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.

 

Israel & US: Partners in International Crime

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slaanesh
This is all kinds of messed up. The false flags from a few weeks ago look more and more like the first shots in a covert war, taken by US/Israeli interests. Thanks for the article, I'll be reading this for the next long while!

So far no of the usual Warmongers have bothered to respond.
I'm sure they read this thread ans want it buried.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I am going to read the report but it is 170 pages in not native language so will take a while. Anyway, the people who wrote it appear to be the same pool of people that sit in real think tanks - but it does not mean that it is the same conclusions.
It says in the very beginning that CIA checked it before allowing to be published so it will most certainly not show the same options as the leaders of US and Israel see in the reports in front of them.
So keep in mind,it is not official and most probably not a real deal. Though i am personally interested in what it says.
edit on 6-3-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: 170! crap



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 




edit on 6-3-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: 170! crap


epic


i applaud your efforst though!

i´m very curious in what you´re going to find.

i advise you to start at the link for the source article.

it already has many juicy parts of the report laid out.

please report back good sir!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by zatara
I always wondered how Israel can pay for the....uhmm....everything they need to be a. of the arabian nations around them. Millitairy, scientifically and monetairy..

Israel is a small, barren country with no significant oil deposits or mineral resources and ofcourse terribly out numbered when it comes to the amount of soldiers compared to the arab nations around them.

Yet they keep a. with technology and money.....the arabs are not able to buy advantage over Israel just because of the fact that Israel seems to have a ........ dollar printer maybe? Anyways I refuse to believe that Israel is so rich and resourcefull because of donations from Jews all over the world.

Anyways I refuse to believe that Israel is so rich and resourcefull because of donations from Jews all over the world.


Israel receives billions of dollars in foreign aid from the US annually. In 2010 alone they received over $220M for just three weapons systems. Military aid. Foreign aid. Grants/Loans. Huge stockpiles of US weaponry which they can access when needed.

When you tally up all the various forms of financial and military aid I believe the last few years has averaged somewhere in the $5+ billion/year ballpark.

I'd have say that likely goes a long way in helping them to 'stay a.' of other nations in the region


You're right, thats what I am saying...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
The recent charade played out... snipped for response


Where did the first quote come from? I am not finding it in any of the sources you posted.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
What we´re seeing right now regarding the Iran vs Israel/US issue is written on paper, in black and white, in a 2009 report!

On page xii it also delves into -

Dissuading Tehran: The Diplomatic Options
Disarming Tehran: The Military Options
Toppling Tehran: Regime Change
Deterring Tehran: Containment


Conveniently you left out the other sections and only highlighted military action.

The disclaimer on page iv -

None of the ideas expressed in this volume should be construed as representing the views of any of the individual authors. The collection is a collaborative effort, and the authors attempted to present each of the options as objectively as possible, without introducing their own subjective opinions about them. The aim of this exercise was to highlight the challenges of all the options and to allow readers to decide for themselves which they believe to be best.


as well as -

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or any other U.S. Government Agency. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the authors’
views. This material has been reviewed by the CIA to prevent the disclosure of classified information.


You are twisting the report and its information in an attempt to justify your position, along with the rest who jumped on your bandwagon here. Specifically you are ignoring the other sections in the report that I listed above that deals with non military options. Why were those left out?


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
The document, "Which Path to Persia?" published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute, and signed by Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, who often make their way onto corporate-media networks as "experts," clearly states that Iran is neither reckless nor likely ...snipped for response room.

Where did the above quote come from? I am not finding it in the sources you linked.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
On page 24 of the Brookings Institute report, it is stated, "most of Iran's foreign ....snipped for room

Again misleading. You again left out the paragraphs before and after your quote. It again, places your quote into context and tells a different story.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.

Misleading.. Rumsfeld s comment was from an October 2001 interview. Secondly the use of nukes during armed conflict has always been an option going back to the 50's. The Congressman's comment also came from 2001. What you are leaving out is -

Rumsfeld: I think the 5,000-pound bombs are going to be able to do the job.

