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.

 

US wants a middle east civil war

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Your source contradicts your argument.


How so? My argument is that Saudi Arabia was arming the insurgency, to a much stronger degree than Iran.



Yes I'm sure "Private" citizens will provide resources to the Sunni, It's not like an official state policy like it is in Iran.


And you know that this is Iranian policy how? What is your proof? What could make you conclude in such a way? The US government? The MSM? The two sources that also told you Saddam was in bed with Al Qeada or that Iraq had WMD? What about when they told you that Iraqi oil would pay for the war? You believe them when they tell you that the Iranian government is arming and fueling the insurgency?

Come on Slayer, I took you more seriously than that.


I have and this is all part of the propaganda...


Lol, the famous rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you is spreading propaganda, right? As yourself this, why on Earth would Iran provoke a war with the US?

With that being said, I have no doubt that some weapons come from Iran, though the vas majority of the dangerous insurgents are being armed by Saudi terrorists groups. For the most part, it was the Shia militias that were keeping the peace against Sunni terrorism. I have almost no doubt in my mind that these are the groups armed by Iran. Sunnis were wiping out the Shiites with all kinds of terrorists attacks, so the Shiites formed militias and worked hand in hand with the US military.

You see, it wouldn't be too convenient for Americans to know that Saudi was the main problem with the insurgency, as Americans might demand something be done about it. Instead, you claim Iran is supplying the insurgency and provide no proof of it, though almost everyone on the ground would agree that the problem was the Saudi backed Sunnis, Al Qaeda in Iraq (Sunni, and their real name was not "Al Qaeda in Iraq", as that is a MSM fabrication, for the most part).

However, because Iran was a target anyway (due to the oil-Bourse mainly), why not just blame all of the problems on them and get the American people against Iran?



The US and Saudi Arabia have been allies for over 90 years. I'll agree there are particular sections in their country that I would have a few choice words for.


Well, sort of, though not the people who the US government help oppress by backing the Saudi Royal family. You see, the American government and corporate interests enriches the Saudi Royals (and inner circle) by paying the royals for the resources, who in turn give nothing back to the people. In turn, the Saudis keep a hard line approach to the peasants. In fact, without US support, the people of Saudi Arabia would have over-thrown their tyrants a long time ago.

Unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Also, Iran used to be in the same position as Saudi Arabia, only more extreme. Iran once had an almost perfect democratic government, that is until America overthrew that government in a CIA led coup, only to install the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people. The American government backed, supplied and enriched this Shah, so long as the minerals kept flowing to US corporations. When the Iranian people couldn't take it any longer, they revolted, Fearful that the US military would come into save the Shah, they stormed the US embassy and held the workers as hostages.

After finally taking back their country, they again instituted a democratic government. The irony of it all, is that America was supposedly all about Democracy and in fact the excuse of "spreading democracy" is the reason for many American lives being lost. It's funny how democracy seemed to be bad for the US, in countries that have minerals. You see, Saudi Arabia is the same position as Iran with the Shah, though the Saudi royals aren't as abusive (though plenty of abuse).


Let me finish that sentence for you....

For equipping and supplying insurgence who have stirred the Iraqi pot going back 7 to 8 years, needlessly extending the war and the death toll.


Lol, yeah that's it. It has nothing to do with the extremely threatening oil-Bourse, Chinese oil trades and not being part of the American empire. Come on, I didn't take you as being that foolish. Again I ask you, what makes you believe that Iran is fueling the insurgency? MSM as a sources, simply won't cut it, as they have a record of lying to us about countries in American and/or Israeli cross-hairs. You can't say, "I saw it on CNN" because I also saw on CNN how Iraqi oil would pay for the war, Saddam has ties with Al Qaeda and WMD are in Iraq.

Do you really think that the huge target on Iran is because they are fueling the insurgency? Is this the reason for all of the lies about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Is this the reason for all of the propaganda and spin, putting words in his mouth that he didn't say?

The notion that Iran is fueling the Iraq violence is the same propagandic effort that says Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Israel be wiped off the map. It's all propaganda designed to get those less inclined to think on their own, to support regime change in Iran, thus allowing the states to install another puppet, tear down the Bourse, and allow corporations to reclaim Iran's minerals (under some fancy name, such as the "Iranian Peoples' Oil", that is really only a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil). Can't you see it? It's all a huge effort to garner support in taking down Iran, just as they did in the lead up to the war with Iraq, though on a much larger scale. If you can't see that, then it is hopeless.



You know, Bush would never implicate his friends......

especially since Bush and TPTB want to go to war with Iran.


