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: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Very nice thread and informative.......




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela
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.


Feel free to post your sources that support your claim here. If you read my last few posts or even the report itself you would have noticed where funding came from.

What you and others are missing is the report is a hypothetical that covers different avenues of possibility with regards to Iran and nothing more. Hence the reason for the disclaimers that people seem to be ignoring.

Its not a government report. This is not a hard concept to understand. People are ignoring that facet though because it allows them to distort the report and claim the US Government planned for whats occurring now. The issues with Iran's program dates back to 1979 and comes all the way to the present. The US / West / UN / IAEA have been dealing with Iran long before the 2009 Brooking s report.

Its the typical approach used on this website by some -
Use only what supports your argument while ignoring any and all other information from the SAME report that does not support the position.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Suzanne Maloney (one of the authors of the Brookings op paper) was on NPR yesterday

www.npr.org...

curiously she was advocating "containment" of Iran after they get the bomb.

Her counter part (Matt Kroening) was saying that this was just unacceptable --- more theatre for the sheeple

these people never stop

There was at least 4 hours of Iran theatre on NPR yesterday



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If it is so hypothetical why on earth are we faced with it in action?


Common sense comes in really handy. This was written three years ago, we see its being implemented now. But in your eyes its all a lie and not true, certainly not government policy? Have you eyes and a brain?

The institutes stated mission is to "provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous, and cooperative international system."


These recommendations are provided to the government and corporations, not private sector generally speaking. It is a left leaning institute verses a right. Could you imagine this report if drawn from a right leaning institute like AEI?
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 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I agree with you on one point, the entire middle east was the 'problem' of the west because there were real people living there, and sitting on top of some awesome resources that very large western corporations wanted their hands on. The 'problem' was how to get it.

Damn pesky international laws and human rights organizations anyway. But maybe all these can be used to advantage don't we think?
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


excuse me
did i say policy?
i must have mistyped
or.... no wait, maybe i just didn't say it
because maybe i do know what's going on
woah
maybe you should stop assuming you are talking to five year olds the whole time

basically i'm going with what Jameela says in the post [or two] above this
reasonably sure there weren't these.. what, professional report writers?
just sitting around in their office going "what should we write a report on next?"
"oh i know, let's hypothetically take iran"
i think it far more likely that sombody asked them to research that in particular
and oh i wonder who that could have been?

also, sure, iran could pull out of the npt
just like i could secede from my country tomorrow and declare my property a sovereign nation



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Knowhow, Great, Great, Post. This is about the most consise presentation of the USA/Israel plan for the Middle East I have ever read through. Iran is in the cross hairs of the two great satans.. I wonder what the false flag event will be? I wonder if it will be on our soil or someone else's ? I would suppose to achieve the desired effect, it will be here in America.

And just like 911. The evidence will just be laying in the street, for all to see. Probally some really bad actors on the street to set the stage for the story.Just like 911. Get ready folks, the up & coming war in the Middle East will make the Iraq & Afghanistan occupations look like bad training exercise's. I feel for the people of Iran.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


If you and others would apply common sense you would notice that everything in the report has been going on long before the report. You guys are seizing on the military portion of the report while ignoring the other sections.

We are not engaged in a war with Iran are we?
We have not launched air strikes on Iranian facilities have we?

Are we not engaged in Diplomacy? Did we not continually state diplomatic resolution is the goal?

Any reason you guys ignore those aspects of the report, which are in fact occurring right now? Is it because it doesn't support the twisting of the reports military section, the very section you and others latched onto?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
excuse me
did i say policy?
i must have mistyped
or.... no wait, maybe i just didn't say it
because maybe i do know what's going on
woah
maybe you should stop assuming you are talking to five year olds the whole time

Then stop acting like one. I dont wear size 12 shoes and my context argument, that for some reason you aren't comprehending, is very much relevant since it places the report into context and portrays it for what it is, and not what others want it to be by purposely leaving information out when they cite.

You made the comment, twice in the same post, that it is a government report when in fact it is not.



Originally posted by decepticonLaura
basically i'm going with what Jameela says in the post [or two] above this
reasonably sure there weren't these.. what, professional report writers?
just sitting around in their office going "what should we write a report on next?"
"oh i know, let's hypothetically take iran"
i think it far more likely that sombody asked them to research that in particular
and oh i wonder who that could have been?


What part of think tank do you not understand? The Brooking's Insitute, along with the other NGO's I posted that were named in the report, are all think tanks. So yes, they do sit around and analyze foreign policy of the US, as well as other countries. They take a look at all the information present and ask questions without the burden of policy.

The report clearly states the intent of the authors. I am assuming you did not get to that page yet?