You are leaving out information that places the comments into context.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities:

Again - the quote is not in the Brooking s report.
Can you please link me to the specific page of the report its located on.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the ...snipped for room

You have intentionally altered the quote in order to support your argument. What part did you conveniently leave out?

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason...your quote above


You are also leaving out the first couple of paragraphs that, again, places your quote into proper context. The section you pulled your above quote from is from the Diplomatic options section. As with all of the other sections in the report they explore various avenues / point counter point, something you again conveniently left out, which, again, changes the context of your quotes.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w

"In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context...snipped

Once again you left out the prior and following paragraphs, which place the quote into context.

The entire report is a hypothetical and deals with all aspects of how to deal with Iran. The report was put together by 5 people who analyzed the broad picture. The report clearly states it is not a government document / policy template, as you are attempting to make it out to be.

Last -
I noticed your quotes, almost all, contain words that are not present in the sources. Are the quotes you made taken directly from the documents or did you paraphrase using your own language?

Read Carefully -

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or any other U.S. Government Agency. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the authors’
views. This material has been reviewed by the CIA to prevent the disclosure of classified information.


edit on 6-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 




Where did the first quote come from? I am not finding it in any of the sources you posted.


from here




You are twisting the report and its information in an attempt to justify your position, along with the rest who jumped on your bandwagon here. Specifically you are ignoring the other sections in the report that I listed above that deals with non military options. Why were those left out?


I didn't twist anything.

Because i came across an article that disected the report.

I'm in the process of reading it right now.

Wether or not this report reflects the opinions of the CIA etc does, imho, not matter.

It's exactly being played out as is written in that report.



Where did the above quote come from? I am not finding it in the sources you linked.


from here

this is a quote from the article where i got it from.


On page 24 of the Brookings Institute report, it is stated, "most of Iran's foreign policy decisionmaking since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as "aggressive but not reckless,"" before adding the baseless caveat, "but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so." Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.


as i'm still in the proces of reading this report i can't validate wether or not his information is all true.

that's why we are here at ATS.

you've found he (misleadingly) didn't quote part of the text, superb


still the report accurately describes the situation at hand.



Misleading.. Rumsfeld s comment was from an October 2001 interview.Secondly the use of nukes during armed conflict has always been an option going back to the 50's. The Congressman's comment also came from 2001. What you are leaving out is -


so the US has nuclear capabilities dating back to, at minimum, the 1950's.

so what's the hype with Iran?

hypocritical much?



You are leaving out information that places the comments into context.


nope, you just didn't read the entire op.

(look at the screenshot provided)

it's quite clearly there, it's even marked blue...



Originally posted by kn0wh0w The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities: Again - the quote is not in the Brooking s report. Can you please link me to the specific page of the report its located on.


you're right.

it came from this link

the one you've repeatedly asked for

this quote is from the report itself.


...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "


quite clear if you ask me.



Once again you left out the prior and following paragraphs, which place the quote into context.


nope you just missed the link.




Last - I noticed your quotes, almost all, contain words that are not present in the sources. Are the quotes you made taken directly from the documents or did you paraphrase using your own language?


see above.



Read Carefully


you too



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


btw.

i will be in bed in a couple of minutes.

i will be able to check posts and post a post via my iphone.

but i'm not able to write a reply like i just did on my iphone.

please keep that in mind



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
I didn't twist anything.

The manner in which you portrayed the article excerpts are in fact misleading and twisted. By purposely leaving out any other info that places the item quoted into context, which adversely affects your position, is twisting the words. When you get done reading the entire report you will see what I am referring to.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Because i came across an article that disected the report.

I'm in the process of reading it right now.

Fair enough



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Wether or not this report reflects the opinions of the CIA etc does, imho, not matter.

It's exactly being played out as is written in that report.

