hittites when they battled Ramses the Great at the Battle of Kadesh in about 1274 B.C. The Hittites later conquered Aleppo in about 1556 B.C. So these places have been fought over for the past several thousand years or more. Should I do the Fallout thing now? War, war never changes.))

Though in the main I concur with your thesis excepting the Battle of Kadesh. The Canaanites contributed no troops to the battle. Neither Ramses or Muwatallii's account of the battle ever mentioned a Canaanite contingent. The Hittites used their own chariot arm almost exclusively which lead to the subsequent draw instead of the crushing Hittite victory it could have been. It should be acknowledged that Ramses's account of a decisive victory was mostly fiction and the Hittite records were circumspect to say the least.

As for the context of Eleanor's actual input in the second crusade I would recommend a Biography of Henry II by W.L. Warren. You will enjoy the read...I did.

[Lisnpuppy]

 

((This isn't really addressing the argument here but I think it has some relevance as to the complexity of this matter. I'm also a straight up history geek loving ancient history. Anyway, I recently read a book of Eleanor of Aquitaine who lived-and participated-in the Second Crusade and lived through the third. This was in the 1100s A.D. In both Crusades the city of Aleppo played a role and was fought over tremendously by both sides, changing hands on several occasions. In fact, long LONG before that there was trouble in the City of Aleppo to which the Hittite King Muwatalli sent his brother to them as a diplomat to help sooth issues. Aleppo had fought along side the Hittites when they battled Ramses the Great at the Battle of Kadesh in about 1274 B.C. The Hittites later conquered Aleppo in about 1556 B.C. So these places have been fought over for the past several thousand years or more. Should I do the Fallout thing now? War, war never changes.))

Though in the main I concur with your thesis excepting the Battle of Kadesh. The Canaanites contributed no troops to the battle. Neither Ramses or Muwatallii's account of the battle ever mentioned a Canaanite contingent. The Hittites used their own chariot arm almost exclusively which lead to the subsequent draw instead of the crushing Hittite victory it could have been. It should be acknowledged that Ramses's account of a decisive victory was mostly fiction and the Hittite records were circumspect to say the least.

As for the context of Eleanor's actual input in the second crusade I would recommend a Biography of Henry II by W.L. Warren. You will enjoy the read...I did.

 

It is documented (and it is too late for me to dig it all out tonight though I will later if you wish) that the Hittite King came with leaders and/or with soldiers (etc) of allies of many different places and leaders including Rimisharrinaa, the King of Aleppo. Hard to think that this would be mentioned in text if Aleppo as ally did not have some import and contribution (and it may be the King was there himself) and did not impact of the battle in some way. I'm not going to argue that the Hittite King screwed up by not pushing the issue and furthering his attack when he had Ramses "on the ropes" as it were. It certainly was more of a draw that Ramses wished that it was and despite what the temple writings showed. Though props for Ramses for regaining control and fighting to a draw that should have been a loss.

 

My point, was not that Aleppo particularly fight hand in hand in the battle but that this small city has been in the middle of fighting with, in, for, around, against, etc for literally thousands of years (and even been part of propaganda perhaps?) An ally they are with the Hittites and just a few generations later, they are attacked and absorbed by them. This speaks to the larger issue in the Middle East of not maybe generations of blood feuds or military engagements, but thousands of years of it. I don't think if the Aleppo soldiers actually saw battle as compared to the Hittite Chariots in any way makes my point different or impacts what I was trying to say in any way. Nato Allies are still allies if they fight alongside others in a direct specific battle or not, yes?

 

I thank you for the book info. I may check it out when I once again have a chance to read.