It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudis just bombed the Minsitry of Defense in Yemen...WAR

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I haven't forgotten about anything. In fact us staying in Iraq so long pretty much debunks the entire theory. The whole reason we stayed in Iraq so long was we were trying to straighten out the chaos we caused by ousting Saddam. If this "plan" was real, and our goal was actually to cause chaos and wreck the country, why did we stay there for over a decade trying to undo those very things? If this "plan" was real, we accomplished the goal in the first few months. We destroyed much of their infrastructure and fractured their government. It didn't require us staying there for years. We could've pulled our forces out and moved on to the next target.

And really, Democrats? The entire implication is that this plan continued during the Obama presidency. Bush didn't wreck Syria, Yemen, Lebanon or Sudan. Edit: Oh and I forgot Libya, Bush wasn't responsible for that either. Obviously for this "plan" to have been real, Democrats would've had to be in on it, and Bush would've hit more than 1 target in 8 years with no fear about Democrats taking control and derailing it. It's a complete failure of logic. If you have a lot invested in this "theory", I hate to break it to you but you've been had.
edit on 12 11 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12 11 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You just believe any conspiracy you hear dont you? And worse use strawman arguments to change the topic. First medina and mecca was mentioned because the saudi prince controls them. And somehow you waste are time about iran damaging them. If that happened Iran itself would take on every muslim outside their country. But lets look at the real world instead of your pro iran imagination.

Currently in saudi arabia the new crown prince is a reformist,he want to take saudi arabia back to the 1970s. He is attempting to remove the extremist elements in saudi arabia. This is actually a threat to Iran which is why they have decided to use their terrorist networks to attack saudi arabia. We have the rocket attack and now the attack on bahrain attacking the pipelines. Iran is hoping they can rush the death of the saudi princes. Iran thinks if they canundermine the prince he will lose power. So his move was to remove any possibility of a revolution. This involved two things a convenient helicopter crash he removed a rival and the person who kept getting in the way about saudi sending troops in to yemen.

You want to claim saudi arabia could nott defeat the houthi rebels but that was because the saudi prince faced opposition to using saudi troops. He has either through luck or on purpose removed his opposition,depending if you believe the crash was an accident. Hes jailed any prince that showed support for Iran because believe it or not there were many who believed in a world caliphate and see terrorist groups as a way to accomplish that.

So now he is totally in control of kingdom forces Iran is worried.. thus threats like this...
senior Iranian cleric threatened Saudi Arabia in a sermon this past Friday, labelling it as the enemy and adding that if it “tries to cause even the slightest harm to the great Iranian nation, [the masses] will shatter the enemy's teeth to smithereens inside its mouth."

Lame threat but hes a cleric. So even Iran sees this coming the writing is on the wall. If it comes down to direct conflict iran will lose as saudi puts out a call to sunnis to protect mecca and medina. Then of course reaching out to israel with a deal to gain there supports well. Bahrain is playing up the pipeline attack blaming Iran. This. Is smart because it violates the un written rule in the middle east. Do not attack a countries oil supplies. Last person to do this ended up dead. Now lets throw in lebanon they need an excuse to bring in troops this is the first stage of a plan.They want to cut off irainian access to the med.Prince Mohammed, and the UAE’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, believe that the time has come to muscle up to Iran. Both insist that Iran’s arc of influence has conquered Baghdad, Damascus, Gaza and Lebanon, and is making inroads into Yemen and Manama, with the city states of Abu Dhabi and Dubai also within reach.

Lebanon has also been accused of declaring war against the kingdom over Hezbollah “aggression” - while Hezbollah leaders have returned the accusation. It appears the crown prince has decided no more proxies and stop Iran directly. Iran needs to negotiate their way out of this and fast.
edit on 11/13/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Have you actually looked at where Mecca and Medina are in relation to Riyadh and Iran? My points about them getting touched in an Iranian land invasion are valid. You're the one who seems to think that any attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on Mecca and Medina themselves, which is patently untrue. If it were true, all of those Muslims would be currently attacking Yemen, but they're not.

Also, I've been including facts in my posts as opposed to your mere opinions & conjecture, yet you say I'm the one simply believing conspiracies? Then let's double check:

1. I said that the House of Saud only gained control over Mecca and Medina by militarily conquering the former custodians in the Kingdom of Hejaz in the 1920s. Is that true or false?

