How do you know they don't?
From the Emerald Isles: Clare Daly slams Obama as a "war criminal"
- Thread starter Grieves
- Start date
How do you know they don't?
What about Bosnia and Rwanda? The SCW - the Nazis helped the fascists and 'we' stood by. Your grasp of realpolitik seems almost non-existent. Anyway, in terms of a US/ZioIs/UK gangster attack on Iran - I wouldn't imagine anything so overt coming soon. As it is the US has the greatest debt (an unrepayable one at that) of any empire ever existing, and that'll be coming home to roost soon enough; it has shown time and again that despite its overwhelming technological advantage, it is militarily defeated by determined, lightly armed guerillas - everywhere it goes (and the same obviously goes for the UK poodle and Zio/Is whose arse was kicked out of Lebanon in 2006, last time they tried it on with Hezbollah. Military defeats all round then). Afghanistan - defeated; Iraq - defeated; Libya? Well, what a brilliant bit of strategy that turned out to be....; Syria - will be defeated in that proxy mayhem, mainly because 70% of the Syrian people support Assad (20% neutral; 10% for 'rebels') - and that according to a NATO poll. So, from the Afghan and Iraq experience, it seems the USUKisnato gangsters have realised they can't put 'boots on the ground' without having their arses kicked. Shame for them, because 'boots on the ground' implies greater profits for those elites who benefit from endless wars in far off places.....now however they seem to be content with no 'boots on the ground', but in their stead - no-fly zones (aka turkey shoots) and proxy fighters to enrich themselves from the sale of arms and the misery of whole countries they target for destruction. Anyway - join up - get into uniform and get paid to protect and promote the profit rights of the few - er, I mean fight for Queen and country. And don't forget the Al Nusra Front is on your side (in Syria) - though not sure how they'd take to you if you approached them in uniform.....(the internet is awash with films of smiling jihadists holding up severed heads and even one Saudi commander eating the heart of a Syrian Army soldier - his crime? Having a picture of a naked woman on his mobile phone - roll up roll up - it's all on You Tube). It's alright though - they're on your side. Let's give them some more weapons, shall 'we'?
Btw - I can't access any of the usual methods of replying to post etc - it's all gone tits up - so no formatting at all - is it just me? Appears so
Apparently my fix for double posts mean that image attachments are randomly not appearing, so I tried to revert back to where were were before, so something might have got caught half way.
I've flushed the cache, try refreshing the page.
Where did you hear that they did? Lamestream media notwithstanding. It's quite well known, by those who care to research the right places. Are you saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? And if so, where did you learn it? And while we're asking silly unanswerable questions on proving negatives (seems to be your stock-in-trade) - How do you know there are no unicorns?
I'm not claiming that they have one. You made the claim that they did not. So how to you know this?
No difference
Try some research - I can't post links or even put a word in bold - so don't expect me to do what's easily found if you actually want to find it. And like I said, it's not possible to prove a negative - so it's a stupid and loaded question - why don't you ask your own country's 'intelligence' services? They agree with me. Don't you have a direct line?
Bugger. Try a different browser. If that works then try flushing the original browser cache.
Of course I do, I'll pull some strings at the State Department.........
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/210672.pdf
Is that essentially what you base your statement on?
Assessments of Iran’s Nuclear Program
The U.S. intelligence community stated in its “worldwide threat assessment” testimony on March
12, 2013, that Iran has the capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, but that it has not
made a decision to do so. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified on April 18,
2013 said that a decision to do so would be made singularly by the Supreme Leader. With that
uncertainty about Iran’s ultimate nuclear intentions, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
reports indicate that Iran has not satisfactorily addressed IAEA information that it still might have
a nuclear weapons program.14 An IAEA report of November 8, 2011, contained an annex laying
out the IAEA’s information on Iran’s apparent research efforts on weaponizing HEU, as well as
on some possible facilities used for that effort. However, Iran is not known to have produced any
HEU. Based on the November 2011 report, on November 18, 2011 the IAEA Board of Governors
adopted a resolution expressing “deep and increasing concern” about Iran’s nuclear program. The
vote was 32 in favor, 2 against (Cuba, Ecuador), and 1 abstention (Indonesia).