Well actually, semantics my dear, I left off the past tense "want" when it should have been "wanted". Furthermore, I still believe that Bush and the interests both behind and in front of him, want to go to war with Iran. The Bush dynasty - and the Clintons - as well as other government stalwarts (and foreigners) have controlling influence in corporations that in turn have controlling influence on [American] government.

If you actually look into the huge propaganda campaign against the Iranian regime, you would actually see that it is most lies. Their is a consorted effort to demonize the Iranian government, as is evident by just turning on the MSM. Instead of allowing the MSM to put words in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mouth, just listen to his words yourself. Instead of believing what the government says about their nuclear program, just read the IAEA reports. Instead of believing the media on Iran's viewpoint of Jews, just listen to the large percentage of Jews who live in Tehran, even being a part of their democratically elected government (yes, Jews form part of the Iranian government, something the MSM would never tell you about). In fact, Iran is home to the largest population of Jews in the ME, outside of Israel. Furthermore, these Jews were given the opportunity at moving to Israel with not only land grants, but money packages too, worth thousands of dollars a head, yet they declined, as Iran is their home and they are "well-to-do" there.

The point being, that just like the government and MSM did with Iraq, leading up to the war, they are doing the same thing with Iran, only because of the socio-political climate, they are doing it much harder with Iran. Just as they lied to us about Iraq, they are lying to us about Iran. The whole effort is to get at least some popular support behind a regime change.

Check out my thread titled, "
Target Iran: The real reason behind the bull's-eye pegged on Iran
" for further reading on Iran and why they are America's (and the American Empire's) target.

All it really takes, is the slightest bit of research to get a clear picture of reality.



--airspoon


Edit to add: I have a meeting but when I return, I'll answer the posts added after the one this was in reply to.


edit on 21-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
The two sources that also told you Saddam was in bed with Al Qeada or that Iraq had WMD? What about when they told you that Iraqi oil would pay for the war? You believe them when they tell you that the Iranian government is arming and fueling the insurgency?


Nice, trying to put words into my mouth and decide what I know and believe SWEET.

Can we say EGO?


Come on Slayer, I took you more seriously than that.


Then hear this loud and CLEAR.
I read all sides of a story, That includes your OPINIONS as well and make up my own mind.

Thanks


Lol, the famous rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you is spreading propaganda, right? As yourself this, why on Earth would Iran provoke a war with the US?


Propaganda is spewed by all sides. I am aware of that. Are you?


With that being said, I have no doubt that some weapons come from Iran,


Well finally you'll admit that there are two sides to the equation.



Check out my thread titled, "Target Iran: The real reason behind the bull's-eye pegged on Iran" for further reading on Iran... All it really takes, is the slightest bit of research to get a clear picture of reality.


I have, thanks for the plug for your biased thread. I know it played well with the bleeding hearts and Iranian apologists here at ATS. Here is one of my own Unbiased older threads on the topic of Iran.

Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!
Check the date of posting....posted on 25-6-2009 Way before you ever Joined ATS.




All it really takes, is the slightest bit of research to get a clear picture of reality.


Exactly and one shouldn't believe everything they read on either side.



edit on 21-9-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Whilst I agree with the majority of what you have said I also only think it's fair to say that there was no easy solution to the Middle East problems after WW's I and II.
No matter what decisions were made and solutions agreed upon nothing was going to please everybody.
It is easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight.

Of course the actions of a succession European and US governments have not helped the situation.
But if the truth is to be told then those people's in the Middle East have not helped themselves.
It may not be quite politically correct to say this but the rampant and inherent corruption, the blinding hatred between Sunni and Shi'a, the mutual inbred abhorence of each other shown by Jews and Muslims all contribute to the ongoing hell that is The Middle East.
And all of them refuse to accept any level of responsibility and continue to irrationally blame anyone and everyone but themselves.

The 'West' is no shining example of virtue and honour but it is also not responsible for all of the world's ill's, far from it.

Until they accept that they are at least partially responsible for the mess they are in themselves and the need to put aside their own bigotry and hatred then they will never move forward free from the hatred that is holding them back.

If the USA had intentions to invade or bomb Iran it would have done years ago.
Does the USA want to provoke a major military confrontation within the M.E.?
I don't know, probably not.
The 'West' is tired of fighting and know that difficult times are ahead domestically.
I really think they would much prefer a diplomatic solution.




edit on 21/9/10 by Freeborn because: poor grammer, knackered keyboard and fat fingers, again!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Now there is a fair and honest appraisal of the situation.
I also like this bit here that apparently many seem to forget.


If the USA had intentions to invade or bomb Iran it would have done years ago. Does the USA want to provoke a major military confrontation within the M.E.? I don't know, probably not.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Now there is a fair and honest appraisal of the situation.
I also like this bit here that apparently many seem to forget.


