Battle of Yarmouk camp

...

And if it were not for the jews, Germany would have won WW1 and there would have been no split up of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British. It would have declined naturally and each ethnic and cultural group would have gotten the land that they needed.

That's pretty arguable.

If it weren't for the Iraq war, there would have been no ISIS.

Nope, not even close., not with the British naval blockade in place and the US ready to join the war on the side of the Entente. Germany lost the war the moment the British Empire got involved. It just took some time for the blockade to decimate the German industry. By 1918 Central Powers were unable to continue the war due to massive shortages, mostly food and coal.

Forty, Simon. World War I: A Visual Encyclopedia. PRC Publishing, 2002
Moyer, Laurence V. Victory Must Be Ours: Germany in the Great War 1914-1918. Pen & Sword, 1995

Attached: slide_9.jpg (960x720, 129.29K)

I can't pretend to be an authority on this, but in terms of shortages, wasn't Britain in the same boat as Germany at that time? Submarine interdiction tactics fucked with Britain's supply lines just as much as the blockade effected Germany, but Britain is a relatively small island that's always been dependent on imports. There is no way that Germany relied on imports as much as Britain. Hell, Russia had to pull out of the war because their people revolted after finally running out of supplies completely. If Germany was holding their own against Britain, France, and Russia, why is it ridiculous to expect that Germany would eventually prevail when faced against only Britain and France?

ftfy

In WWI, the submarine campaign was ineffective. The U-boats didn't have that enough range, and communication between submarines was sketchy at best. The U-boat threat in WWI was negated when convoys were used instead of lone merchant ships, somewhere in the late 1917. Much of U-Boats earlier success can be attributed to how new the concept of submarine really was. Moreover, Germans found that U-boats could easily sink British warships with less risk then German warships would have to take (surface warships that is) and responding to British efforts to blockade Germany decided to unleash their U-boats on British trade in unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking any ship bound for Britain without warning. However, in the early years, this got them in trouble as the US protested these actions after the loss of American lives. The sinking of the Lusitania, and other British ships carrying American passengers helped turn the tide in the US with regards to supporting the Central Powers or the Entente in the Entente's favor. And since the German Army still looked reasonably strong in 1915, the German government backed off and withdrew its U-boats rather then risk American entry into the war. The return to unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 came due to the situation for Germany had becoming desperate and the German leadership was looking for rapid ways out. And once the convoy system was introduced, the German war effort was broken. That's why I consider the WWI campaign to be ineffective. The Germans didn't have the will to sustain it early, and once the lone U-boat attacks became ineffective due to the convoy system (and the introduction of depth charges) the damage the U-boats did was negligible. Tactics borne of desperation generally do not work. Even if the U-boats had knocked Britain out in 1917, the return to this kind of warfare would likely have brought the US into the war, and the Germans would have traded the British Empire for the United States of America, a nation they couldn't starve into submission. Furthermore, so long as the French didn't completely collapse, there still would be ports for American supplies, and troops to come into.
The British prevented any ships from reaching German ports. The German Empire was unable to do the same for Britain. Furthermore, Brits could afford the loses. Germany could not. On hindsight, from all the material I've ever read about the naval warfare in WW1 the U-boats were extremely dangerous, but they could never sink the required tonnage per month that would truly put the ultimate strain on Britain's survival, although it did cause immense problems, of course. In fact, ironically, bread rationing was introduced for the first time in post-war Britain in 1946-47 to help feed starving West German children in the Occupied zones in Germany.

Attached: large.png (705x253 90.73 KB, 14.42K)

Expect Trump to start kvetching about 'muh ebil dictator Assad' soon.

There very well could be, but in this climate with our president it won't work. Things are going to die down, the traitors are going to slip back into the shadows for a few years and try again later. Evil never gives up.

We've already seen that it works perfectly, even better than with Obongo.