After repeatedly refusing to discuss the IAEA information, in January 2012 Iran began
discussions with the IAEA on a workplan to clear up the allegations, including allowing IAEA
inspections of the Parchin military base where the IAEA suspects research on nuclear explosive
technology may have taken place. (The site was inspected twice in 2005.) IAEA Director Yukiya
Amano, following an unexpected visit to Iran on May 21, 2012, announced an “agreement in
principle” on the proposed workplan. However, amid IAEA accusations that Iran may have
cleaned up parts of the Parchin facility, no pact was finalized.
[...]
Iran’s Counter-Arguments
Iranian leaders deny they are trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability and assert that Iran’s
nuclear program is for medical uses and electricity generation, given finite oil and gas resources.
Iran argues that uranium enrichment is its “right” as a party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.15 Iran claims that IAEA information demonstrates little beyond the fact that
some of its scientists may have performed nuclear weapons calculations on computers. U.S.
officials have said that Iran’s gas resources make nuclear energy unnecessary.
Iran professes that WMD is inconsistent with its ideology. In 2003, the Supreme Leader
Khamene’i issued a formal pronouncement (fatwas) that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic. On
February 22, 2012, he expanded on that concept in a speech saying that the production of and use
of a nuclear weapon is prohibited as a “great sin,” and that stockpiling such weapons is “futile,
expensive, and harmful.”16 On February 17, 2013, he reportedly told visitors that Iran is not
seeking to develop a nuclear weapon but that the international community would not be able to
prevent Iran from doing so if that were Iran’s goal.17
[...]
Nuclear Weapons Time Frame Estimates
If Iran were to decide to pursue a nuclear weapon, estimates differ as to how long it would take
Iran to achieve that goal. On March 14, 2013, President Obama stated the view of the intelligence
community that “it would take Iran over a year or so” to develop a nuclear weapon after a
decision to do so. Then Secretary of Defense Panetta said in January 2012, that Iran would need
an additional one to two years to develop a delivery vehicle for that weapon. The Institute for
Science and International Security, in a study released in January 2013, said that Iran could
acquire the “critical capability” for a nuclear weapon (defined as ability to make enough HEU for
one bomb before foreign detection) in mid-2014.18 These estimates take into account technical
difficulties and reported disruptive action such as the computer virus (Stuxnet).
A related issue is the ability of the United States and IAEA to detect an all-out effort by Iran to
develop an actual nuclear weapon. Director of National Intelligence Clapper, in his March 12
testimony mentioned earlier, said that Iran could not divert safeguarded material and produce a
weapon-worth of weapons grade uranium before this activity is discovered. The crucial role of
the IAEA in monitoring Iran’s activities explains why many experts consider it crucial that Iran
continue to cooperate with the IAEA.
I'd never base anything based on anything James Clapper said, he's a liar (didn't you hear?). There isn't a single US 'intelligence' agency saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, au contraire, en faites; and no-one else that matters either. It's bullshit - Why don't we talk about an already extant existential threat in the form of Zio/Is which has over 200 undeclared, illegal nuclear weapons, while remembering Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and an outspoken exponent of it? Guess they didn't report that on MSNBCCNNFOXCBSBBCITNSKYBSCENTRALCORPOHACKATE? Maybe I missed it.
I agree with your analysis for the most part. But the thing of it is, they're still our gangsters and our tribe/gang just like "their" global petrodollar and federal reserve notes define "our" debt/money (in theory). You allude to this here:
Do you identify with your gang or not? You hold and spend dollars, yes? Live in a town where there's a military base or wealth derivative and "trickling down" from one?
There again, what would people do if they weren't incorporated into killing other people... let more and more robots and drones do their work so that they can garden, read, live, grow marijuana or whatever they wanted to do? Disastrous. Then the war on terrorism would never be won!
Plus then the world might get overpopulated, in theory. There's always that. So apparently it's better to invest in the drone business to get on with the business of killing other people and Corrections Corporation of America* to get on with the business of imprisoning them to produce the products needed to kill some other people.
In the meantime, more jobs incoming:
*Merging business plans:
Still waiting on Walmart to get in on the act... maybe it wasn't a good idea to monetize everything. Not even sure who came up with that idea, probably one of those collective things emerging from the bowels of the body politic, naturally. Probably worth researching or reading a few books about.
