The War With Iran, Has Been Planned For A Very Long Time -- Propaganda At It's Finest

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Sadly, they are laying on the propaganda so thick, you can't even see the bread of this WWIII sandwich in which it sits. I think that as much as they would like to start a false flag and go after Iran, justifying it to a world that has seen their hand played already will be difficult. Let's not forget they have already tried to paint Iran as "terrorists" quite a lot recently, and it hasn't created the fever pitch they wanted.




(Reuters) - Israel accused arch-enemies Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah of being behind twin bomb attacks that targeted Israeli embassy staff in India and Georgia on Monday, wounding four people.

Tehran denied involvement in the attacks, which amplified tensions between two countries already at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear program, and accused Israel of carrying out the attacks itself. Hezbollah made no comment.

In the Indian capital New Delhi, a bomb wrecked a car taking an Israeli embassy official to pick up her children from school, police said. The woman needed surgery to remove shrapnel but her life was not in danger. Her driver and two passers-by suffered lesser injuries.

Israeli officials said an attempt to bomb an embassy car in the Georgian capital Tbilisi failed, and the device was defused.

(www.reuters.com...)




Those developments reek of a plot to frame Iran for these attacks, as well as this one in Thailand. From Haaretz:




"The U.S. condemned the botched terror attack in Thailand's capital on Tuesday, suggesting it may be linked to Iran. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S.was awaiting the results of investigations, and did not blame Iran directly. However, she noted Monday's incidents in India and Georgia, and recent "Iranian-sponsored" and "Hezbollah-linked" plots to attack Israeli and Western interests in Azerbaijan and Thailand."

(www.haaretz.com...)


So, we see an attempt, by the mainstream media and the big powers in this issue, to demonize and point fingers at the big scary Iran. The most glaringly obvious part of this that sticks out to me as untrue is the fact that no one lost their lives. It's not terribly hard to make a bomb that's going to kill all the people in that car. If Iran really was behind it, and not Israel just going after their own to discredit Iran, why did no one perish. Surely, the bomb maker, if he is from Iran, is answering a lot of hard questions about it now.: lol:

So, do I think that there is a propaganda campaign underway to discredit Iran and make them seem like a threat to world peace? Absolutely. do I think it will work and the USA will go to war, declared or otherwise, with Iran? No, I think the country is too hardened in it's security, and that if the USA had a hard time in Afghanistan and Iraq, that they haven't seen anything yet. The Iranian people do dislike the west, but that's because the west sticks their dick in Iranian affairs far too often. If members of the Military Industrial Complex of the west had boots on the ground in Iran, those boots would be messy with the blood of the men who used to occupy them.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


It's always refreshing to have somebody who is capable of critical thinking


www.nytimes.com...

This is the article that won a Pulitzer, detailing how the Pentagon had an on going Propaganda "Department", that use these retired generals as "talking heads" which push for the current Pentagon stance on policy and mostly war tactics etc..

NBC and the other news outlets failed to mention this, even with knowledge that they were bringing on somebody who had a conflict of interest in what they were reporting.

And yes the media has perhaps overblown his report and his findings and they are just opinions from a retired general, but it's toomuch of a coincidence to discard it as a stand a lone thing.

It's clearly tied to the ongoing propaganda campaign.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


In the end yes, we should probably stay out of it, if only to show them that we can and that we can respect their ability to do things themselves.

Only because of the recent history in the meddling of ME affairs, I think it would be hard to get them to trust any government attempting to help them.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stewiegriffin
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


My problem with Iran having a nuclear weapon is their pure seething hatred toward Israel and the west. I believe they would use it and if we need to go to war to stop them then I say we attack.

I am so tired of all of these piss ant countries trying to push us around. You don't see countries threaten China or Russia and why do you think that is?


What about the pure greed of the US to push out anyone they feel is not accommodating them...

But yet you feel it's right to bully people into submission (Gaddafi to name the most recent)? Iran is not pushing anyone, the Israelis are. Even Stevie Wonder can see that


They do not threaten China or Russia because poodles do not bite Bulldogs... Which is why Iran threatening the US does not make any sense.

Man you really need to educate yourself on US history...