2. I said the predominantly Shiite Houthi alliance is currently attacking Saudi Arabia and yet the 700 million Muslims you claim would defend the Saudis are nowhere to be found. Is that true or false?

3. I even pointed out on several occasions the estimated troop numbers for the largest Muslim troop deployments in the Saudi coalition against Yemen and the largest Muslim troop deployments in Operation Desert Storm. Since they don't come anywhere close to your fantasy numbers (they don't even come close to half a million troops, much less 700 million), does that also make them part of some hypothetical conspiracy that I'm believing?

4. I pointed out that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, several other GCC nations, and several Western nations all backed Saddam's Iraq against Iran in the war in the 1980s, yet Iraq still couldn't beat Iran. Is that true or false?

5. I pointed out that the first battle in Operation Desert Storm was actually in Saudi Arabian territory, at the battle of Khafji. Is that true or false? And if it's true, then why were Saudi Arabia and its allies fighting Iraq in Saudi territory if Iraq was never entering Saudi Arabian territory as I rightly claimed?

6. I pointed out that the Saudi coalition can't even beat poverty stricken Yemen and that Saudi Arabia needed the West to push back Saddam's Iraq. So logically, I don't think they can beat an Iran which is vastly larger, more populous, better equipped, and has better civilian and industrial infrastructure than Yemen and Iraq. Anyone can see that this is a logical conclusion.

You just keep on peddling that Wahhabi propaganda & excuses that even they don't believe. Because if they really believed that nonsense, they would've already gathered an alliance of these nations and beaten Iran. Oh wait, they tried in the 1980s by backing Saddam's Iraq and they failed miserably. And they haven't tried again since, instead relying on Western govts to try to bring down Iran for them.

ETA: And one more thing. You gave excuses to why the Saudis still haven't beaten Yemen yet. But those excuses haven't stopped the Saudis from indiscriminately killing Yemeni civilians or placing a crippling blockade against Yemen, which has contributed to a massive famine there. So why should I believe they're only losing because they're basically "holding back" when they clearly don't care about killing or starving non-combatants there?
edit on 13-11-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I simply think the plan to take down those specific countries within that specific time frame was delayed. I don't think the Democrats are innocent of anything. I simply pointed out that a Democrat who campaigned on ending those wars was elected, which delayed the plan regarding Iran. I then pointed out the pressure on his administration to go after Iran anyway.

I'm not seeing what the misunderstanding is here?



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: face23785

I simply think the plan to take down those specific countries within that specific time frame was delayed. I don't think the Democrats are innocent of anything. I simply pointed out that a Democrat who campaigned on ending those wars was elected, which delayed the plan regarding Iran. I then pointed out the pressure on his administration to go after Iran anyway.

I'm not seeing what the misunderstanding is here?


I know what you think, and it's based on nonsense. A Democrat who ran on ending "those wars" when only one was in progress - Iraq. And then he went to work on the rest of the list? He was the reason it was delayed on Iran? Then he tried to do a diplomatic deal to take away our excuse for invading Iran? The whole theory is incoherent. It makes no sense. Open your mind. This theory has been exposed as foolish, and you're smart enough to understand why. All you have to do is let go. Don't blindly hold on to something so silly, you're embarrassing yourself.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The Afghanistan War & occupation was still ongoing. I thought you just said you haven't forgotten this stuff?



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Was Afghanistan part of the supposed "plan" to destroy 7 countries in 5 years that was supposed to start in 2001? The 7 countries named were Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Yemen.

You believe in a theory and don't even know what it says. Seriously man, take a step back and think. You've been duped, badly.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: dragonridr

Have you actually looked at where Mecca and Medina are in relation to Riyadh and Iran? My points about them getting touched in an Iranian land invasion are valid. You're the one who seems to think that any attack on Saudi Arabia is an attack on Mecca and Medina themselves, which is patently untrue. If it were true, all of those Muslims would be currently attacking Yemen, but they're not.