Yes, But not my gang, no. I can't watch the video or do much else on this site at the mo -
Yeah... not really my gang anymore either. But "they" (American generals, corporations, etc.) are the most powerful gang in the world. It seems that they may even have some type of directed energy weapon. That would explain a lot. In fact, given a lot of dots/facts I know about it's a pattern/theory that might have a lot of explanatory power if people were willing to recognize or imagine it as a possible pattern.
Ramble.
Timeframe aside, surely this is precisely what has come to pass, or attempted, with varying degrees of success thus far. Look to Syria now, or rather, this coming August. A year to eighteen months ago what is now proposed would have been popularly considered unthinkable, yet an orchestrated mandate for invasion now seems palpable, inevitable. Textbook manufactured consent.
He casts a wide net. He's off by several years. Only Libya can really be called a hit there. He missed Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, He's no better than an astrologer.
Hardly... he is merely repeating the plan... he cannot be held responsible for 'their' inability to fulfill it in the timeframe. I expect they thought Afghanistan and Iraq would be a walkover... not that they would get their butts kicked by it turning into a new Vietnam, (notwithstanding the fact that millions of civilians had to die).
Ironic really... New Pearl Harbor... = New Vietnam
Then whoever made the plan consulted with a poor astrologer
No, no astrologers were consulted... this came from on high, 'direct', the problem being that Gog Magog, being being dual usage as goodies and baddies, proved too difficult to control... well you know how it is when people get these commands from God... sometimes it doesn't go right.
What, being the baddies who have to be vanquished to bring on the second coming and also the protectors of the City of London... quite agree.
Worked for Obomber's election promises... 'no more spying on innocent Americans', 'troops out as soon as I take office'... etc etc
Well so far they, i) Invaded Afghanistan... effected regime change... got their butts kicked... currently negotiating with the Taliban to allow the troops to be withdrawn. Resistance is fertile.
ii) Invaded Iraq, set up a proxy government, caused the deaths and suffering of millions, snagged some lucrative deals and pinched their oil etc. Resistance is fertile.
iii) Destabilised Libya, gave funds, weapons etc to Muslim fanatics, (aka terrorists), wreaked havoc on the Country, pinched their oil resources. Country gone to the dogs and blowback incurred.
iv) Caused mayhem and continue to do so in Syria, funding cannibals and Muslim extremists (aka terrorists)... ergo plan in progress but resistance met. Resistance is fertile.
v) Made dramatic WMD claims on 'intelligence'... ROFLMFAO... engaged in economic warfare... posturing for military action but preferably trying to raise an internal problem similar to Syria before sending in the dogs of war.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then whoever made the plan consulted with a poor astrologer
You can't have it both ways - "they predicted this would happen" and "it's different because things changed".
What exactly did they (the US) DO to try to carry out this plan?
Strikes me there's chaos from Syria to Nigeria and near everywhere between. I haven't watched the attached video with General Clark (bandwidth problems) but recall the US/NATO strategic memorandum being cited by umm, StormCloudsGathering, I think, on Youtube, in a rather alarmist yet strangely prescient upload entitled World War 3 or something or another. Such a broad scope of issues, across three continents, it is beyond my understanding. In terms of US/NATO involvement, drone attacks, CIA training of militia, imposition of CIA trained regimes, sanctions in Sudan, Yemen etc, stringent restructuring of state owned banks. Arab Spring sale, everything must go, for terms and conditions, see the Paris Club. Being facituous but chaos seems very profitable.
Anecdotally, I spent some time drinking, in east London, this new year's eve gone, with an officer in the Irish Army who was very clear in this regard. He had been seconded to the United Nations forces and stationed in a variety of places in recent years, notably Mali in 2011, protecting gas pipe lines, and Israel, on "peace-keeping" missions which entailed border security for Israeli operatives crossing the border into Lebanon to engage the "enemy". I asked him for his view on Iran and the chances of war and was, perhaps naively, surprised by his reply, and the utter confidence with which he gave it. He said it was "booked in", a "foregone conclusion". The date for your diaries? 2015. I'll be watching for that date, as a sort of test of how a forgone conclusion plays itself out in the press as a consistant diplomatic effort among reasonable nations to bring Iran to the non-existant negotiating table, but to no avail. Or not. Who knows? He seemed to, in anycase.