If the USA had intentions to invade or bomb Iran it would have done years ago. Does the USA want to provoke a major military confrontation within the M.E.? I don't know, probably not.


You beat me to saying basically the same thing - here's an honest and fair appraisal.

Nice to see some others here that actually believe in looking at issues from more than one side instead of arrogantly deciding that they alone KNOW the "real truth" based on their "education" and "experience".



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

""US wants a middle east civil war, that way it can send Iran back to the stone ages, like it did in the past using Saddam, but failed. ""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i really wouldn't call that kind of war a 'civil war'..... as the USA was orchestrating a war between nations;
Iran v Iraq...
but the larger picture was that the conflict wasn't about Nationalism but was fought more along the
Sunni vs Shia denominations of Muslim/Islam a conflict or adversarial relationship thing going on for 1.400+ years...or just after the Prophet was taken into heaven...the followers have been at-it ever since







edit on 21-9-2010 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I just did an ATS search on the word "bourse", and the almost funny thing is that people have been predicting war on iran for starting their own oil "bourse" since the last Bush administration. As we all know, that never happened - even with such a "war monger" president. Now with a president who loathes the military and has the Nobel Peace Prize
, some people still think an attack on iran is imminent? Really?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I think you will find that oozyism loves to use the term "civil war" in context with evil Zionist + bad bad USA, and also has a habit of calling WW2 "civil war'


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Jews are extremely smart, I mean common, who else has reincarnated a nation by forcefully, knowingly and purposefully encouraging Jews from all around the world to go to a small piece of land. I mean common, before the above paragraph they were the ones who orchestrated the European Civil war helping USA and USSR take over Europe (divide and conquer).


www.abovetopsecret.com...



After the American invasion of Iraq, Mossad and CIA units (acting as mobile killing units) began massive killing operations aimed at Muslim, more than a million deaths were recorded (but blamed on civil war which was orchestrated by the CIA&MOSSAD


www.abovetopsecret.com...



I was sure America was the one who orchestrated the civil war as a war tactic which actually helped them win against the resistance.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



because the US gave Palestine to the Zionists, for helping the US take down Europe (hence helping start the European civil war). My point was that Zionist Jews helped start European civil war.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy.


Iran is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. For roughly 2,500 years, it was a monarchy - from the foundation of the monarchy by Cyrus to the takeover by militants in 1979. After the 1979 takeover, and the installation of Ruhollah Khomeini, it was a theocracy, and has continued so ever since.

NEVER been a democracy.



Iran once had an almost perfect democratic government, that is until America overthrew that government in a CIA led coup, only to install the Shah of Iran, a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people.


The Shah took the throne in September, 1941, after a Soviet - Anglo invasion in WWII. When was the CIA formed again? Yet you assert THEY put the Shah on the throne? Was the CIA Soviet, or was it English at that time? Or was it NON-EXISTENT?



The American government backed, supplied and enriched this Shah, so long as the minerals kept flowing to US corporations. When the Iranian people couldn't take it any longer, they revolted, Fearful that the US military would come into save the Shah, they stormed the US embassy and held the workers as hostages.


Ah, I understand now. Your political stripe is showing. "Fearful that the US would come in to save the Shah"? Into WHERE? the Shah wasn't in Iran at the time of the takeover. The militants attacked the US embassy because they were afraid that America might invade Egypt?



After finally taking back their country, they again instituted a democratic government.


Democracy... Theocracy... it's all the same thing, right?

For a self-proclaimed "Middle Eastern Specialist" and historian, I find your revisionist history a fascinating study. Not fascinating historically, rather fascinating politically.


edit on 2010/9/21 by nenothtu because: I needed to fix a tag.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


For a "Historian" He sure leaves a lot out.....


nenothtu
Nice reply, I was about to post something similar.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 





Your belief is wrong. I posted an article awhile back from Military History Magazine showing that the roots of today's middle east instability actually go back to World War I and Lawrence of Arabia's arab rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. After the war, the victorious European powers divided up the middle east using only a ruler on a map instead of common sense. Like groups were placed on the opposite sides of arbitrary lines. The Kurds being a perfect example.


It is unfortunate that you don't even know the topic you are debating. What conflict in the middle east are you talking about? The only conflict which comes even close to your above supposed conflict relating to Middle East would be Palestine/Israel, hence the promise of that land as a nation to the aborigines of Palestine by the British.

That being said, the rest of the conflicts, at least major ones can all be dragged back and dumped in to the cold war dead body circle. Even Iran, even Saddam, even Afghanistan, all of these messed up BS have been the direct product of cold war, where USSR and US fought for world domination.

Let's not forget Afghanistan had a moderate government, let's not forget Iraq had a moderate government, let's not forget Iran had a moderate government. American interference in all of these countries for dominance and control not only destroyed some of these countries but also created long term problems like Afghanistan.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I don't know what I'm talking about?



