It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


King Abdullah wants to wipe Israel and Iran off the map

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by YJLTG
I don't understand why US is still unashamedly ally of such a country as Saudi Arabia. S.Arabia is as much bad as Israel.

It is all about the oil. Saudi Aramco corporation ensures that the Saudi crude oil is refined with the help of American "assistance".

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by Mdv2

well here was my suggestion

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:27 AM

[edit on 7/1/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:01 AM
The Great Game of Geopolitics is getting more interesting everyday. Contrary to the widespread belief in conspiracy of an arch-conspiratorial "New World Order", the world actually consists of a torrent of interlocking establishment of elites that don't necessarily see eye to eye, and quite often at odds with one another.

There are two centers of this Hegelian struggle: the United States of America and the oil fields of the Middle East. To control those oil fields means international supremacy for a nation, and to control them depends on one's interactions with the US, and for the US, maintaining specific alliances in the Middle East.

For example, it is often thought that we are unconditional supporters of Israel. This is simply not true; the support for Israel is a lie crafted by those who subscribe to the Neo-conservative ideology, which exists as an American extension of 'Zionism'. The propaganda of Neo-conservatism ensnares the mind of the neo-theocrats who make up so much of the Republican Party, while the logistics of a 'buffer state' in the Middle East appeals to elements in our government that are backed by oil and defense interests who stand to profit.

But the government is shifting, for we do not necessarily need Israel to maintain a foothold in the Middle East: peace, or atleast mutual cooperation, with countries such as Iran are not yet an option to be cast aside. Strategic politicians such as Zbigniew Brzezinki (you may know him as Carter's Secretary of State, who initiated the funding of the Mujaheddin in a proxy war with the Soviet Union), who once advocated a regime change from that of the Islamic Revolution of Iran to a pro-Western government formed around the exiled Shah, is now a proponent of Western/Iranian reconciliation. From the horses mouth:

"These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well."

As much as I hate to agree with a character such as Brzezinski, it would seem that his apostasy is well founded. After all, he is the founder of geopolitical strategy, laid out in his book The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski is also a member of a secretive international foreign policy/geopolitical think-tank known only as Le Cercle (I urge everyone at ATS who hasn't read this article to read it; it will blow your mind!), which has maintained a lot of important ties to pro-Israel figures in the intelligence community. But this has changed: recent membership in Le Cercle has included characters such as Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi and Charles W. Freeman. Dr. Amirahmadi is a founding member of the American Iranian Council, which

"is a nonprofit and nonpartisan tax-exempt [501(c)3] educational organization dedicated to improving US-Iran relations through dialogue, better understanding, and constructive engagement." [1]

Charles W. Freeman, another member of the American Iranian Council, has maintained State Department positions for some thirty years. He has gone on record as saying:

, "As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent."

With the Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and the flotilla debacle this year, support for Israel in America has dropped even more, and undoubtedly the same goes in the policy making circles in Washington. Perhaps the peace route will began to take momentum.

Yet now we have Saudi Arabia saying this. Why? Well, for starters, despite both being fundamentalist Islamic countries, and the recent overtures of peace being made towards each other, Saudi Arabia and Iran stand at odds. It had even seen that the Saudis were cooperating with the Israelis in a build-up to military action in Iran. But perhaps, like Brzezinski and his cohorts in Le Cercle, Saudi Arabia has seen Israel outlive its usefulness through its diplomatic blunders and black eyes too many to count.

So all Israel has to do is bring back the Neo-Con element in America to keep its power. Quite a game.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:20 AM
reply to post by TheNewKid

I would avoid Tel Aviv. LOL

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:51 AM
So the Zionists want to bomb Iran for just wanting Nukes and Saudi Arabia goes and buys them from China.

Looks like America does not have the balls to go after the real terrorists to me.

The saudi public hate the royal puppets and could well turn if the puppets allow them to use the air space to attack Iran and it's way past time for uncle sam to remove the nukes it gave to the religious nut jobs in Iserail.

If the americans love the zionist jews so much then give them some real estate in the USA and the UK could do the same instead of giving other peoples land away in the middle east.

Putting the fox in the chicken pen was always designed to end in trouble.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by gem_man
reply to post by TheNewKid

I would avoid Tel Aviv. LOL

I would also avoid Tehran.

Both may glow in the dark soon.

And we may also get rid of some of the Palestinians at the same time as Iran's missiles can not be very accurate and any short rounds may hit Palestinians on the west bank.

Now if they try for the Israeli government (Knesset) that is even money that they kill as many or more Palestinians then Israelis.

Wonder what the Palestinians would say if 10,000 Palestinians were killed by Iranian nukes landing on them.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ANNED]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:25 AM
Id like to see what the US reaction would be if Saudi Arabia took out both Israel and Iran with some of those supposed nukes they are said to have......

we need their oil, so we'd probably side with them........interesting paradox.....

do we need the oil more or the zionist lobby more....not that hard to work out.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in