I think Iran will reach Israel's threshold for attack at about that time, in terms of KG of weapons grade uranium, should imagine that'll be the pretext, if such "foregone conclusions" are based in fact.
Nothing like egging on a good war eh Cairenn?
And can you explain why Iran is such a 'threat' to anyone at all?
I'd watch for collective consciousness shaping in the corporate media, something similar to CNN interviewing Osama in his cave and so forth. But that's just me.
I'd say the US is a far greater threat to Saudi Arabia then Iran, all that gorgeous oil! Aside a brief fight in Yemen and a few planes for the US war against Hussein have the Arabs fought at all in 100 years? Come to think of it, has Persia picked a fight in 300 years? I'd guess the instability and drama eminates from outside, surely? What differences do Arabs and Persians have aside language and a slightly different take on the son-in-law of Mohammed? In-laws huh?
I don't understand the fear built up around Iran.
If you're incorporated into the Anglo/American "home base" of a global banking cartel that will naturally pull more oil to you by creating their paper ponzi in your nation (As they establish central banks to create more ponzi in other nations and so forth.) then you're not a "threat." That's all it seems to amount to in general. And then all that gorgeous oil can be "skimmed" or bought with the petrodollars that get created every time corrupt American politicians expand spending on the warfare/welfare State in America. That's the way that banksters generally get to create even more debt/money than they've already created out of nothing. (Apparently the banking cartel can create dollars out of nothing but the US itself can't create bonds out of nothing to "pay" for "their" dollars with "our" money... uh, or somethin'.)
Apparently the system comes full circle when the politicians need to have the banksters create even more debt/money to force Americans to police the entire world in order to protect global trade for the multinational corporations that will now be housed in the "One World Trade Center." (Conspiracy theorists fear the New World Order... Inc... in the future? It's basically already here. Duh.) I guess American soldiers could look at it this way, they actually are helping to create and preserve the American lifestyle to some extent. "The American way of life is non-negotiable." --Bushes It's just that the bankster's fees and bonuses and the cost of the CIA and so forth these days, well. It'll probably be time to send the soldiers out to infuse their paper ponzi and our "federal reserve notes" with value again sometime soon, regardless. Because the wars created by banksters and Zionists will probably never wind down unless "the base" begin following the advice of Major Smedley Butler and demand that their ruling/measuring classes share in the "shared sacrifice" first. (After all, what would Jesus do?)
More rambling...
I'd say the US is a far greater threat to Saudi Arabia then Iran, all that gorgeous oil! Aside a brief fight in Yemen and a few planes for the US war against Hussein have the Arabs fought at all in 100 years? Come to think of it, has Persia picked a fight in 300 years? I'd guess the instability and drama eminates from outside, surely? What differences do Arabs and Persians have aside language and a slightly different take on the son-in-law of Mohammed? In-laws huh?
I don't understand the fear built up around Iran.
The Iran Iraq war started by the Arab Iraq against the Persian Iran and lasting eight years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war
Do you have any evidence that Saudi Arabia has more to fear from us than Iran? They historically don't like each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_–_Saudi_Arabia_relations
Sectarian tensions
Historically, Iran–Saudi Arabia relationships have always been uncertain, something attributed to the different sects that the majority populations in both the countries follow. Saudi Arabia which is a predominantly Sunni society has always been skeptical about Shi'ite Iran's activities in the Persian Gulf region, thus labeling them as Iran's strategy of gaining influence in not only the Middle East but also in the entire Muslim world. Leading Sunni and Shi'ite Clerics in both the countries deemed each other's religious beliefs as incorrect for decades. An attempt was made by the Sunnis to demolish the shrine of al-Hussein, one of the important religious leaders of the Shi'ite theology. Since that incident, tension between the Sunni and Shi'ite creeds has increased and this tension is considered unlikely to be resolved any time soon.[5] According to Le Figaro, on June 5, 2010, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Hervé Morin, the Defense Minister of France that: "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel."[6]
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Boodles it is FAR more than a difference about Mohamed's son in law.
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html?page=2
http://www.wikihow.com/Learn-to-Tell-the-Difference-Between-Sunni-and-Shiite-Beliefs
And the US doesn't need Saudi oil, Europe does. The US will soon be a net EXPORTER of oil and oil products.
