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.

 

Secretary Pompeo:Iran abandons its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing activities.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The usual suspects it seems are the ones who are behind the Iranian protests. Secretary Pompeo had demanded that abandons its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing activities in the region.

Pompeo had demanded that Iran abandons its activity whatever its in Yemen or Syria. Its clear the Deep State is feeling the pressure that their regime changes in Syria failing badly. What is happening in Iran is a regime change by the same people who started the same regime changes in both Libya and Syria.

Its rather comical for Secretary Pompeo to say that Iran should abandons its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing activities in the region and behave like a normal nation?

Source


The Iranian people will enjoy a better future when their government begins to respect basic human rights, abandons its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing activities in the region, and simply behaves like a normal nation. The choice is with the regime. #IranProtests




There Are Riots In Iran And The Usual Suspects Are On It




The move makes economic sense. It had previously been recommended by the IMF. The usual suspects have used the announcement to launch protests and riots in several Iranian cities. Some banks were set on fire and security personal were attacked. The CIA and the MEK cult are certainly trying to push for additional disturbances. The Iranian government cut internet access to prevent that. As long as I can remember such protests and riots have happened in Iran every other year or so. They usually die down within a week. I am confident that the same will happen this time.


To support protests in Iran you would be supporting the MEK, the Iranian MEK in Iran had being funded by both American political parties just two years ago.




posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Isn't it ironic that these so called gas priced protests in Iran just happened as soon Iran decided to get out of the nuclear deal and boost up its Uranium? not trying to suggest things but its pretty clear that these protests had happened because of the nuclear deal and Iran's decision to get out of it.



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 10:19 PM
link   
So , you agree the US is "The Great Satan" ?



To support protests in Iran you would be supporting the MEK, the Iranian MEK in Iran had being funded by both American political parties just two years ago.

Are you sure about that ?
Oh , that was Barry doing the supporting of Iran
You may be right.
Damn sure sent billions of US tax dollars , in the dark of night , not approved by Congress , to the mullahs.




posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog



Damn sure sent billions of US tax dollars , in the dark of night , not approved by Congress , to the mullahs.

Oh you mean those Millions and Billions which the admin Obama released from the Iranian sanctions? i am sure a free Iran would look as wonderful and beatfuil as Libya,Iraq are now.


Source


Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group





Giuliani spoke to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella coalition largely controlled by the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), which was once listed as a terrorist organisation in the US and Europe and is still widely viewed as a Marxist-Islamist cult built around the personality of its leader, Maryam Rajavi.


Ironical this MEK Iranian opposition is widely supported by both parties. Everyone that has being following the region and regime changes for a couple years should know this by now. Not everything is about democracy or freedom cakes.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ChefFox

You might want to do a little more research on what's going on in Iran and why the protests are getting worse. The sanctions on Iran are hurting and now the government has pulled an Assad and started killing their protesters. This is what started Syria's civil war.


Days of protests in Iran over rising fuel prices and a subsequent government crackdown have killed more than 100 people across the country, according to rights group Amnesty International.

In a statement on Tuesday, the UK-based organisation accused Iranian security forces of using "excessive and lethal force" to crush the demonstrations since they started on Friday.

"At least 106 protesters in 21 cities have been killed, according to credible reports," Amnesty said.


www.aljazeera.com...


edit on 21-11-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Every govt starts killing their own people when there’s protests. Even ours. Hell, the police kill unarmed people almost every day. So apparently, all you have to do as the us is incite protests in a nation, through ngo funding, agitators, sanctions, etc, and when the inevitable violent clash occurs between the people and authorities, then you blame the government and use it as an excuse to invade to “help” the people, in the meantime killing hundreds of thousands of those people (the ones you didn’t already kill with your sanctions) and leaving the nation a destroyed mess.

It should be understood, that what you support your govt doing to other peoples, your govt will eventually be doing to you. Or those other peoples will be doing it to you. Either way is bad.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


Every govt starts killing their own people when there’s protests. Even ours.


Do you have an example of this in the U.S.?! I'm betting not.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Are you #ing kidding? Kent state. The Pinkertons and the labor wars. The branch davidians. The ludlow massacre. The natives marching 2 years ago to protest the pipeline. The Bundy standoff.

The us was very close to declaring martial law under Bush. Think that wouldn’t have ended with violence?
The civil war.

I assure you if there were massive national protests, or a massive strike, the govt would intervene with troops. Likely mercenaries like black water.

The only reason they haven’t had a serious intervention up to now is because their mechanisms of control are still effective.

And let’s not forget the daily murders by police of people sitting in their homes, or unarmed motorists, or grenades in baby’s cribs, or people shot through their windows with no warning etc by our militarized police. And the legalized theft the police have carried out on millions of Americans over the last decade.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


Are you #ing kidding? Kent state. The Pinkertons and the labor wars. The branch davidians. The ludlow massacre. The natives marching 2 years ago to protest the pipeline. The Bundy standoff.


I'm not talking about armed militias and reasons for the government's need to use self defense.

When Syrian rebels protested against Assad, there was no armed militia or army fighting the government. We're talking about everyday protesters who are unarmed and gathering in large numbers to disrupt, not to take down governments through a planned strategic war.


edit on 21-11-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: pexx421


Are you #ing kidding? Kent state. The Pinkertons and the labor wars. The branch davidians. The ludlow massacre. The natives marching 2 years ago to protest the pipeline. The Bundy standoff.


I'm not talking about armed militias and reasons for the government's need to use self defense.

When Syrian rebels protested against Assad, there was no armed militia or army fighting the government. We're talking about everyday protesters who are unarmed and gathering in large numbers to disrupt, not to take down governments through a planned strategic war.