I sincerely doubt anyone but you and maybe "airspoon" even begin to believe what you post is in the same universe as the truth.

I've posted research from people that are respected far more in the real world than the hacks that post here calling themselves "experts".



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by centurion1211
 




Let's not forget Afghanistan had a moderate government, let's not forget Iraq had a moderate government, let's not forget Iran had a moderate government. American interference in all of these countries for dominance and control not only destroyed some of these countries but also created long term problems like Afghanistan.


Iraq had a moderate government? Do you mean 'moderate' like when they used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja?
Nice moral standards you got there. Should I make some pop corn, beacause this is getting better by the minute.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
That being said, the rest of the conflicts, at least major ones can all be dragged back and dumped in to the cold war dead body circle. Even Iran, even Saddam, even Afghanistan, all of these messed up BS have been the direct product of cold war, where USSR and US fought for world domination.



oozism.
I'm going to star your reply for having read up on some of the contributing factors to the present day situation. I cannot say I agree with the rest of your reply but you got this part right.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by centurion1211
 


For a "Historian" He sure leaves a lot out.....


nenothtu
Nice reply, I was about to post something similar.


Same wavelength much?

But airspoon claims that the middle east is what his education and career are focused on. That would be like someone who claims to be a U.S. expert also claiming that the U.S. is a monarchy.

The correct description of iran's government would be "theocracy" - not "democracy" - since a religious oligarchy holds the true power in that country. Recall iranian "democracy in action" when they tried to vote out the pajamaman in the last "election".




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by oozyism
 


Iran supplies Hizbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organisations with some pretty lethal arms and weapons, bent on creating a nuclear warhead, not to mention their political meddling in the affairs of Iraqi, Lebanese and Syrian Govts. Constantly threatening Israel, the USA and Europe. Iran is among the world's worst human rights violators on record.

And the US supplies the CIA terrorists, that should be good enough of an argument to stop your MSM BS.. And the human rights violator lol:
the death sentence of an American woman with borderline mental retardation

and for the meddling, you have to prove that, but I can prove that America has been meddling in internal affairs of far more countries. I can prove that the US have been implementing coups, assassinations, proxy wars, orchestrating civil wars, outright invading countries and bombing nations because they feel like it. That being said, the OP is correct in regards to US causing insanity against Iran due to its refusal to let go of the Middle East, and allow people to vote, rather than plant puppets who do US beddings.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

If the USA had intentions to invade or bomb Iran it would have done years ago.
Does the USA want to provoke a major military confrontation within the M.E.?
I don't know, probably not.


What they cant spark one off with war in Iraq and Afganastan? Dont know about wanting one but I wouldnt call them a major military confrontation unless Russia of China jumps in.



edit on 21-9-2010 by Logarock because: p



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gravitational

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by centurion1211
 




Let's not forget Afghanistan had a moderate government, let's not forget Iraq had a moderate government, let's not forget Iran had a moderate government. American interference in all of these countries for dominance and control not only destroyed some of these countries but also created long term problems like Afghanistan.


Iraq had a moderate government? Do you mean 'moderate' like when they used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja?


No no it was moderate....once Sadam executed half the government.
Live on TV for some of them.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitational
 




Iraq had a moderate government? Do you mean 'moderate' like when they used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja?
Nice moral standards you got there. Should I make some pop corn, beacause this is getting better by the minute.

I have spoken to you before and you have a tendency to waste time because of your refusal to deny ignorance..

Saddam came to power after a CIA backed coup, Qassim was a moderate, the only problem with Qassim was, that he wanted to nationalize oil.


In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

www.hartford-hwp.com...

Why does every one keep forgetting that when US had its thumb up Saddam's butt, it was OK for Saddam to:
[1] The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[/url

[2] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq]Secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, targeted assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control.


Is it really that hard to understand why the US allowed the mass murder of Kurds and Shiits, and the use of chemical weapons against Iranians, allowed millions of deaths? The funny thing is, when Saddam stopped its nuclear program, stopped its bio/chemical program, stopped producing weapons of mass destruction, and said no to US (ayatollah of Iraq), Iraq was sanctions (over 1 millions infant deaths), then invaded and hanged (over 1 million Iraqi deaths).

So you tell me, when he was doing what the US asked him to do, he was able to torture, mass murder, and produce WMD, but when he said no to US authority, and actually change for the better, he was hanged. It kinda proves my point, that he cut the strings of his puppet master, then the puppet master came to show him who the master is, and US sure did show him



edit on 21-9-2010 by oozyism because: Sorry Forgot Link



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Those tactics are getting boring..

Care to comment in regards to my post rather than just attacking me




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join