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html?page=2
.. for Sunni Muslims, approximately 90 percent of the Muslim world, the loss of the caliphate after World War I was devastating in light of the hitherto continuous historic presence of the caliph, the guardian of Islamic law and the Islamic state. Sunni fundamentalist leaders thereafter emerged in nations such as Egypt and India, where contact with Western political structures provided them with a model awkwardly to imitate ... as they struggled after 1924 to provide a viable alternative to the caliphate.
In 1928, four years after the abolishment of the caliphate, the Egyptian schoolteacher Hasan al-Banna founded the first Islamic fundamentalist movement in the Sunni world, the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun). Al-Banna was appalled by"the wave of atheism and lewdness [that] engulfed Egypt" following World War I. The victorious Europeans had"imported their half-naked women into these regions, together with their liquors, their theatres, their dance halls, their amusements, their stories, their newspapers, their novels, their whims, their silly games, and their vices." Suddenly the very heart of the Islamic world was penetrated by European"schools and scientific and cultural institutes" that" cast doubt and heresy into the souls of its sons and taught them how to demean themselves, disparage their religion and their fatherland, divest themselves of their traditions and beliefs, and to regard as sacred anything Western."14 Most distressing to al-Banna and his followers was what they saw as the rapid moral decline of the religious establishment, including the leading sheikhs, or religious scholars, at Al-Azhar, the grand mosque and center of Islamic learning in Cairo. The clerical leaders had become compromised and corrupted by their alliance with the indigenous ruling elites who had succeeded the European colonial masters.
Osama bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim. To him the end of the reign of the caliphs in the 1920s was catastrophic, as he made clear in a videotape made after 9-11. On the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera on October 7, 2001, he proclaimed:"What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. ... Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more [than] eighty years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated."
http://www.wikihow.com/Learn-to-Tell-the-Difference-Between-Sunni-and-Shiite-Beliefs
Understand that some Sunni consider the Shi'a and their practices to be heretical. Sunnis often do not understand how the Shia can be opposed to companions of the Prophet and follow the 12 Imams. They maintain that since the companions knew more than we do and were closest one can get to perfect human beings, it is wrong to argue or consider historical actions of these companions including wars and their power struggles. Similarly since they hold that the issue of divine law and succession is one that is better decided by vote (ijma). The Sunni first Caliph was voted for, the second was appointed by the first, the third was again voted by a group of 5 people selected by the second Caliph and the last was by general public. On the other hand, most Shias believe that the 3 caliphs stole the position of leadership from Ali ibn Abu Talib. Shias also accuse the 3 caliphs of other various crimes, such as oppressing and stealing the rights of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet and the wife of Ali ibn Abu Talib and state that their leadership was rather a political maneuver.
And the US doesn't need Saudi oil, Europe does. The US will soon be a net EXPORTER of oil and oil products.
By Arab, in that context (Iran and Saudi) I meant Saudi, only, not Palestinian or Iraqi etc. so in saying no warring for a century it should be understood in that sense; of course 'Arabs' are fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Libya, right now! - And I remember the original Gulf War, it felt like it would never end, a stark, chilling televisual back drop to my childhood. Will come back to that, since you have reminded me, as it's relevant to your question.
Yes, I mentioned the religious differences but that is something the whole Arab and Muslim world sees as peculiar to Iranians, but it is mostly just theological, isn't it? Purists view Shia elevation of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali as, well, off-key. Neighbours across the Gulf can live with that, there are no scores to settle as such between the two sects across that channel, unlike across the Euphrates, where ethic (and aforementioned sectarian) blood battles are regularly occurring. I take your point about desecration of shrines. I am talking about peoples rather than French ministers and Kings with vested interests. The Pakistanis and othes that consistute the majority of the workers in Saudi I am pretty confident aren't that troubled by Iran nor by religious differences. As for the King, I'm reminded of Gaddaffi's prescient speech to the Arab League where he joked that all Arabs hate their neighnours but seem to be able to deal with their 'enemies', in his case, Italy, the UK etc.
The King courts the French minister yet the King despises the French, France is held with contempt across the Arab world. The King, the Arab world, have total disregard and contempt for the British too, as obviously both are former colonial powers. However, there is no venomous contempt such as that held by the Arab world for Israel and the US. Trully despised, and this is mu point really.