Ah. I think you are mistaken about the nature of the Assad incident as well as the other “color revolutions” that have been widespread across the Middle East, South America, Ukraine, etc.

I’m sure you will disagree, probably something along the lines of “they were spontaneous events of people fighting for their democratic rights and freedoms, blah blah” and it will devolve to a long argument where I point out ngo and cia involvement and you state we had nothing to do with it, and we will end at a stonewall disagreement so we don’t even really need to go there.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   
And where is the outcry against the 15000 wounded and 330 killed in Iraq protests over the last few weeks? By the us created govt there? Oh, yeah. It’s because the media is full of #. Just like the opcw is now having reports of lies and obfuscations of their accusations of Syria using chem weapons on its people, accusations from the opcw’s OWN officials and researchers. I can’t believe anyone still believes official narratives from msm. Especially when at the same time they are constantly accusing the msm of lying about all the other things that don’t support that persons ideology or narrative.
edit on 21-11-2019 by pexx421 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Sorry, deetermined, if my posts come across as aggressive. Here’s my issue. Sanctions are an act of war. We use them specifically to create this kind of result. They target the poor and working class, often resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, often of children like in Iraq (500000 estimated children dead due to us sanctions). And then when society begins to collapse we use it as caussis belli for an invasion, which inevitably causes more deaths (estimated 1.5 million in Iraq). So these are largely us created situations leading to massive death and turmoil, that we blame on others.

And let’s be clear. There’s a name for targeting the civilian population in order to force a change in government. It’s called “terrorism”. Sanctions are an act of war and a crime. And we use them because they are absolutely effective in creating exactly the situation we see here. Sanctions are a crime, war is a crime, and rather than pointing out the progenitor of that crime we blame the victims.

And if you think that in that same situation, massive people protesting in the streets in the us, disrupting business, that the us wouldn’t do the same I expect you are mistaken.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
After all, this is the nation that performed mk ultra against its own citizens. That performed the Tuskegee experiments, that tested bio weapons on its own people.

And as to your request for a government attack in the us against peaceful citizens I’d present to you McCarthyism. Massive amounts of citizens locked up, blacklisted, lives destroyed, all for just having an ideology that ran counter to predatory capitalism. A massive war to disenfranchise the working class and labor of their power to influence and participate in govt because their views went contrary to those of the ruling wealthy elite. The prison to pipeline system. Both of which were absolutely violent, and used to destroy the people’s ability to fight for equal rights and representation between the poor and working class vs the oligarchs.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421


Sanctions are an act of war.


I have no issue with your opinions and responses to me, some of it I agree with, but claiming sanctions are an act of war is not one of them.

The Syrian rebels got their start by watching everything that went down in Egypt when Mubarak was forced from office by protestors. Unfortunately, Egypt took another nasty turn resulting in the appointment of Morsi, which made the situation worse. This was when the U.S. decided to take a step back on it's stance on helping rebels to remove Assad. Unfortunately, once again, it didn't go as intended and we ended up messing that situation up even more by initially using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. So yes, some of what others are saying here is our fault when we get involved, but I truly don't believe that they originally started that way.


edit on 21-11-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
So, here’s how sanctions work. The us only has the ability to sanction because all financial transactions in the world go through swift. This will not be the case soon, and we will no longer be able to use them. However, until now, the us has been able to steal all a nations money held in or transferred through any transactions outside their country. And we’ve been able to monitor who buys their products or gives them money, and threaten to sanction those people as well. Using this, we steal a nations money, as in the billions Obama gave back to Iran, or the 30 billion we’ve currently stolen from Venezuela, and we coerce other nations to not trade with them.

This is nothing other than economic sabotage which IS an act of war. It may not be hot war, but neither is espionage, industrial sabotage, cyber sabotage (which we’ve also done to Iran) etc. They are all illegal.

Sanctions cause death, chaos, and the destruction of societies, and collapse of economies. How is this not an act of war? When China cut the west off from selling heroin to their people, we invaded them. That’s JUST for heroin....well, opium. Same difference. When Venezuela cut us corporations off from Venezuelan oil we began years of attacks, coups, etc. When Iran cut western corporations off from Iran’s oil we overthrew their govt and appointed a dictator. When Honduras wanted to raise the minimum wage we overthrew their govt. When Libya was pushing to found an African Union, and a gold backed African currency to free Africa from western banks we invaded, killed him under a flag of truce by anal rape with a knife, and destroyed their nation. These are all far less than sanctions, and yet we felt the correct response was either a coup, fomenting insurgency, or boots on the ground.

So if sanctions don’t constitute an act of war, if intentionally crushing a non aggressive nations economy and causing death on their poor and working class don’t constitute an act of war, then what does? And how would you classify it? I expect if China instantly stopped all trade with the us, we would likely invade.... if we thought we could win.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

LOL at your statement regarding throwing sanctions on "non-aggressive nations". That statement ruins your whole argument in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Iraq, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Honduras, Bolivia, none of them were or are any threat to the us.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

You obviously haven't done your homework on Iran or the middle east in general.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined
Oh I’ve read all the propaganda. And the investigative journalism. And the history. And I’ve served my time in the military. It’s quite clear to me who the aggressors are. I’m good thanks.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Deetermined
Oh I’ve read all the propaganda. And the investigative journalism. And the history. And I’ve served my time in the military. It’s quite clear to me who the aggressors are. I’m good thanks.


You do know the 1.5 million dead iraqis was debunked by their own ministry of health that keeps accurate count of dead right? the british poll was flawed,and didnt verify each death in person.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join