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: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


No, it has nothing to do with the economy, though some will throw out "We can't afford it" as a talking point against those that are pro war.

I think it has more to do with an awakening, that takes time, especially on a country level.

There are various phases people go through when dealt with reality, and on a country level, it can take a long time, which I believe started with 911. The internet has also helped provide people with information that is not readily available or was not talked about much in public and even looked down upon pre 911.

Then there are those, my country, right or wrong, will always stand by the Government, no matter what they do. Which of course, is not limited to only the US, nor is it limited only to politics, but also extends to religion and culture, especially when ones identity is at stake and they have everything tied into it.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It is my opinion as I see it, wherein, any case you attempt to reply to is by the book and what mans laws are.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


Thank you very much for the time you took to speak to me. I appreciate it.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


Your welcome



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


are you aware that reigem change as an objective is an international war crime,
as is preemptive aggressive military actions without the legal deceleration of war,

do you agree that either is a war crime and therfore not acceptable as a policy,
or do you support these actions to prevent the "threat" of a nuclear iran?

i guess i am asking would you support a war crime Xcathdra?

what about covert terror acts inside iran?
is that a war crime?

xploder



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
hm nevermind. already know the answer. I am just tired
edit on 6-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
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.



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


I am not sure what kn0wh0w and Xcathdra are doing and who is quoting who and who is reading carefully what and who is twisting the other.

I am zatara and have no idea how or why you are replying with this post to a comment of mine. Somebody is obviously filling spaces with the wrong names.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
are you aware that reigem change as an objective is an international war crime,
as is preemptive aggressive military actions without the legal deceleration of war,

Actually its not a war crime as the government, being part of the chain of command, is a valid military target during hostilities.

Also there are currently 2 executive orders in place that prevent political assassination. Thats important because it defines what can occur in times of peace and times of war.

As for declaration of war the US, and im assuming thats what you are referring to, was authorized by Congress under the Authorization to Use Military Force resolutions. Nothing in the US constitution specifically states Congress must use the term war.

As for the last UN Charter - Chapter VII- part 51 comes to mind.



Originally posted by XPLodER
do you agree that either is a war crime and therfore not acceptable as a policy,

When the world can agree on what a war crime is without it being used in a political manner and applied consistently, Ill answer this question. Secondly the International Criminal Court membership is voluntary, and those nations not part of it are not governed by it. However, if people wish to make the argument, invoking the term universal jurisdiction, then be prepared for the US to exercise that to its fullest extent.


Originally posted by XPLodER
or do you support these actions to prevent the "threat" of a nuclear iran?

I think Iran should live up to its obligations for the IAEA / NPT. If not, then withdraw from the NPT and go from there.

I am not concerned about a nuclear armed Iran. What I am concerned about is Iran getting their hands on 1 or 2 nukes and using them to usher in whatever end times they keep referring to. Iran has demonstrated time and again they have no regard for human life, and will sacrifice whom ever to achieve their goals.



Originally posted by XPLodER
i guess i am asking would you support a war crime Xcathdra?

If its specific and blatantly violates the rules of war / IHL / Geneva protocols / ICRC then yes. However, only if the same standard is applied to other countries / groups. People constantly scream about the UN report on the 2006 war with Israel, where the report stated Israel committed war crimes.

Arab countries were all over that, right up to the point it also leveled war crime charges against Hezbullah / Lebanon, at which point the Arab world dismissed the UN report and accused the UN of being a puppet. When its clear, concise and applicable to ALL, then im all for it.



Originally posted by XPLodER
what about covert terror acts inside iran?
is that a war crime?

No more of a war crime than covert terror acts inside Israel.
No more of a war crime than covert terror acts inside Thailand / India / Pakistan / China.
No more of a war crime than covert terror acts inside Mexico
No more of a war crime than covert terror attacks inside Spain

North Ireland
Chechnya
Dagestan
Syria
Lebanon
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Somalia
Sudan

........................etc

Quit using it as a political tool and you have my support.
edit on 6-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


The confusion came from this post -
ATS Post by kn0wh0w

When he replied to my post, he managed to use your name instead of mine.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The point is, if the plans were there, from think tanks, THEN the propaganda was lying all along, because it was not telling democratic countries about the fact that the PTB has ALREADY decided goals - to bomb Iran. It is a foregone conclusion - no matter how cleverly you twist the words, that is what it is.
So THEY LIED TO US all the time. They were formally asking for our opinion. It doesn't matter what arguments we have, or what they have, 'cause they are going to do what they planned all along!

Let's use the lie "wipe Israel off the map," repeated despite informed refutations, which exposed propaganda at its roughest. While real issues were passed by quietly or ignored.

This is like the logic of a PSYCHOPATH in psychology. You get your secret goals (devastate Iran because it has been decided already, stupid!) no matter what we think on ATS. Proponents pretend to argue with us on mote points, but it does not make any sense at all: you are out to bomb and fight and restore oil trade in Dollars and take the oil ANYWAY.
It proves to me that aggressive campaings in history as well as aggressive propaganda are always driven by the PSYCHOPATHIC MENTALITY. Study that (there's excellent books out - one by an author called Hare).