Actually it does matter. The report is not an official government position, and it clearly states it. Back to my comment about twisting / misleading - Respectfully you are dismissing key facts in the report. The intent, imo from the way im reading your posts, was to portray cherry picked information and presented it such a manner that it distorts the reports, making it out to be something its not.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w

On page 24 of the Brookings Institute report, it is stated, "most of Iran's foreign policy decisionmaking since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as "aggressive but not reckless,"" before adding the baseless caveat, "but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so." Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.


as i'm still in the proces of reading this report i can't validate wether or not his information is all true.

Respectfully, if you have not read the report then why are you taking bits from it and posting it here?
Secondly Rumsfelds comments were in response to a direct question by the media interviewing him and occurred in 2001 and was in reference to the cave system Al Queida was using.

The Senator was calling for the use of tactical nukes in an effort to destroy the cave system. Rumsfeld stated the 5,000 bombs they were using were working just fine.

Again both statements were from just after Sept 11th and were in relation to just Afghanistan and its cave systems. I am failing to see why the info was even added to the thread since nukes were not used and as such has no bearing on the Partners in International crime topic.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
that's why we are here at ATS.

Agreed


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
you've found he (misleadingly) didn't quote part of the text, superb

Im not quite sure what this sentence means. Could you clarify for me?


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
still the report accurately describes the situation at hand.

It spells out every single possible scenario in the report, which is why I took exception to the cherry picked information.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
so the US has nuclear capabilities dating back to, at minimum, the 1950's.

Sing the mid 1940's actually.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
so what's the hype with Iran?

Enrichment and their failure to comply with treaty stipulations of the NPT and IAEA.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
hypocritical much?

Actually no


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
nope, you just didn't read the entire op.

(look at the screenshot provided)

it's quite clearly there, it's even marked blue...

Which clearly states use of tactical nukes in Afghanistan cave systems was not needed. You portrayed that info as something recent and left out key elements which, again, placed the info into context.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
you're right.

it came from this link

the one you've repeatedly asked for

ok


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
this quote is from the report itself.


...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "


quite clear if you ask me.

Actually its not since you chose that paragraph while ignoring the others, which again placed it into context.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
nope you just missed the link.

No, you did not cite your sources correctly. The manner in which you quoted multiple sources, cherry picked information, while invoking a conversation from 2001 regarding the use of nukes. Your entire post is misleading, it twists the facts, it ignores information that does not support your claim. Your quotes leave out key info and its done in an effort, imo, to confuse people reading the thread.



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
see above.

It doesnt resolve the issue so please clarify.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
you too

When you are finished reading your sources are you by chance going to go back and correct your mistakes? The simple fact that you are admitting you have not read the reports and that you are unsure of the info contained in them supports my argument that this thread is a sham.

Im not sure how you can create a thread like this without taking the time to completely read your own sources.

What was your intention with this thread? What were you wanting to get out of it?

edit on 6-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


btw.

i will be in bed in a couple of minutes.

i will be able to check posts and post a post via my iphone.

but i'm not able to write a reply like i just did on my iphone.

please keep that in mind


No worries... shoot me a U2U when you get back and respond so we can pick up where we are leaving off.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Bump
Thx



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
i was reading along and kept having this nagging thought about what it takes to pre-plan on a scale like this. and thought, what if, and this is for the people who believe in this, something helped them think this up. getting ready for 2012. or maybe aliens helped. just throwin that out there. but either the guy or people who thought that up has a quadruple masters in politics and war, or someone had some, other than us help.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
It becomes clear as a bell that what my Country the US, and Israel or engaged in, is indeed something planned all along.

The purpose of the wars is to reshape the middle east in the best interests of the US Elite.
We were told we went after Iraq because of Nuclear Weapons, but that was the attempted selling point to the world public.

The real reason is to remove those in power that don't serve US and Israeli interests.
The same goes with Iran. Were told it is about Nuclear Weapons, but it is about power and control.

Mark my words, the elite calling the shots will never accept those in Iran staying in power, regardless of what the excuses to take them down is.

This all goes back to the Project for the New American Century, of which Israel is the main benefactor.