Originally posted by decepticonLaura
also, sure, iran could pull out of the npt
just like i could secede from my country tomorrow and declare my property a sovereign nation


Is it to much to ask for people to do some research before making a claim?
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)


Article X

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.



If you want more evidence research North Korea and the NPT.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Yes this problem has existed in the middle east long before 2009. It started in the 1950's, and with Iran only became a serious problem in 1979. If we take the idiotic omg they are shia muslim out of the equation, and attempt to add some rational thought to the whole discussion, you might find the reason why it has been a huge problem since 1979.

I think you need to start at the beginning, and ask some very serious questions like why was the nuclear program while the shah was in power supported, why did the iranians take over the embassy and what was their goal, and why after that did Iran become the most hated thing on the planet.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 


Because the Ayatollah in 1979 temporarily halted their nuclear program. It resumed about 3 years later and has been heading in this direction ever since.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


NO, actually you are wrong. Not about the nuclear program stopping for a bit, but about why it became a problem for it to start again. That is the question you are not asking.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


NO, actually you are wrong. Not about the nuclear program stopping for a bit, but about why it became a problem for it to start again. That is the question you are not asking.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)


Actually Im not wrong.. If you did research you would see the program is not what the US / West has issues with. Enrichment and the current levels Iran is enriching Uranium to is the problem. They are enriching to 20% which is considered highly enriched uranium. 85% is the standard enrichment level for a stable nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad has gone on record stating Iran has the ability to enrich up to 80%

20% level is the base line that can be used and still achieve a nuclear explosion. Energy production reactors require enrichment from 1%-5% +/-. Research reactors require 12% - 19% +/-. Iran's nuclear program does not require the ability to enrich to 80% and their research reactors, with their current infrastructure, does not require the max enrichment levels.

Hence the issue being ability to produce a nuclear weapon and more specifically, enrichment levels, which have been the focus the entire time.

Feel free to research.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


Wow, I usually don't comment that often as I try to be more of an observer. However, I had to reply to say how speechless I am. This is truly disgusting, and even though I realize it will be hard times of living, I cannot wait until the day that this corrupt "regime" that is the US gov't is replaced. But I fear it may be a while because although I do think the American people will eventually wake up, it will be a procrastinated epiphany.

What I mean by this is that even though it is never too late to remodel our gov't, due to the size of our population, it will be harder to fight because most will realize how oppressive it really is when they are getting chipped like cattle. This of course would be occurring at the local work camp, or [enter one of the many possible scenarios here].

I just for the life of me cannot understand why the masses are so easily swayed, and allowed our gov't to get this way. I am no political expert, but gov't politics should never, no, NEVER have been allowed to be influenced and infiltrated by people in high positions in the private sector. Some CEO or board member of a private company should not be allowed to dual role on some gov't panel, especially in their industrial category.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




What you and others are missing is the report is a hypothetical that covers different avenues of possibility with regards to Iran and nothing more. Hence the reason for the disclaimers that people seem to be ignoring.


You are right here.

I've posted the thread with a little too much excitement.

You're also right in saying this report is not government funded.

However the report is an objective opinion and analysis given by the writers on



O p t i o n s f o r a New A m e r i c a n S t r at e g y t owa r d I r a n


And i feel some of the warmongers in the government have read this document as well.

Because the US/Israel vs Iran situation is described eerily accurate in this report.

That is imho though, hence why i felt the report was important.

I, however, DID jump the gun and i applaud you for keeping us down to earth.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Actually Im not wrong.. If you did research you would see the program is not what the US / West has issues with. Enrichment and the current levels Iran is enriching Uranium to is the problem.

They are enriching to 20% which is considered highly enriched uranium. 85% is the standard enrichment level for a stable nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad has gone on record stating Iran has the ability to enrich up to 80%


You're right again but who are the US and Israel to say; No Iran! you can't develop nuclear weapons.

When they've got a masssive arsanal of nukes themselves.

Someone is desperate for a war and are going to drastic measures to cause on.

Again, the report describes the situation at hand.

Allmost exactly.

If someone wrote this on ATS in 2009 he would be called the new D4rk_Kn1ghT, being hailed as a prophet.

I'm im in no way saying you're trying to debunk this thread, rather keep us down to earth but don't you feel this report is of importance?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


Dear kn0wh0w,
Spot on sir *tips hat*. I only hope that enough people are switched "on" to realise how manipulated they truly are. Sadly from reading these very "deny ignorance" forums, it is quite evident that there are enough war mongering, msm manipulated, fear gobbling drones out there to react in the exact way they are expected to to this charade.

I only can be chagrined at the future of humanity.

T



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I wanna thank you all for the nice comments.

But at the same time i wanna encourage you all to also read and appreciat Xcathdra's posts.