The goal matters, not the way it is achieved - and the goal is never questioned.

One thing that psychopaths alwas lack is an ability of empathy. Watch as the emerging conflict is described without any reference to the people that is going to suffer the most: ordinary Iranians who may not even want this Theocratic rule (but neither do they want an aggressive high-tech war razing their cities to ashes). A normal Western serviceman would say, I'm very sorry I had to do that. I might have nightmares for years. Because something was WRONG.

A PSYCHOPATH would say: well, there are always casualties in a war! (Gloating.) "That kid burned to death by a phosphorus bomb - well, sorry, he was just at the wrong time at the wrong place!" There they go.

Do we understand the psychopathic mentality enough?
Can we trust our opinionmaker and leadership positions to them?

No way José. We are feeling normal humans. And this is getting like a vacuum cleaner salesman trying to make your wife.
You can stop it. Now!

Expose the mentality wherever you find it. Name the persons and organizations that put out psychopathic information. They are NOT working for you. They are only working for themselves and they would be happy to bask in the lights of a hundred atomic blasts - like, "see, I told'ya, they're weaklings!"

Does that ring a bell?
edit on 3/6/2012 by Kokatsi because: grammar, rhetorical adjustments



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
www.globalsecurity.org...


This timeline feels VERY real too me, dam what a year it will be, I will spend it rising my energies too combat this crap, and the very real agenda of total enslavement, down to a SOUL level.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
..See now if I were Iran...
I would arrange a 30minute TV statement, with this document at the centre of it.
Imagine a high placed Iranian political figure that reads quotes from this document then details how the US is attempting to trick Iran into an attack.

Yes, the western world media (MURDOCH) would not show it, but all Iran would need to do is say it, put it online and let the word spread.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Your wrong. Why would Iran do such a thing? First, your average Iranian does not speak english, the language is of no consequence to any matter of industry for the Iranian, sanctions in action. In the middle eastern nations, there is no need to spread something like this document, everyone knows this has been planned for years. All you have to do is live in the middle of it to know that without reading any document. If an Iranian could read them, and with english not being a first (or even second) language, then do you not think the automatic assumption is that not only has the average American read them, but also support these policies with full knowledge?

Most can always hold out the hope that maybe your perception was somehow off, that you were ignorant, but then to see it in print, comes the full knowledge, beyond any shadow of doubt, that you did know, had access to exactly what was happening, and never cared.

It should not be Iranians to educate any American as to US foreign policy, in a land of open source knowledge, you should have cared enough to find out the truth in the first place. Apathy is inexcusable.

edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


yeah I posted a thread with like 2 policy briefs and didn't really interject with my opinion on it too much.
People don't like to read. The excuse that OH, it's a block of text is really lame. I don't mind reading. Plus the truth isn't in neat little paragraphs a couple sentences long. People expect you to explain everything to them. I say read for yourself.

There is allot that is publicly available yet people like YouTube videos better. They watch and then say Deny blah blah blah. I saw one thread where the OP used a source that wasn't very good, but still got the facts correct. Then he proceeded to give many more sources beyond his OP, yet people couldn't get over the fact his original source was not up to par. The facts were correct, the story was true, and the OP provided many sources. Yet the entire thread was derailed by bored and lazy debunkers.


anyways

S&F as usual OP.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra


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


actually i think it may be you, blundering in here in your size twelves to re-establish Order
who has no idea

now let me make this clear and concise
no room for your sneaky useless 'context' distractions;

this is a legitimate government report. it's not some scrawled out manifesto by the Iran Haters Society.
it was funded, 'researched', made all presentable, archived, attention has been paid to it.
now, i'm well alongside the whole hypothetical scenario bit, that's cool
my beef is with the very premise.

HOW TO DEAL WITH THE IRAN PROBLEM

Iran is not a problem. it is a land, full of free thinking, feeling individuals
how would you feel if my government funded a report on dealing with the american problem?
it would just be hypothetical! don't get angry that it discusses goading you into action so we can skin your wives and children!
when it starts coming true that's your fault for being a bad person!


also, a point of your own making that i feel hasn't been stared at in disbelief for long enough;
the US has had The Nuke for at LEAST sixty years. yet other countries are not even allowed to think about them.
the US is the only country who has ever used one in aggression against another nation.

inmates guard the prison much?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by decepticonLaura
 


It does not matter in the long run.
They have chosen to side with evil.

The preach peace to those fighting to take this country back.
Yet preach violence when it comes to attacking other countries.

They preach theft is wrong when it comes to others fighting for their rights in this country
yet support theft when it comes to taking from other countries.

They preach killing is wrong
yet support killing others in other countries when it further their agenda.

Hypocrites much?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
this is a legitimate government report.

This would be where I stopped taking your post seriously.. Its an exercise that was put together by 5 people who explored various possibilities with regards to Iran, ranging from military intervention to Diplomatic resolution.