Also, I've been including facts in my posts as opposed to your mere opinions & conjecture, yet you say I'm the one simply believing conspiracies? Then let's double check:

1. I said that the House of Saud only gained control over Mecca and Medina by militarily conquering the former custodians in the Kingdom of Hejaz in the 1920s. Is that true or false?

2. I said the predominantly Shiite Houthi alliance is currently attacking Saudi Arabia and yet the 700 million Muslims you claim would defend the Saudis are nowhere to be found. Is that true or false?

3. I even pointed out on several occasions the estimated troop numbers for the largest Muslim troop deployments in the Saudi coalition against Yemen and the largest Muslim troop deployments in Operation Desert Storm. Since they don't come anywhere close to your fantasy numbers (they don't even come close to half a million troops, much less 700 million), does that also make them part of some hypothetical conspiracy that I'm believing?

4. I pointed out that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, several other GCC nations, and several Western nations all backed Saddam's Iraq against Iran in the war in the 1980s, yet Iraq still couldn't beat Iran. Is that true or false?

5. I pointed out that the first battle in Operation Desert Storm was actually in Saudi Arabian territory, at the battle of Khafji. Is that true or false? And if it's true, then why were Saudi Arabia and its allies fighting Iraq in Saudi territory if Iraq was never entering Saudi Arabian territory as I rightly claimed?

6. I pointed out that the Saudi coalition can't even beat poverty stricken Yemen and that Saudi Arabia needed the West to push back Saddam's Iraq. So logically, I don't think they can beat an Iran which is vastly larger, more populous, better equipped, and has better civilian and industrial infrastructure than Yemen and Iraq. Anyone can see that this is a logical conclusion.

You just keep on peddling that Wahhabi propaganda & excuses that even they don't believe. Because if they really believed that nonsense, they would've already gathered an alliance of these nations and beaten Iran. Oh wait, they tried in the 1980s by backing Saddam's Iraq and they failed miserably. And they haven't tried again since, instead relying on Western govts to try to bring down Iran for them.

ETA: And one more thing. You gave excuses to why the Saudis still haven't beaten Yemen yet. But those excuses haven't stopped the Saudis from indiscriminately killing Yemeni civilians or placing a crippling blockade against Yemen, which has contributed to a massive famine there. So why should I believe they're only losing because they're basically "holding back" when they clearly don't care about killing or starving non-combatants there?


Your obsesion with the gulf war is weird you keep using that as a reference decades later.Iran no longer has the forces it did either the sanctions hav left them with an outdated airforce and no spare parts. Saudis will destroy their navy and airforce it will cost about half theirs to do it but they will. Saudi hasmuch better equipment and better trained with help from Nato. Iran has an advantage in manpower but saudi airforce will cause heavy losses. Iran will lose troops in the 4 to one ratio. If it was just saudi id say it be a draw after about 2 years. Problem is it wouldnt be just saudi arabia they would join forces with egypt,sudan,EAU,Jordan,qatar,bahrain,Turkey and somalia. With two possible additions one israelis and the other pakistan. Iran couldnt holdup to that just tomany aircraft to bomb them back to the stone ages.

Now please stop with the silly stuff like why havnt they taken out Yemen if you knew aboutmiddle eastern politics you would know Saudis have not tried there was forces in the saudi govt preventing that.And medina and Mecca doesnt hav to be attacked for Sunnis to decide to defend Saudi Arabia. So back to my original point if Iran wants to survive they need to calm down the crown prince.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

Obama...free
Clinton...free
Podesta...free
Mueller...still there
Mc Cain...still there

Clearing the swamp my ass,Trump is swamp thing himself.

The deal is for $350 billion dollars of arms in ten years please show me any prior administration that approved that.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

We'll just have to agree to disagree. My original post to you was simply pointing out that the original plan could've been delayed (HERE). You don't seem to think that's possible. Either way, I don't value your opinion on this enough to keep discussing it with you.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: face23785

We'll just have to agree to disagree. My original post to you was simply pointing out that the original plan could've been delayed (HERE). You don't seem to think that's possible. Either way, I don't value your opinion on this enough to keep discussing it with you.


And I just pointed out all the holes in that theory. You're unwilling to accept facts that contradict your chosen narrative though, which is why you don't value my opinion. You're free to believe all the fairy tales you want. Enjoy being manipulated and misled.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join