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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JMech
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yes of course your right(your always right). Americans are crying over the loss of a few thousand troops and we cry over the loss of one also!!! Even though the losses continue, we will still keep coming. Take that message to your freinds back home.




"Cry Me a River" is the second single from Justin Timberlake's solo debut album Justified.

en.wikipedia.org...(Justin_Timberlake_song)

Don't worry, that is exactly what the USSR soldiers said in the past, they kept coming and dying, the numbers went higher and higher, then vvvvvvshhssssshshshss, and I'm like what happened, what was that sound, that sound was the sound of of USSR running back to where they came from




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier
 




Actually we do, we elect politicians to serve us. So in a sense everyone controls the US who votes. Politicians are the elected representatives of the people.


Ohh really


You mean politicians are liars who lie to you, then you eat those lies over and over and over again, until you can't eat it anymore and die.

Seriously, think about it, Obama brought change??



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


The US helped prolong The Troubles by funding The Provo's, it's a source of great annoyance and resentment in the UK.
That support seems to have dwindled since 9/11.

Due to the shear numbers of people who oppose the IRA and their military superiority that could never develop into a full blown civil war.
Just my opinion, no facts to support it really.

I also think that if a situation ever occurred where a significant number of people were willing to enter armed conflict with the government / Establishment etc the difference in weaponry and resources would eliminate the threat pretty quickly.

However, I think serious civil unrest is becoming more and more likely by the day.

Do not confuse civil unrest and disobedience with civil war.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Do you admit the possibility is there, but since UK is not vulnerable, it is very unlikes at the moment?

If UK was vulnerable to from outside interference, wouldn't the chances of civil unrest and civil war increase?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thanks for the reply nenothu. I have been lurking ATS for a couple of years now and while I don’t always agree with your pov, I do respect the things you and others have had to do.



Ajax clarified who was running the country, it didn't institute a "regeime change" and put the Shah there out of nowhere, as has been insinuated. What Ajax did was to replace one sub-official with another, with Mossadegh having committed a treasonous act against the Shah.

The treasonous act being the decision to nationalise Iran’s key industry? The Brits def were not happy and the US was (justifiably imho) concerned about the rise of the communist party in Iran.

Sorry my friend but can I humbly disagree with you. Ajax was more than a simple clarification of power. A democratically elected government was removed and I am surprised you would play it down..



The revolution caught them unawares, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.

Its always interested me just why, the US didn’t move to support the former shah, its not as if the revolution happened overnight. Did some in Western government think that radicalised religion could act as buffer to Communism and a distraction to the region? If they are fighting among themselves....


edit on 21-9-2010 by joewalker because: respect



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:47 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



That DID not start WWII.
Nor did it drag all of Europe into a global conflict which also included the Japanese attacking the US or invading China, Korea and all points south/southwest and southeast.



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



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I have a feeling Babylon/Sumeria might have some information very damaging to what has been taught to the world for the last 2000 years.

Cant imagine what the money laundering thing was all about at the Vatican

They (THE USA) ransacked the crap out of the Iraq museum and found some interesting things. Something tells me its much more than oil and mineral rights and its more than just destructive muslim radicals.

I'm not speaking of the looters that ransacked the museum but the folks that ran the looters off



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


That is an interesting thought, what do you think they could have looted from there?

It must be something important, but what, do you have any idea??



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thanks for the reply nenothu. I have been lurking ATS for a couple of years now and while I don’t always agree with your pov, I do respect the things you and others have had to do.


Thanks, and there's no need for you to always agree with my pov. If we always agreed, one of us would be completely superfluous, unnecessary. Doesn't mean we can't have a beer together every now and again.




Ajax clarified who was running the country, it didn't institute a "regeime change" and put the Shah there out of nowhere, as has been insinuated. What Ajax did was to replace one sub-official with another, with Mossadegh having committed a treasonous act against the Shah.

The treasonous act being the decision to nationalise Iran’s key industry? The Brits def were not happy and the US was (justifiably imho) concerned about the rise of the communist party in Iran.

Sorry my friend but can I humbly disagree with you. Ajax was more than a simple clarification of power. A democratically elected government was removed and I am surprised you would play it down..