Theres a whole heap of treachery with America and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis helped the Americans against Hussein yet it will not be lost on anyone in the Arab peninsula and beyond that the Americans stabbed Hussein in the vack. The US backed Hussein for decades, then hanged him. What makes anyone think they will not do the same to the Saudis once they are done with Iran? The trait is acknowledged. The US must have dozens of bases in Saudi, poised for Iran. I should imagine they could crush Saudi Arabia in a matter of weeks. Obviously it is not on the agenga, yet. Hussein was not on the agenda in the 70s and 80s.
My point yes, the US supplied chemical weapons to Hussein for years, 100's of 1000's were torturously murdered as a result of it, then upwards of 500 000 Iraqis were treacherously murdered bybthe US in the next Gulfvwar. The Arabbworld knows the US is and allies are utterly insane, and sure Saudis will trade, they are port merchants, but regard the Americans as dogs, I'm afraid. Rightfully whether one type of muslim brother or another, brotherhood it is. White men, be they Anglo-American or Germanic Ashkenazi have brought sustained rampage, ransacking and terror to the Arab world for decades and are with justification, not to be trusted. In summary, the US is seen as rabid, and therefore will always be the greatest danger in the middle east. This is not a personal attack, the British and French are regarded in much the same way, souless and greedy, and therefore, extremely dangerous.
Yes, I mentioned the religious differences but that is something the whole Arab and Muslim world sees as peculiar to Iranians, but it is mostly just theological, isn't it? Purists view Shia elevation of Mohammed's son-in-law Ali as, well, off-key. Neighbours across the Gulf can live with that, there are no scores to settle as such between the two sects across that channel, unlike across the Euphrates, where ethic (and aforementioned sectarian) blood battles are regularly occurring. I take your point about desecration of shrines. I am talking about peoples rather than French ministers and Kings with vested interests. The Pakistanis and othes that consistute the majority of the workers in Saudi I am pretty confident aren't that troubled by Iran nor by religious differences. As for the King, I'm reminded of Gaddaffi's prescient speech to the Arab League where he joked that all Arabs hate their neighnours but seem to be able to deal with their 'enemies', in his case, Italy, the UK etc.
The King courts the French minister yet the King despises the French, France is held with contempt across the Arab world. The King, the Arab world, have total disregard and contempt for the British too, as obviously both are former colonial powers. However, there is no venomous contempt such as that held by the Arab world for Israel and the US. Trully despised, and this is mu point really.
Theres a whole heap of treachery with America and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis helped the Americans against Hussein yet it will not be lost on anyone in the Arab peninsula and beyond that the Americans stabbed Hussein in the vack. The US backed Hussein for decades, then hanged him. What makes anyone think they will not do the same to the Saudis once they are done with Iran? The trait is acknowledged. The US must have dozens of bases in Saudi, poised for Iran. I should imagine they could crush Saudi Arabia in a matter of weeks. Obviously it is not on the agenga, yet. Hussein was not on the agenda in the 70s and 80s.
My point yes, the US supplied chemical weapons to Hussein for years, 100's of 1000's were torturously murdered as a result of it, then upwards of 500 000 Iraqis were treacherously murdered bybthe US in the next Gulfvwar. The Arabbworld knows the US is and allies are utterly insane, and sure Saudis will trade, they are port merchants, but regard the Americans as dogs, I'm afraid. Rightfully whether one type of muslim brother or another, brotherhood it is. White men, be they Anglo-American or Germanic Ashkenazi have brought sustained rampage, ransacking and terror to the Arab world for decades and are with justification, not to be trusted. In summary, the US is seen as rabid, and therefore will always be the greatest danger in the middle east. This is not a personal attack, the British and French are regarded in much the same way, souless and greedy, and therefore, extremely dangerous.
I'm on a touch screen phone, impossible to squeeze, move and type what I'm saying, hence typos and lack of coherence. I understand the differences in religion (relatively well for an average white westerner, particularly after having had an Afghan housemate for a year, we touched on religion a lot. Of course the US and Saudis will not fight, they're uncomfortable allies, yet strong allies they are. I have no doubt the Saudis will back an air offensive against Iran coming straight out of their coastal bases. But that is nothing to do with fear of the other, among the populace of either country, it is straight trading among royalty and goverment.
