Future of the middle-east

Now, that the west has played it's cards ... the quesion is, what is the future of the middle east.

Countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, Lybia and now Syria. All of which were powers to recon with, but all of which were powers that did not want another conflict with Israel. And I think that this part is important in the situation ...

GW: Bush and his family, known for Saudi ties, and also known for their Nazi ties. Bring about 9/11, accuse Bin Ladin, and help the saudis. Bring about the end of Iraq, to turn it into another islam boil point, without any real governing force, outside of Iran. The "appearances" are, that they are ending a regime that has military strength ... but as much as Saddam Hussein was for bolstering, he was more or less a toothless tiger.

The aftermath, a turmoil in Egypt that brings an end to Egypt that wanted peace with Israel. Jassir Arafat, opposed Israel for his Palestine ... but in his old age, he wanted peace with Israel and accepted Israel, and got killed. Not because he was a bad guy, but most likely because he did not believe in destroying Israel anymore.

Now, Syria ... Assad, a man who is an unlikely candidate to ever oppose Israel. And most likely to "keep the reigns on Lebanon and Palestine fighters".

The question the needs to be asked, is

What are we looking at?

A hunch is telling me, that we are looking at the west helping to "unify" the Arab world, with either Saudi Arabia or Iran as the the de-facto leader. As much as the American leadership talks big against Iran, they're like a puppy who barks, and doesn't seem to wanna bite ... now that is unlike the US. So, I am pretty sure that the US is actually not the enemy of Iran.

I think the US, with it's European allies ... by the way, Europe has always supported the Palestinian cause. That they are actually planning for "Israel's" demise ... that what we are looking at, is that these leaders are being ousted because they do not have the desire to carry out any action against "Israel".

What is going to happen in the middle east, when the US and Western nations have their will, and the entire middle east is governed by muslim fundemantalists?

I am thinking "the beginning to the end of Israel".

Won't a "unified" middle east, under Iran or Saudi religious hand, pose a greater threat to "Israel". Than many nations, each with their own problems? Didn't the Soviet Union pose a greater threat to the world, than the divided Russian federates?

good for you for trying to understand the big picture

unfortunately you are missing key pieces

To understand the present you need to look at history, no not some suni shi'ite crap

history of the CIA, Pentagon, and Mossad

United states inside Pentagon has "think tanks" young intellectuals with very high opinion of
themselves, bravado, hubris, arrogance.

They meet up and they say. Hey we got the technology, we got the money, so lets remake
any country we can to serve our interests in some way.

So they decide to install Shah of Iran as a puppet, this backfires. Turning Iran into long term
non compliant Country.

So they decide to use CIA front companies to siphon Russian oil post soviet collapse, this
backfires because it produces a HardCore Russian leader Putin, who now hates US guts. For real.

So they decide to meddle in Sovereignty of Canada to make it more American, this backfires,
more and more Canadians like me are turning ANTI-American

So they decide to try and control South America, this backfires, South Americans HATE USA GUTS.

So they decide to pull off 9/11 as inside job, this backfires, more and more Americans are growing
angry with their government.

I could go on and on

These young "smart" men who create US foreign policy, are the men that will collectively destroy the US

World is waking up, US is able to fool less and less people, day will come for US collapse.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
I am thinking "the beginning to the end of Israel".

Won't a "unified" middle east, under Iran or Saudi religious hand, pose a greater threat to "Israel". Than many nations, each with their own problems? Didn't the Soviet Union pose a greater threat to the world, than the divided Russian federates?

The reason for our, the US and the UK, funding the Jihadists was in order to 'control' the spread of Soviet ideology or rather, that is what they said on paper, what they were actually doing was using them to overthrow secular democracies, or 'Nasserism' as they called it. Egypt in the first instance, way back when Nasser was assassinated, was first to undergo this treatment. Similarly, by manipulating the tribal system in Afghanistan, we were able to create an effective bulwark against the spread of nationalism, that would have lead to nationalist democracy following the collapse of 'communist' Russia. The UK and the US, corporation wise, cannot exploit a democratic power structure, and has needed, in order to take advantage of new markets as they emerge, and to maintain access to oil and gas supplies, corrupt governments to work with. As often as not, they will fund more than one side in the conflict. Soviet Russia never really posed any threat at all to the west, only when it entered into the international economy, following the collapse, did it become a threat.

In order to control Russia, and in order to be able to exploit the reserves of oil and gas in places such as Azerbaijan, those Jihadists who had proved useful in Afghanistan, and Egypt, amongst other places, were recruited to overturn any attempts at democracy in those regions. Many of those involved in terrorist activities in Chechnen, were trained and armed by US and UK proxies. Ever wonder why no terrorists are brought for public trial? And why they are kept in such extreme isolation when captured? We can't have them pointing out that the reason they were able to carry out attacks against the US is because they were given communications and guerrilla training by US special forces and the SAS that gave them an edge over their enemy. The worm has turned, but it is worm that we helped create.