No, not to my mind. I would think the treasonous act was to ignore the order of the Shah which dismissed Mossadegh and appointed Zahedi in his stead, thereby effecting a de-facto coup. Monarchies aren't run quite the same way as democracies are, and Iran was a monarchy until the 1979 revolt. I'm not big on monarchies, but I'm not big on democracies either. A democracy is nothing more than a monarchy with way too many chiefs, as far as I'm concerned. In either, the minority is at the mercy of the power structure. A democracy just has a much larger power structure. Mossadegh's nationalization of the oil wouldn't have bothered me one way or the other, except for the obvious socialist implications of that, influenced I would guess by the communist Tudeh.

Funny how even the communists turned against Mossadegh in the end, isn't it?




The revolution caught them unawares, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.

Its always interested me just why, the US didn’t move to support the former shah, its not as if the revolution happened overnight. Did some in Western government think that radicalised religion could act as buffer to Communism and a distraction to the region? If they are fighting among themselves....


edit on 21-9-2010 by joewalker because: respect



Well, to be honest, Islam and communism have always been at loggerheads. Muslims will accept weapons from communists, but they balk at the strings that were often attached. Afghanistan was a flareup of that sort of rivalry. Communism had gained a foothold in Afghanistan, and in fact the government at that time was socialist, and the more "devout" muslims had issues with that. Several employees at the Soviet embassy in Kabul were beheaded to express the displeasure, and Mother Russia used that as an excuse to send in troops to secure the country, to make it safe for socialism., under the guise of a "request for help" from the socialist Afghan government.

Back to the Iranian Revolution, though. I can recall that events at the time moved with what appeared to be a blinding speed. I'm sure there were elements that heard the rumbling and tried to sound an alarm, but I'm equally sure they were played down and all but ignored at the time. The general public only knew the impact of what was going on for about a 3 day period ( on the news, the Sandinista Revolution was getting a lot more air time, since it was much closer to home) as Khomeini left France and returned to Iran in triumph, and then the Shah was on the run, a king without a country. I honestly believe that everything there took Carter by surprise, as he was really busy trying to find a way to aid the Central American socialist revolutions, most notably the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, and elements in Carter's own government were giving him the "WTF?" treatment.

I think, and this is just my own opinion, that Carter was overwhelmed by it all, and hesitated out of uncertainty. By the time he got over that, the window had closed, and he was afraid to give the Shah any more aid than he absolutely had to. So, even though Islam was at odds with Communism, I don't think that really figured into Carter inaction so much as cowardice did. I recall that Iran was chasing the Shah around the globe with "arrest warrants", and when he came here for treatment, there was some fear that the Iranians would demand extradition from the US, and put Carter in an awkward position. He was only here for a couple of months before he was off again. Khomeini wasn't nearly as preoccupied with communism as he was with the Shah, and the chance that the Shah might attempt a counter-revolution.

Carter just didn't want to get into that mess, and we had a hostage crisis for about 444 days as a result of a series of misunderstandings and bad decisions.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

the US wants a ME war???

I think u are missing a couple points here.

It's not the US,
it's Zionism (Jews) who wants a ME war.
US is just the puppet at the
end of the string.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Well whether Zionists or not, the point is, US is being used..

I always argued that either Zionist regime of Israel runs the empire, or Israel is the capital of the empire, it is a rogue empire therefore we can only see glimpses of it from time to time. I'm still trying to create the map for it, I know it will take me a long time, I have to gather as much information as possible to back each nation being within the empire's control..

Some are obvious, some are not.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Do you not think it would be more fun instead of debating such issues on ATS , and talking about TPTB and the shadow governments and the head honchos who control the world , that we form the League of ATS , and go out enmass and remove these evil organisations and people who rule the world.

Seriosuly how many members on ATS hate TPTB and all they stand for , so we may argue and debate and downright flame each other sometimes but we all have one thing in common we all hate |TPTB

so lets form the league of ATS and destroy them , we have enough people here who know how to find these people , we can take them down !


It maybe a crazy suggestion but what it its our last chance to do something before the world goes down the tube



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sapien82
 


Although I agree, the problem is they can demonize us within days, if not weeks, they can make us look worse than those cavemen terrorists who press the trigger in markets.

Seriously, once that happens, we are doomed, our members can be taken hostage from all across the world, hence CIA operates everywhere, the only place we would be safe, would probably be Iran, N-Korea, maybe China, heck Malaysia and Indonesia, and maybe, just maybe Syria.. Some other countries in South America who are already fighting this empire.

