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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


oozy I am curious where do you get your information? You spout off at the mouth but yet back nothing up, like ooo lets say WWII was a civial War???? WTF!!!! Was it the northvs south? East vs West? Shirt vs Skins?




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


So are you saying that the USA is manipulating events to further their aims?

Whilst I doubt they are doing this to the extent it is occurring I am not naive or arrogant enough to know that I could well be wrong.
And I am most certainly aware of how easy it is to manipulate populations.
I suspect we all are being manipulated in one form or another and to varying degrees.

But still the fact remains, age old inbred and hateful differences are at the very core of a lot of the M.E.'s problems and there is a complete failure to recognise and admit this.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by oozyism
 


oozy I am curious where do you get your information? You spout off at the mouth but yet back nothing up, like ooo lets say WWII was a civial War???? WTF!!!! Was it the northvs south? East vs West? Shirt vs Skins?


It was European countries VS European countries (hence European civil war). It is the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer.

Europe was very powerful and rich, Europe basically owned the whole of Africa and rich middle east. The control of Europe would mean the inherit of Africa and Middle East. Watch this map, see how Africa was divided:



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


In 1914 the Turkish Ottoman Empire controlled what is now called the middle east. Which leads me to refer you back to the article I posted earlier in this thread regarding the sources of the conflicts there today ...




edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Manipulation VS hate, common, you can't be that naive, they are both under the same banner..

People are being manipulated to hate each other, look at how Sunnis are being manipulated through Saudi Arabia to hate Shiits. They are told to not even recognize Shiits as Muslims.

Nice discussing this with you



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
If the US wants a Middle East War, then they are complete pussies, the lot of them.

The US has had loads of Warships, Carriers, Submarines and Drones next to Iran for how many years now?

How much has this cost the US taxpayer?

Why is the US President wasting billions of dollars on this when people in the US have no jobs, can't feed themselves and are dying from simple diseases?

If the US wanted a War, they should have pushed a few buttons, launched hundreds of cruise missiles at Iranian Nuclear targets / processing plants and got Israel to mop up YEARS AGO!

If they had any balls and done this, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Maggie Thatcher, the UK Priminister back in the 1980's when Argentina captured the UK owned Falkland Islands didn't put up with any cr*p!

We went straight down there and kicked the Argies out.

She had more balls than Obama and what a complete waste of time and money organising all these UN Sanctions on Iran, which they have completely ignored!

Israel is TOAST if Iran isn't sorted out very soon.

But who will do it? Don't rely on Mr I Can't Make A Decision Weakling Obama ...!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


umm sorry in atvance if this is ignorant or wrong but wouldnt a "civil war" be between people of the same state ie Iraq has a civil war so i dont see how we can be starting a civil war when they arent the same people they aren't the same faith (sunny #e's etc) and are not curently no group that forms an "aliance" of middle eastern countries more like various factions?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Not only USA... Another statement which will cause "peace negotiations" to fail...

Netanyahu wants to keep Israeli troops at Palestinian border with Jordan




Israel’s leader is demanding that Israeli troops remain on the border of a future Palestinian state with neighboring Jordan, further antagonizing the Palestinians at a time when they are already threatening to walk out of peace talks.

The negotiations, which resumed this month in Washington after a two-year breakdown, are foundering over Palestinian demands that Israel extend a partial curb on settler construction in the occupied West Bank which is set to expire soon.

Israel’s military chief told lawmakers on Tuesday that the military was preparing for possible clashes between Israelis and Palestinians should the negotiations run aground.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has contended that Israel must maintain a troop presence along the border with Jordan to keep Palestinian militants from smuggling in weapons to the occupied West Bank after a peace deal is reached.

Late on Monday, Netanyahu drove home this position in great detail – angering the Palestinians, who flatly reject the idea as an infringement of their prospective sovereignty. They have proposed that an international force be deployed instead.

“I don’t believe that under these circumstances, international troops will do the job,” Netanyahu said in a conference call with US Jewish leaders. “The only force that can be relied on to defend the Jewish people is the [Israeli military].”

That will never happen, said Palestinian spokesman Husam Zomlot, adding that “not one Israeli soldier” will be permitted to remain in a future Palestinian state.


dailystar.com.lb...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Strange, WWII was the catalyst for the break up of Empire and the emergence of the nation state and independance in Africa, the Middle East and the asian sub-contnent.

A civil war is where two or more opposing sides in one country fight each other for control of the said country.
However, I do understand the point you are trying to make by calling it a 'European civil war', although all those who fought against the Japanese most definately won't see it that way.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by minkey53
 


What do you think will happen to US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if Iran is attacked?