Wesley Clark and the Truth about the Middle East







posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mactheaxe
 


since you brought this up, and I have not read the full 170 pages but am reading this thread watching now the discussion take place between those who have and seeing the pro's and con's here on both sides, I will join you on a bit of a side topic.

I agree with you, what we see today was more than a few men for a few years even. Its much greater than this, It really does for all intents and purposes appear a war between good and evil. I do think its the people now who are lining up behind their chosen, whether it is good or evil, and those behind evil think its good and those behind good think its good, everyone believes they are on the absolutely correct side. That is what I see as amazing, even though religion did say this would happen its still amazing, its like being a witness to the freakiest science fiction movie, expect its real.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


Thing is, I think good and evil are pretty clear cut.

Murder is murder, theft is theft etc and only lawyers via man made laws are able to redefine actions that suits them and their benefactors best interests.

These lawyers in politics have called aggressive and offensive wars as preemptive actions.
They have called the murder of innocent civilians as collateral damage.
They have called stealing resources via propping up their reserve currency as strategic national interests.

If your a follower of any religion, for example the christian religion even, the ten commandments does not say, but, or offer various qualifications.

It says thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not kill. etc

The ones we have to answer to are not man on this earth but god in heaven above, so people need to follow their moral convictions in what is right and wrong, and not what man (our government and their man made laws) says is right and wrong.

For example, Bradley Manning, exposing the lies and corruption of the US Government was the correct and moral thing to do, but of course, in the eyes of man and his law's, shining a flight light on the Governments misdeeds, would of course be wrong.

I understand he had an oath to uphold, but that oath was broken with the criminal actions they are involved in.
Should people answer to man on this temporal realm or answer to God for eternity?


I think it is pretty clear that the US government is guilty of murder and theft on a very large scale, and fortunately, if the events that are occuring our biblical, then you best not be standing with these monsters when nuclear war comes about and sends these monsters straight to hell where they belong.
edit on 6-3-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


The side of this fence that I am on is pretty clear, I am a believing Shia Muslim. I have a very clear cut belief in right and wrong, what I wonder is why everyone does not see the things I do, but what I am observing, and trying to do so without bias, is Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are on the same side, and secular, greedy, power hungry individuals (which appear to try to lay claim to religion too though they are very easy to see through) are on the other side. This is exactly the division I am seeing. And I have been watching closely.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


Well, the ones that are pro war, seem to be more Nationalistic and rely man's laws and rules, rather than what is morally and consciously right.

You can most definitely see that in posters like Xcathdra whom does everything by the book, mans book, rather than what is spiritually, morally, and ethically right. They don't proffer any moral or ethical arguments but one based on what is best for themselves and what mans laws say.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


True, this is probably a very wise analogy of why I am seeing this division of people then. Does this mean before every war or the possibility of war mankind divides into these similar divisions?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


It depends.
The US has been at war for a long time now, though not officially declared.
If there were bombs dropping on the US, people would most assuredly say someone is at war with us.
The majority of the people in this country across forums that I have visited are getting sick and tired of it.

It exposes the lie that the Government represents the best interest of the people, when clearly this is not the case.
It represents the few elite, not us.

The division your seeing now in this country is not only about war, but about the government serving special interests over the people of this country, which are the main benefactors in these wars.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


Forgive me but I am learning something so I want to continue discussing.

But, is this the first time Americans themselves are actually seeing her governments actions as an evil wrongdoing toward others, rather than simply something that is not economically viable at this time? Because I am seeing many people who are religious categorizing it as evil toward others, from Jews and Christians too. Or are they just using stronger language do you think because they are tired of the economic factors as you seem to indicate?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by Jameela
 


Well, the ones that are pro war, seem to be more Nationalistic and rely man's laws and rules, rather than what is morally and consciously right.

You can most definitely see that in posters like Xcathdra whom does everything by the book, mans book, rather than what is spiritually, morally, and ethically right. They don't proffer any moral or ethical arguments but one based on what is best for themselves and what mans laws say.


You have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.




top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join