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.

 

I was right about the Iraqi civil war...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I posted a thread about the possibility of someone else trying to spark an Iraqi civil war. It got no posts



Well, It appears that I'm not the only one who believes this. I was listening to the Conspiracy Hour and apparently British soldiers dressed as Iraqis tried to bomb the HQ for the Sunni party. Please post your thoughts on this as I'm sure it seems obvious that someone else is trying to set off a political bomb in Iraq.




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Well, if your theory is that there IS NO civil war then your right.

I dont think its there yet and it most likely will be averted all together.

And its Iran and Syria btw who want civil war in Iraq.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Well, if your theory is that there IS NO civil war then your right.

I dont think its there yet and it most likely will be averted all together.

And its Iran and Syria btw who want civil war in Iraq.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by skippytjc]


i think japan wants a civil war in iraq actually


[edit on 21-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Let me correct you both- Syria lost big time with this invasion and will lose in the civil war (Baathist regime, lost it's top regional leader aside from Assad). Iran on the other will win big...BIG. Khomeini years ago stated that his top priority was a fundamentalist goverment in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. One left and Ahmajeen will get his unified Caliphate.
The Mullahs are salivating for a civil war, they only care about a big united Arab world which they can subdue ruthlessly and then command to megalomaniac world conquest plans. Sorry, but that's their long term goal.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Nakash is right. we iranians are blood thirsty killers and caused the 9/11 attacks, we even let bush be wired so he can even win the elections, we caused the cuban missile crises and we want to destroy the middle east. someone better stop us before its too late



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
...apparently British soldiers dressed as Iraqis tried to bomb the HQ for the Sunni party. Please post your thoughts on this as I'm sure it seems obvious that someone else is trying to set off a political bomb in Iraq.


Hmmm... my thoughts on this are:

*a gentle whistle of the wind as tumbleweed rolls past the bleached skull of a long dead cow, with a small desert lizard scurrying into the eyeball to aviod the midday texan sun...*

oh... sorry I got all lost there in my thoughts!

Yeah... bunk. There are plenty of domestic and local non-iraqi interests in sectarian struggle in Iraq... why would the British forces seek to stir it up?


Sep

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Let me correct you both- Syria lost big time with this invasion and will lose in the civil war (Baathist regime, lost it's top regional leader aside from Assad). Iran on the other will win big...BIG. Khomeini years ago stated that his top priority was a fundamentalist goverment in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. One left and Ahmajeen will get his unified Caliphate.
The Mullahs are salivating for a civil war, they only care about a big united Arab world which they can subdue ruthlessly and then command to megalomaniac world conquest plans. Sorry, but that's their long term goal.


I have to disagree with you my friend. It is in no way in Iran's interest for Iraq's current situation to spiral into civil war and that is why they have already began a dialogue with the United State's government in order to prevent such a tragedy, Iran will be a winner if the status quo continues and the fundamentalist Shias, with close links to Iran, keep their political power, through the process that the United States has nurtured.

The way things are going, the Sunnis are kept in check with a Shia dominated "Iraqi National Army", and such figures as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Muqtada al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani are gaining impressive powers in Iraq. The first two figures mentioned are very close the Iranian government. Hakim leads a party called "Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" a party that was created under the supervision of Khomeini and was based wholly in Iran until "Operation Iraq Freedom". His militia, The Badr Brigades, is the single biggest militia in Iraq, trained and armed by Iran.

The second figure al-Sadr has also gained much influence in southern Iraq, especially in Basra, where his militia dominates the official police forces. His recent visit to Iran (2-3 weeks ago?) cemented his status as an ally of Iran where he vowed that his militia would do everything in its power to support Iran's nuclear program. He also ran in the last election and his party do fairly well. His introduction in "United Iraqi Alliance" further demonstrated his close ties to the Iranian backed parties.

The third figure mentioned, the most influential man in Iraq, is an Iranian national. His resistance towards any meetings with United State's officials and his meeting with Iran's (then) foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi backed the assumption that he supports Iran.

So the three figures that currently dominate Iraq's political scene are very much pro-Iranian. I don't see why Iran would want to disrupt the current balance of power.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I think it's just a way to delay a war for Iran.
We all know if Iran doesn't stop or replace its current uranium enrichment activities to Russian soil war will be inevitable.

Do you really think they'll stop the enrichment? The simple answer is no.
A civil war in Iraq would be greatly in the Iranian's government interest, as it would strengthen the anti-western feeling by the use of smart propagandism. It's the perfect situation for an Arab coalition isn't it. Why do you think there's such an fuss on the Danish cartoons?

These cartoons were actually published in September last year, the fuss started a few weeks ago, as Danish imams specially traveled to several Arabian countries to spread the word. What's the background for doing this? In my opinion, only to strengthen the anti-western feelings, which will finally lead to a war.

I think it's already too far to stop.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Instability is good for Iran. The more militias it can get formed, the more resentment against America, the most Sunnis it can get to take the blame for everything wrong, the better. This is so clumsy I have to think if it was planned to some degree in advance.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join