Apologies for emotive use of stock trade phraseology for westerners. I am just disillusioned with war mongering outsiders interfering in the middle east. To me Iran should be treated with respect from the west, just as it is respected by the Arab world, China and Russia. It is a great seat of civilisation, of maths,physics, geometry, music and the arts. The west could win so much from forging positive ties. Oh for the respect enjoyed by Iran and Afghanistan in the 60s. Worlds turnt asunder by ideology and greed. I should have liked to have visited these places, in peace.
Apologies for emotive use of stock trade phraseology for westerners. I am just disillusioned with war mongering outsiders interfering in the middle east. To me Iran should be treated with respect from the west, just as it is respected by the Arab world, China and Russia. It is a great seat of civilisation, of maths,physics, geometry, music and the arts. The west could win so much from forging positive ties. Oh for the respect enjoyed by Iran and Afghanistan in the 60s. Worlds turnt asunder by ideology and greed. I should have liked to have visited these places, in peace.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
So because they were great in the past, we should allow them free reign to do whatever they wish to do. What about the great kingdoms of Africa, should the folks there be allowed to kill an homosexual, without the west saying anything?
It took the Christians around a 1000 years to stop fighting each other. Look at the wars against the Eastern Church, by those that looked to Rome.
The Sunnis do not trust or like the Shia's. If Iran builds a nuke, then we can expect to see Saudi and Egypt and maybe Turkey do the same.
We have removed our bases in Saudi, the one they ASKED us to place there.
It took the Christians around a 1000 years to stop fighting each other. Look at the wars against the Eastern Church, by those that looked to Rome.
Then later came the reformation and the battles it started.
Fourth Crusade (1204) and other military conflicts
Main articles: Fourth Crusade, Siege of Constantinople (1204), and Northern Crusades
See also: Massacre of the Latins
During the Fourth Crusade Latin crusaders and Venetian merchants sacked Constantinople itself, looting The Church of Holy Wisdom and various other Orthodox Holy sites,[150] and converting them to Latin Catholic worship. The Norman Crusaders also destroyed the Imperial Library of Constantinople.[151][152][153] Various holy artifacts from these Orthodox holy places were taken to the West. The crusaders also appointed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.[150] This event and the final treaty established the Latin Empire of the East and the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople (with various other Crusader states). Later some religious artifacts were sold in Europe to finance or fund the Latin Empire in Byzantium as can be seen, when Emperor Baldwin II sold the relic of the Crown of Thorns while in France trying to raise new funds to maintain his hold on Byzantium.[154] The Latin Empire was terminated in 1261 by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. This attack on the heart of the Byzantine Empire is seen as a factor that led to its conquest by Islam.
In northern Europe, the Teutonic Knights, after their successes in the northern crusades,[155] attempted to conquer also the Orthodox Russian Republics of Pskov and Novgorod, an enterprise endorsed by Pope Gregory IX.[155] One of the major defeats they suffered was the Battle of the Ice in 1242. Catholic Sweden also undertook several campaigns against Orthodox Novgorod. There were also conflicts between Catholic Poland and Orthodox Russia. Such conflicts solidified the schism between East and West.
The Sunnis do not trust or like the Shia's. If Iran builds a nuke, then we can expect to see Saudi and Egypt and maybe Turkey do the same.
We have removed our bases in Saudi, the one they ASKED us to place there.
WOW.... that is a truly amazing post.
And that is really your argument for warmongering against a Country that was the cradle of civilisation and a Country that has not instigated a war against anyone in over 300 years?
We should allow them free reign? Yes. That's pretty much it. It's not as if leading from behind and trying to frame the work of the Empire in terms of human rights worked out that well in Libya. Also, if you don't allow other nations free reign based on "human rights abuses" then it's likely that human rights abuses will emerge among them by happenstance as a pretext for going in and taking them over. No sooner have you said that you want to save the gays, then it's likely that even more human rights abuses would emerge from the bowels of the body politic there. Because then those who are looking at things from a geopolitical perspective like psychopaths instead of dwelling on the ground with "the bugs"* below... well, you should know the drill by now. (Worth noting that whatever you come up with to police the world, it will all be naturally drawn by the bankster's paper ponzi to locations with resources that can be monetized and so forth too.)
What has the West said about the atrocities it created in Libya and those it has begun creating in Syria?