He brings up some valid points allthough some might still deny that.

with that being said, carry on

edit on 7-3-2012 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
You're right again but who are the US and Israel to say; No Iran! you can't develop nuclear weapons.

Thats the problem. The US and Israel are not saying Iran cant develop nuclear weapons. Iran stated they would not develop nuclear weapons when they voluntarily agreed to, adopted and ratified the NPT agreement for their country. When they did that, they accepted the consequences, which was absolutely no nuclear weapons program.

The US / Israel / West as well as the UN / IAEA have been consistent in stating Iran has every right to develop a civilian nuclear program. The issue remains the enrichment and the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

The UN resolutions all center around enrichment and the levels of enrichment (20%). The goal has been to verify there is no diversion of their civilian program into a weapons program.

The US is a signatory to the NPT and we comply with the requirements, as do the other countries who are also signatories. Israel cannot be used as a comparison because they are NOT a signatory to the NPT, meaning they are not subject to IAEA inspections of their facilities. There has been no offical confirmation from the Israeli government about their possible nuke program.

If people are going to argue that intelligence states otherwise, then those same people must accept the intelligence on Iran in the same fashion. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, all they have to do is withdraw from the treaty.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Someone is desperate for a war and are going to drastic measures to cause on.

Again, the report describes the situation at hand.

Allmost exactly.

Which situation though? That was my other point that even the diplomatic and containment examples given also fit the facts. I have found in cases like this that people want to "fit the facts" after the fact instead of applying them before the outcome is known.

Its kind of like reading the quatrains from Nosterdamous. It would be one thing if people could read the quatrains and prevent an incident from occuring. As an example the quatrain that supposedly talks about 9/11 and the new city in flames. What occured was people took the facts from 9/11 and fitted them into the quatrain instead of the other way around.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
If someone wrote this on ATS in 2009 he would be called the new D4rk_Kn1ghT, being hailed as a prophet.

Possibly... I still think the nostradamus example is pretty much what we have going on.


Originally posted by kn0wh0w
I'm im in no way saying you're trying to debunk this thread, rather keep us down to earth but don't you feel this report is of importance?

Im not trying to be an ass or anything and if I come across that way my appologies. My position in this thread is based on the report and what it contains. Any one of the perspectives in the report can fit the facts we have going on today. My issue came from the (my perception) concentration on the militaristic approach while ignoring all else.

My other issue was the manner in which the report was accepted, which is to say people wanted it to be comissioned by the Federal Government, they wanted the information to be taken as offical policy, and they wanted it to be somehow linked into a conspiracy theory / road map we see now.

The information in the report is good information, even more so in the fact that its accurately portraying the different situations we see now. I just dont accept the theory that its a road map put in place by the government beforehand nor do I think the NGO was used for deniability.

Last - Thank you for taking the time to come back to the thread and respond to my specific issues. I really do appreciate that. Its rare to have an op come back in, respond to the criticism, and be open minded enough to see the opposite view point.

Its something I fail at and its nice to get a reminder that it can be done and still result in a productive / conducive exchange that adds to the discussion / debate.

Thank you for that.
edit on 7-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Thats the problem. The US and Israel are not saying Iran cant develop nuclear weapons. Iran stated they would not develop nuclear weapons when they voluntarily agreed to, adopted and ratified the NPT agreement for their country. When they did that, they accepted the consequences, which was absolutely no nuclear weapons program.


Ok, fair enough.

But i believe you also stated it was an option to get out of the agreement? (correct me if i'm wrong)

But when you think about it, IF Iran would do that... they're basically saying that they're developing a nuclear weapon.

That in turn would give the US/Israel the 'green light' to unleash hell on Iran and get the so called war they desperately wanted.

and here comes the bit from the report that i think is accurate.


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:



The institutes stated mission is to "provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous, and cooperative international system."



"...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.) "


And i could cite a couple more examples but i don't want to create a whole layer of text.

Combine that with the threats and sanctions already taking, the media hyping up the war machine.

There's only one endstation for the train we're on and that endstation is war.


Im not trying to be an ass or anything and if I come across that way my appologies. My position in this thread is based on the report and what it contains. Any one of the perspectives in the report can fit the facts we have going on today. My issue came from the (my perception) concentration on the militaristic approach while ignoring all else.


I hope i didn't imply you were.

Because i really do appreciate your input!




Last - Thank you for taking the time to come back to the thread and respond to my specific issues. I really do appreciate that.

Its rare to have an op come back in, respond to the criticism, and be open minded enough to see the opposite view point. Its something I fail at and its nice to get a reminder that it can be done and still result in a productive / conducive exchange that adds to the discussion / debate.

Thank you for that.


No problem at all, this is what ATS is and should be about.

Allthough i agree that is rarely the case.

You're welcome.

Thanks for keeping me down to earth

edit on 7-3-2012 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join