In terms of Israel, they are indeed in between a rock and a hard place. Churchill and Balfour, and the British foreign office supported the creation of the Israeli state, and turned not only a blind eye to their aggressive land claims, but also supplied them with the maps and logistical equipment to take the homes and land from the Arabs who had lived there for centuries. They stood by impassively while the Jews massacred Arabs, and equally so when the Arabs retaliated. Nothing new there. But then, at least, both sides were buying armaments from the British, so it was money in the pocket of the treasury and it was somewhat assumed that these European Jews would be happy to allow the UK to use Israel strategically to maintain a presence amongst the Arab nations that it had so completely managed to ostracise by stabbing them in the back in the first war. When they managed however to overthrow the Shah, and install their own man in Iran, they kind of took their loyalty (for what that is ever worth) elsewhere, and Israel became more of a US strategic point. With Iran and the Saudis in the bag, it seemed as though they were secure.

To cut a very, very long story short, the Israelis are not popular, at all, but for now, it is the Saudis position that is the real question. They are both seen as the West's bitches, but the Saudis are seen as betraying their own people. Less focus, in the overall current power struggle, is on Israel. It is really an inter-Arabic thing at present, with Iran and the Saudis as the main players. Both have incredible resources, but it is the Saudi contingent that have the US and UK training and resources at their disposal, even if they nolonger have their direct support. Depending who comes out on top, will influence what eventually happens to Israel, however that does not preclude Israel coming to collateral harm in the interim and they would be very wise to be as still as possible so as not to attract too much attention.

It is all a very big pile of poo, one way or another.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Israel will have to suicide like what Ajax did.

The Muslim Brotherhood does look to be one organisation ascending to power in Africa and the Middle East as Western influence is providing a common enemy for all the different Muslim branches to unite. If Osama Bin Laden was really behind 9/11 maybe things would be different, but going over there chasing lies and ghosts ain't doing anybody any favours.

I know there are a lot of hard and brutal stories involved in Islamic law, but going over there with guns and drones is not teaching them anything about respect or dignity and just perpetuating the violence. I do consider people like David Hicks done a lot more for cultural relations by living with these communities, learning their ways and sharing ours. Cultures do change over time, but without any good role models to look up to it does make it harder when looking for a better way. With security in a shambles it just sets every thing back and keeps that dark age culture alive.

reply to post by bjarneorn

Jassir Arafat, opposed Israel for his Palestine ... but in his old age, he wanted peace with Israel and accepted Israel, and got killed. Not because he was a bad guy, but most likely because he did not believe in destroying Israel anymore.

Lol, Arafat didn't want peace. He did what all Muhammadan muslims do, pretend peace and prepare for war, just like Muhammad did with Mecca. He'd make a grand show of coming to the U.S. to have "peace talks" and when he went home he'd advocate Jihad and retaking Jerusalem from the infidel. He was two-faced, say one thing to the infidel and say something different to his muslim cohorts. The man was nothing but a liar.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


That's hardly a trait confined to the Muslims now is it? The US et al are hardly known for their veracity either, let alone their trustworthiness. Besides, what leader doesn't watch his back, especially given the nature of his opposition in this instance? It is perfectly acceptable to my mind, to want peace, but to prepare for war, in fact there are ample enough quotes from esteemed tactitician that advise just that. Von Clausewitz particularly had a lot to say about arming yourself for peace. If Arafat had genuinely wanted peace, and he may well have, that doesn't mean he suddenly was going to turn into an imbecile overnight and fail to fortify his borders. You may be that naive, but he certainly wasn't. And besides, he had survived previous attempts on his life when he tried to go against the grain, was he to presume that this time they might let him do as he wished?

reply to post by Biliverdin


If you want to know how they think, research Muhammad and Meccah. Just sayin.

reply to post by bjarneorn


The truth bro.

Everything you see on the TV is basically a fake ass play by actors. Everything you read about it is just hired writers hired to write you a story. And history is just whatever fits the fancy of whoever comes out on top.

What is really going on is....Death and Chaos is the name of the game, and its something you will never really be able to understand even if you were told.

What is going to happen in the middle east, when the US and Western nations have their will, and the entire middle east is governed by muslim fundemantalists?

Well then everything would have gone according to plan. And that to is just another step that will lead to another step.

If you want to bet who the US is in bed with, bet on the Saudis.

As far as the endgame goes, who knows what the final picture looks like, but Iran will be gone. If they get nukes, then everyone in the region will get nukes, and American nuclear containment won't allow that to happen.

But if things go really badly, it won't be because of a war in Iran, and it won't be destabilizing Egypt, it will be because something got messed up in Pakistan.