The CIA has been at the heart of so many terrorist attacks throughout the years it's disgusting... and they are not shy about it. The only thing is they do not call it acts of terrorism because it was done by the US. Who we all know are just in it for the best interests of the civilians



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Unless Iran attacks first, false flag or otherwise, then he can justify sending the troops back.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I have a question for you that maybe off-topic, but I really don't know the answer. I've heard many ATSers, even in this thread, say that the US motivation for aggression is greed. I've also heard it said that we've engaged in more wars than anyone since the dinosaurs. So how come we're not rolling in bazillions of dollars?

The money's going to the bankers? I thought it was going to the military-industrial complex. I just don't see what we're getting out of it, economically. Are we so weak that we can't even control our own military policy, but beleagured Israel is controlling us? Then we're not doing it for greed, are we?

My head hurts, and I'm going to have a nice lie down. But I am grateful that my confusion gets exposed so often here. It gives me a good chance to learn.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, that's exactly it.

Here's how it works.

1. Invade a nation
2. Destroy it's infrastructure
3. Approve big loans by the IMF and other banks to said country via the United Nations or the country that invaded.
4. Give all that loan money to US companies (pick your country really) to rebuild that infrastructure and then operate it.
5. Force that nation to sell it's assetts to the IMF or other nations in exchange for 0% loans or a forgiveness of that loan.

Only the people who fund wars make money, and that's the banks. Also it's a strategic move by the West and Europe to put itself between Russia and China's oil interests. If the US controlled Iran, it would have more leverage internatinonally with China and Russia.

As well as against other nations in the area.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Dear tothetenthpower,

Thanks, you're becoming an ATS Hero.

It seems to me that lots of Africa, Asia, and Latin America has very inferior infrastructure. Wouldn't it be simpler to just skip steps 1 & 2, find a country like South Sudan or Somalia, and go straight to steps 3, 4, & 5? I'm not a big fan of war.

1. Invade a nation
2. Destroy it's infrastructure
3. Approve big loans by the IMF and other banks to said country via the United Nations or the country that invaded.
4. Give all that loan money to US companies (pick your country really) to rebuild that infrastructure and then operate it.
5. Force that nation to sell it's assetts to the IMF or other nations in exchange for 0% loans or a forgiveness of that loan.

(Watch as I destroy any reputation I might have for critical thinking.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Nopes, can't do that.

The war is the way they destroy the infrastructure, without it, they'd have no reason to take the loans or allow their governments to be run by the US and it's allies...or whatever other nation is involved.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's a REALLY good read on the process. They try to smear it as being not true, but we know how that is.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Nevermind
edit on 1-3-2012 by ScarletWitch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I have a question for you that maybe off-topic, but I really don't know the answer. I've heard many ATSers, even in this thread, say that the US motivation for aggression is greed. I've also heard it said that we've engaged in more wars than anyone since the dinosaurs. So how come we're not rolling in bazillions of dollars?

The money's going to the bankers? I thought it was going to the military-industrial complex. I just don't see what we're getting out of it, economically. Are we so weak that we can't even control our own military policy, but beleagured Israel is controlling us? Then we're not doing it for greed, are we?

My head hurts, and I'm going to have a nice lie down. But I am grateful that my confusion gets exposed so often here. It gives me a good chance to learn.

tothethenthpower is right about the usual involvement of the IMF which limits national sovereignity and forces indebted nations to use money for certain infrastructure projects and enforces austerity measures upon the target country and its citizens. But here is the military Keynsianism basic cycle:

Both banks and arms manufacturers profit from wars or even from an arms race without military conflict. Therefore banks and arms manufacturers are not necessarily interested in quick and decisive victories. They profit most, if conflicts are prolonged, like it happened during the Cold War or now in the War against Terror.

Although money spent on weapons helps the MIC, it has to be lent from banks. The money comes ultimately from the taxpayers. Debt will hold the target population hostage as collateral which will then have to pay the accumulated interest to the banks.

Money spent by the state can help to create new jobs and boost the economy. But it is a myth, that money spent on the MIC is a effective way to boost the economy. Compared with other areas money spent on the MIC is the least effective way for the State to spend money. Only about 8555 jobs are created per $ 1 billion spent on the MIC.

These numbers comes from a study of the Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts (Amherst).
www.peri.umass.edu...