If you spent more time reading and less time embracing ignorance, you might have noticed the exercise itself states its not government policy. Since you apparently did not bother to read the report let me help you out -

Path to Persia - 2009 (Brookings) - Source


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.


and.....


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.


Emphasis added by me...

If you read the report you would also have noticed that other NGO's assisted with the cost / distribution of the report (which is from 2009 I might add).

The authors are deeply grateful for the financial assistance from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Crown Family Foundation, and others in the drafting and publication of this study.


Brooking's Institute

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:


Smith Richardson Foundation

The mission of the Smith Richardson Foundation is to contribute to important public debates and to help address serious public policy challenges facing the United States. The Foundation seeks to help ensure the vitality of our social, economic, and governmental institutions. It also seeks to assist with the development of effective policies to compete internationally and to advance U.S. interests and values abroad. This mission is embodied in our international and domestic grant programs.


Crown Family Foundation

In 2009, after more than 60 years of family grant-making under the name Arie and Ida Crown Memorial, Crown Family Philanthropies (CFP) was developed to represent an array of family grantmaking practices.

Our program areas include the Arts, Civic Affairs, Education, Environmental, Health, Human Services and Jewish causes. Dividing our philanthropic investments into the program areas listed above, all applicants must meet the basic as well as program-specific guidelines to be considered for funding. We have built the CFP model on a social contract of engagement, trust, and collective participation of family members to address aspirations for social change.


Even the OP has stated he did not read the entire report yet, which again says a lot about the intent of this thread (granted he said he would take the time to read it and comment later on). Couple that with comments taken out of context from 2001 and the intent of this thread becomes clear, imo, which is to say it was an attempt to make an argument thats not supported by the information. The haphazard manner in which the information was laid out, and the lack of correct citations as to what info came from where as well as personal opinions of the op added into the quotes themselves, pretty much establishes this thread as propaganda / intentionally misleading and nothing more.

Now, what other false claims would you like to make?

As far as your incorrect comment on nuclear weapons. There are countries who have nukes, North Korea being one of them (in addition to India, Pakistan and soon Iran). There is nothing that states a country cannot pursue nuclear weapons (as Thailand was in the process of for some time). The issue with Iran, since you seem to be completely missing the point, is their treaty obligations (IAEA / NPT). Iran's nuclear program and assistance for that program are based on the guarantee Iran made (by voluntarily joining the NPT) they will not use their civilian nuclear program to develop a military nuclear program (in addition to other stipulations that they are ignoring).

North Korea used to be in the news every other week because of their military nuclear program. When North Korea withdrew from the NPT, they were no longer obligated to comply with treaty stipulations. If Iran wants a nuke, all they need to do is withdraw from the NPT.

Maybe next time you should take the time to research the situation before making claims that aren't supported by the facts?
edit on 7-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Fantastic post, thanks very much.

I haven't read the article yet because i've jumped straight to the BI report.

It seems odd that, in the report's introduction on page iii, they feel the need to say :

"All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis ex-
pressed are those of the authors and do not re-
flect the official positions or views of the CIA or
any other U.S. Government Agency."

I wonder why the felt the need to mention the CIA by name ? Perhaps because they are only meant to operate on foreign soil ?

I can't wait until we have a psychological revolution and noone on the planet feels the need to have power over others.

Ants and bees cooperate perfectly, what's wrong with us !!! ???



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



I wish to speak on your post. You are, in my honest opinion, not understanding the original point of doing the report in the first place. What do politicians do? All their actions, in a land of elections, need some measure of support from the people who do the electing.

Imagine now if you will, which is not a stretch of the imagination by any means, a party within the government, which have large stock in corporations, or need support of these same corporations in order to keep hold of the power they currently enjoy. They decide, this course of action is the most economically viable option for our group. This is the aim and the goal.

The question then becomes, how do you sell the goal? What will make the action you need to accomplish, acceptable to the public in order to keep continued support and hold of the power you so enjoy?

For this, you need feelers out, you need a reaction from a general grouping of people, to gauge how this action will be viewed once you set upon its course. These reactions will determine how you sell the intended goal.

So you put the goal to paper with complete deniability, this way if the reaction is too bad you can rethink it before again seeing how it would sell. You put the paper out, see how people react. Are they supportive. and if not on what basis are they unsupportive? Were the reactions against on moral grounds, economic grounds etc.?

Then, after all reactions are gauged, they decide on the best course of action to sell it to the populous at large.

This is the process of policy implementation. Politicians are nothing more than the best salesmen in the world with the best psychologists etc studying your reaction to the goal. With power comes great wealth. I am sure you have heard this.

So while the institute is independent, that study you read was paid for by the government to see how you would react.This should be common knowledge, I am quite surprised that it's not.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by qvision
 


The CIA is responsible for compiling information on foreign countries. In this particular case it deals with Iran and delves into many aspects - Military, Intervention, Isolation / Containment and Diplomatic. The authors used information compiled by many sources to put the report together, including information from the CIA.

Because the authors are speculating using that info, its a good idea to point out that the CIA / Federal Government didn't sanction the report. Its the opinions of the authors based on the evidence available to them in 2009 when the report was put together.




top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join