We have seen how Iran has been demonized so quick, and so easily, do you know what made Ahmadinejad so famous? It was this, please watch, you will be surprised, or not since you are in ATS:




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I stopped reading here:


Originally posted by oozyism
The US wants to control the world, this has been obvious since the European civil war orchestrated by the US with the help of the Zionist Jews. That being said, the next World War will definitely start in the middle east, and the US will try to step in, in the midst of destruction and claim victory. Whether they win or not is up for question.


Sounds like a pamphlet handed out by the Ahmadinejad regime.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Hi nenothtu - if superfluous is the worst thing that Ima called on here, then i'll be happy
. I agree about the beer tho.



I would think the treasonous act was to ignore the order of the Shah which dismissed Mossadegh and appointed Zahedi in his stead, thereby effecting a de-facto coup.

An order given to the shah by a fella called Kermit? What was the OP again?



Mossadegh's nationalization of the oil wouldn't have bothered me one way or the other, except for the obvious socialist implications of that, influenced I would guess by the communist Tudeh.
Funny how even the communists turned against Mossadegh in the end, isn't it?

As you know, socialist isnt the same as communist. What was in effect a coalition government was being destablised by outside interests who wished to cause unrest - perhaps even start a civil war.
Lets not forget the context. The UK was recovering from WW2 and really couldnt afford to lose the income or oil supply that the Anglo Iranian Oil Company brought in. The US was very wary of Iran becoming another Korea (sounds mad now lol) but allowing the soviets to gain influence over Iran and therefor the Hormuz would of escalated very quickly into something very bad imho.

Fast forwarding to1979:


I think, and this is just my own opinion, that Carter was overwhelmed by it all, and hesitated out of uncertainty. By the time he got over that, the window had closed, and he was afraid to give the Shah any more aid than he absolutely had to. So, even though Islam was at odds with Communism, I don't think that really figured into Carter inaction so much as cowardice did.

But what was the uncertainty? Zbigniew Brzezinski helped write the Carter Doctrine which stated that the US would defend its national and strategic interests. Khomeini was well known to the US, what with making proclamations from his house in Paris and all.
Had the strategic interest's changed from the 1950's to the 70's?

Brzezinski would later write some very interesting things, chief among them the idea of an Islamic revival.Other policy makers and intellectuals would take this one stage further, seeking to play up the 'rifts' between the two main sects of islam. Sunni v Shia; Saudi v Iran.

Interesting, huh.













edit on 22-9-2010 by joewalker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


You're right Oozyism, they do want civil war. However, that civil war was started over 60 years ago and continues today. That said, I do believe that the righteous and God fearing politicians (and their constituents) in Washington D.C. are hoping for a "biblical climax" and are doing everything they can to achieve that end.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by oozyism
 

It's not the US,
it's Zionism (Jews) who wants a ME war.
US is just the puppet at the
end of the string.



Zionism is a cancer on Judaism. Zionism is using Judaism as a host to get it's work done. Zionism has done more damage to the Jewish faith than any Anti-Jewish pogrom.

It seems to me that there are more non-Jewish Zionists in the world than Jewish Zionists. Just look at the Neo-Con movement to understand what I mean and the Christian Zionist movement.

Please, let's stop equating Zionism with Judaism, it only hides the true agenda of Zionists.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
The US wants to control the world,

Sweetie ... most everyone wants to control the world. And if they don't have the power to shape world events and countries, they try to control the world around them closer in. EVERYONE wants control. It isn't just the USA.

There are different reasons for wanting world control. Money for sure. Keep America financially strong by running what is happening on the planet. SECURITY. It is in American's best interest to step in certain places around the world and try to influence events. If you think America is the only one globe-hopping for it's own interests .. you are wrong.

and then there are the REAL world leaders ... corporations and Bildebergers.
Ahhh ... that gets to the heart of it all, doesn't it??



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Its really funny but it does play out exactly in the grand chessboard !

Then why the hell hasnt everyone opposing the US read this book and knows their plans !
it just how sneaky they go about building the empire



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


i respectfully disagree

the USA is deep into pulling strings behind the curtain, IF not to actually spark a war then to create such tensions that the gold Dinar injection into the world economy will be delayed.
there are several mint coins, with some % of gold content from Gulf & ME nations including Iran, that are on the verge of upsetting the USD hegemony.

the Gold money issue is up there with the Sunni-Shia issue, the USA is covertly trying to undermine or forment conflicts in these two areas



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join