Americans are crying after couple of thousand US troop deaths, imagine 50000, it would only take a hundred stingers
..



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 





People are being manipulated to hate each other, l


You mean like you hate western culture? Or how you post your ideology as FACT without any real representation of what is really going on? Or how you swallow the distorted views of history and then regurgitate them back to further the propaganda and hate towards any culture that isnt muslim?

Sounds a little hypocritical dont you think?

All of your posts are the same OOZI, they all bring about the same "proof" , and links that you post in every other thread that you write...

And they have been debated down and shown as false........then when they are you post ANOTHER thread with the same EXACT goal , only different wording......

Do you ever get tired of just posting the same things over and over again?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


i almost never dissagree with you and NEVER agree with oozy as i have him on ignore the only think i can even TRY to think of as a "civil war" that happend in ww2 was the french vs vichy french but i think that might have just been a cloaboration effort not full on civil war does that make sense but thats the only thing i can think of that he could be talking about



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


No the empires still exist, but they try to hide their borders, give pretense freedom therefore a guarantee that there wouldn't be an uprising against them hence that is how the Ottoman empire fell..

The US empire is rogue, it is hidden, it doesn't reveal its boundaries in the map, not for world leaders, but for world population.

The Japanese situation came later, hence US had a plan to dominate the world, and still does with the NWO rhetorics, the point is, it started off at Europe, after that, USSR and China was left, two nations which could face the US, the US faced both China and USSR in the past. USSR also had a plan to conquer the world, hence the cold war, both empires fighting for Europe and Middle East which caused a lot of the mess, and cause millions of deaths.

Let's not forget about South America, then again that is a whole different issue.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The animosity and hatred between Sunni and Shi'a has been happening for centuries and Saudi Arabia is not alone in fuelling this.
And this can not be blamed on 'The West'.

It is but one example of the numerous religious, tribal and ethnic differences that plagues the region.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Preposterous.

That's like saying that the Us - Taliban war is a "civil war", just because there's fighting going on.

Do you understand the concept of "countries"?

How exactly are you defining "civil war"? We already know you have a penchant for defining terms on your own, independent of any known dictionary, and then expecting that the rest of the world will just accept YOUR strange definitions as fact.

Nah, it doesn't work that way. WWII was anything BUT a "civil war".



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Well if it made you target me rather than debate the issue, then it means it is getting in to you


As long as you are here and reading it, and not being able to debate it, I'm happy.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by minkey53
 


What do you think will happen to US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if Iran is attacked?


Ummm... they'd wind up fighting? Wait - isn't what they are doing NOW?



Americans are crying after couple of thousand US troop deaths, imagine 50000, it would only take a hundred stingers
..


Uh, you might want to ask your dad about how truthful THAT comment is... I'm guessing that he's aware of what Stingers can and can't do...

But thanks for the intel that some of your comrades have 100 Stingers. Where did they get them, how old are they, and how would they be brought into play?


edit on 2010/9/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


OK can you please tell me this one thing, do you think Americans can be manipulated in to hating each other to a extent that would cause a civil war (important: in a state of vulnerability)?

Are you suggesting that is not possible?

If it is possible, then don't blame the middle eastern situation on deep rooted hate, rather blame it on the same manipulation which can cause havoc in the US.

People can live in a country together, even if they hate each other to death, look at your own country for god sakes. Are you suggesting there aren't any skin head racist bigots living in the same country with a huge black population?

Think for a second.. Then get back at me.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Interesting that neither of you chose to mention operation ajax, aka the 1953 UK/ US plan to bring down the Mossadaq government.
Slayer I can understand, but as a long time lurker I am suprised at you omitting it nenothtu.

Could I ask you question Neno. Why do you think the Carter government chose not to support the shah. Was it simply that they thought Khomeini would be extremly anti soviet or did the revolution really catch them unawares?
Wheres Brzezinski nowadays?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by nenothtu
 


i almost never dissagree with you and NEVER agree with oozy as i have him on ignore the only think i can even TRY to think of as a "civil war" that happend in ww2 was the french vs vichy french but i think that might have just been a cloaboration effort not full on civil war does that make sense but thats the only thing i can think of that he could be talking about


Yup, that could be considered a "civil war", but the situation didn't come about until 1940, after France had already been defeated by the Nazis, so it was a part of WWII, but not a precursor to it, the cause of it, or the entirety of the war.

So, even thought that could be considered a civil war (I personally would consider it a resistance thing, but that's just splitting hairs), Oozy STILL loses, because his statement that WWII was a civil war encompasses a much wider area of Europe than just France.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join