True, but Bremer implemented a "de-Baathification" after the Iraq War and removed all the serving army and intelligence people (from the ex-ruling Sunni minority) without thinking that they might not be content with marginalization, retirement and gardening. On top of that the new Shia army did not have experience. This article is from the WaPo so read with a pinch of salt.
washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-Religion of Cuck™ic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

When will they chase the 16000 ISIS fighters in the Golan south into Israel?

Ironically, it may have been possible for the HSF to engage in detail and defeat the Royal Navy early on in the war, but the Admiral in charge was a titanic pussy.

The Jews were the primary factor in bringing the USA into the war. No USA, no:
1. Convoy system to break the German blockade
2. Fresh troops to stop the Kaiserschlacht
3. Overwhelming military & industrial might to back up the armistice/Versailles.
Also, international Jews bankrolled many allies and funded and led many uprisings. To be fair, Russia would have actually lasted longer, delaying or preventing the 1918 offensive, but Britain would have likely went to the peace table as early as 1916 in our alternate Jew-free timeline per the testimony of Ben Freedman.

iraqwas fine before america got a call from israel

I agree that the concept of a nation state is completely alien to Arabs but don't pretend that there would be no conflict if the British drew the map a bit differently.

This is good news, but Iran and Syria can't keep taking equipment losses from kike air strikes. Russia can't keep them supplied forever and I don't expect Israel to stop. Something is going to have to be donegete in the US.

I don't even know what kind of autocorrect that is.

The British naval blockade cut off Germany from all external sources of supply. They couldn't import food; they couldn't import the nitrates that were used both for fertiliser and to make explosives. They also couldn't sell their own goods abroad, so their economy suffered that way as well. But the German government contributed to their own downfall too. They thought it would be a short war, so they conscripted most of the farmers away from their fields, and equally importantly requisitioned all the horses they were using to pull ploughs. When the war turned out to be far longer and bloodier than they'd ever imagined, the result was famine. By the winter of 1917-18 German civilians were reduced to eating turnips, acorns and potato peelings.
In Russia, such terrible conditions had triggered revolution and civil war. However, there was a difference. Russia had also suffered severe military defeats, and the people had lost all confidence that their government could actually win the war. The Tsar, discredited and without support, was forced to abdicate: but that created a power vacuum at the top and a slide into anarchy that would only be filled many long months later by the Bolsheviks.
In Germany, things never got so bad until the end. The German army still occupied Poland and Belgium, and the censored German media hid defeats and exaggerated victories before the public. The average German citizen didn't know his country was losing the war until suddenly they surrendered. But nevertheless, by summer 1918 the German army was a beaten force.
There are several reasons for this. Americans understandably emphasise the arrival of a million fresh US soldiers onto the battlefield. British and French counter this by pointing out that the Germans had already been halted and pushed back by their armies, before more than a handful of Americans actually entered combat. Perhaps the fairest thing to say here is that it was the fear of the US army, rather than the US army itself, which pushed Hindenburg and Ludendorff into making their ultimately fatal gamble in Spring 1918 to try and win the war before the Americans arrived.
Starting in August 1918, the combined Allied armies under the command of the French marshal Foch pushed back the Germans all along the line. They had multiple advantages: fresh manpower from the United States and the British Empire; high morale; Darlingern equipment including tanks and ground-attack aircraft, which first saw use in mass formations in this time; new tactics, such as creeping or lifting artillery barrages. The Germans, meanwhile, were reeling from the failure of their Spring offensives, and were almost out of manpower and resources. Ludendorff called 8 August 1918 the Black Day of the German Army because when faced by a new-style Allied attack (French, British, Australian and Canadian troops with 532 tanks) the German defenders at Amiens surrendered en masse. 15,000 German soldiers surrendered in a single day, something that was all but unprecedented in German military history. But over the next hundred days, tens of thousands more Germans would also give up the fight. The stalemate on the western front was over.

Hajar Al-Aswad pocket confirmed split into two

The rope is tightening around IS' neck.