Here is a short clip from the movie the International. This is a fiction movie, but I believe, the principle is valid.


edit on 1-3-2012 by Drunkenshrew because: grammar



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


It is important to mention mind you that this only works in a fiat currency, where it can be manipulated and gamed in order to show economic growth, when really a long term war investment only services to increase inflation, starve the middle class and help nobody but the bankers who provide loans and the politicians who do their bidding.

Great information



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Aytollah saying that 'he wants to wipe israel off the map' is a good enough reason to kill millions and to start a major regional conflict.

Now put yourself in Ayatollahs place and think about what would you feel regarding the West and Israel if your country was under severe sanctions for decades?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by forklift
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Aytollah saying that 'he wants to wipe israel off the map' is a good enough reason to kill millions and to start a major regional conflict.


That's sarcasm right?

I sure hope it is, cause otherwise that's some dangerous thinking you got going on there.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by forklift
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Aytollah saying that 'he wants to wipe israel off the map' is a good enough reason to kill millions and to start a major regional conflict.


That's sarcasm right?

I sure hope it is, cause otherwise that's some dangerous thinking you got going on there.

~Tenth



Yes it was a sarcasm, unfortunately alot of 'intellectuals' on ATS believe that's a legitimate reason to carry out a full scale war.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


It is clear that the conquest of the ME part of a grander scheme of world domination. The west's stance of preserving its hold on the world changed since the post WW2 era. Now we seek to enlarge our empire rather than admit it is destined to fall like all others do.

After the ME has fallen, Iran being the last stepping stone, I believe we will move onto south America. The thought being world conquest. So after we eliminate all resistance from lesser nations, the conflict will eventually spill over into a developed and competent nation.

As the example of the ME, look how Iran was left for last since it will probably pose a more significant threat. It also lacks a resistance that wouldn't mind help from the west. Their resistance to their regime is just as opposed to western rule.

The war we will create in Iran will open the flood gates of an eternal enemy. This conquest of the ME will eventually unite them under a deeply rooted hatred for the west. The only outcome in the long run is our being expelled from the ME in shame and the after effect of living in fear of reprisals. If this empire wishes to grow in the face of decline, it will miss its opportunity of graceful withdrawal from the world.

Take for example the UK. They were a large empire and enjoy now a relative peaceful existence abroad. They can even afford to participate somewhat in global war and presence. They do so by the intelligence of their predecessors in granting true freedom to their former subjects. The US is too focused on being its glory and power to realize it is setting itself up for a total defeat.

The US´s allies will pay as well. the UK and Europe can expect a future of hellish existence unless they withdraw now and grant true freedom to the ME. It is inevitable that the ME will unite against their common enemy. Though today we have superiority over them, the future of ever evolving technologies and capabilities will level the playing field. It is important to forge alliances and mutual respect if we are to survive the coming advancements mankind is bound to achieve.

Iran would make a better ally than Israel. They are less dependent on other nations for defense. They are less aggressive. They also would not ask for aid. If I were leader of the US I would seek to establish strong relations with Iran over those of the Saudis and Israel, since both demand much and give little.

War with Iran would set us down a path we would never be able to recover from. It would set in motion our eventual decline.

There is no threat from Iran. They wish for prosperity, and besides cultural differences that ignorant people will focus on, there is no difference between them and other nations vying for prosperity and knowledge.

I hope our leaders are capable of evolution. Their mindsets are very limited and focus on domination rather than true progress. I see no difference between the west's empire and that of a little remembered empires that end up only as footnotes in history due to their constant need for conquest.

We should take note of Iran's example in its noninvolvement in other nation´s business besides help and its subsequent prosperity.
edit on 1-3-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


The most sensible thing I've read all week Sir.

Well done.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


Nice one Bro, Well Said!

Your post deserves a thread of it's own.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The iranians have been killing americans and american soldiers since their revolution against the shah .We didn't have the you know what to go after them with carter and we used iraq and iran to fight each other. But now the iranians are going to teach us a lesson when they get nuclear weapons and it will not be pretty. The way japan hit us in peal harbor when they had a crazy government weill today iran is the japan of ww2.
I could not care less about israel-they can take care of themselves.
I am afraid we have the same appeasers in government today who think you can just talk your way out of things-but you know they want to kill us,we did not learn anything from ww2 ,this time it will be ww3


take a look at the timeline below

unitedagainstnucleariran.com...

watch the movie Iranium and them tell me its all propaganda
.
www.iraniumthemovie.com...
b-29s-over-korea.com...





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join