Choose your theatrics and choose your favorite type of political puppet: "Ride 'em cowboy, it's time for some patriotic shock and awe! Set off the fireworks! Go with your gut, with patriotism!!!" or "I'm leading from behind, secretly and with diplomacy and stuff. If people disagree or won't talk, then I'll just assassinate them without trial. But shhhh... I'm really intelligent but it's all, top secret! Uh, we're protecting human rights and stuff too... or somethin'."
But don't expect these puppets to make a difference with respect to the overall patterns being produced by the root of all evil and those who ultimately own it.
Let's enjoy our entertainment about human rights, gay people and democracy or whatever... but we can't expect everyone to play pretend with us that it has much to do with what's going on in reality. We're not going to be able to send in Team America, World Police to save the gays from their own type of psychopathic rulers in Syria or Iran. It is what it is. (RIP, Chris Stevens... a "bump in the road" on the way to creating and sustaining an Empire. Ironically Obama would probably let the gay Americans that cheer for him now die too, if it suited the interests of their Empire.)
*
Bugsplat: That is the name of U.S. Defence Department software for calculating and reducing collateral damage (dead civilians) resulting from airstrikes. Bugsplat was first used in the Iraq war in 2003. Back then, officials told the Washington Post that it would, "more precisely model potential damage by a particular type and size of bomb dropped by a particular aircraft flying at a given altitude." The CIA also uses Bugsplat.
Family members surround caskets during a mass funeral in Miranshah, Pakistan, June 16, 2011. Local residents say the dead were killed in a drone attack a day earlier. (Haji Mujtaba/Reuters)
Drone-speak lexicon: from 'Bugsplat' to 'Targeted killing'
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that what everyone in the Mid East did when Israel built their nukes at Dimona? Note: no outside inspections, workers basically dropping dead at this point... etc.
I think if you researched it, 'the west' has had a lot to say about it:
The move is more than just a Ugandan oddity - it is the embodiment of a murderous fantasy, cherished by fanatics in the West, to extinguish homosexual life altogether.
It is easy for the West to dismiss the bill as a local phenomenon, emblematic of African opposition to ''civilised progress''. Deeply religious and protective of traditional family structures, Uganda has long been hostile to homosexuality.
But a disturbing link has been revealed between Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill and US evangelism. According to The New York Times, three US evangelists travelled to Uganda last March and spoke at a conference that conference organiser Stephen Langa said was about ''the gay agenda - that whole hidden and dark agenda''.
The Americans were invited to speak about ways of ''curing'' gay people. It appears that their denunciations of homosexuality as a threat to family values added fuel to the fire. They were heard by thousands, including the future architects of the kill-the-gays bill.
The Americans have since sought to distance themselves from the bill. They insist their message is one of love, not murder. But the desire to eradicate homosexuality from human existence lies at the heart of the anti-gay movement, whether it is practised in Uganda or the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
Can you tell me, (as you are so concerned about the gay's welfare that you appear to be advocating war with Iran on the basis of what is happening in Uganda), how the Israeli and American bombs have been engineered to not maim and kill gays as I would like to see these advancements in modern warfare. Does it also apply to nukes? Any news on when the drones will be modified to only kill 'terrorists'... (whoever they are, I'm still trying to work that one out) and not innocent children as is currently the case.Evangelical organisation Andrew Wommack Ministries declared support for the bill. "I knew this information was wrong and the punishments were vastly exaggerated as is so often the case. I met with the member of parliament responsible for this bill and he gave me his reasoning for introducing this legislation. Uganda had just had the United Nations try to pressure them into passing pro-homosexual legislation in order to obtain a large sum of money offered to them (a bribe). They responded with this legislation in order to stop the strong arm tactics of the pro-homosexual western influence. Would to God American leaders had enough integrity to not be bribed or badgered into compliance. Although I knew the situation was being misrepresented, I didn't feel qualified to deal with this personally. But Leland Shores who runs our office in Kampala, Uganda is well aware of the details and has written a response worthy of everyone who has an interest in this reading. He has included a letter from over 200 Ugandan Christian leaders explaining the situation." [73][74]
Thanks
Why are you anti-Semitic? Just kidding. Here's a good comment on Gilad Atzmon's book with respect to the tribal aspect of it.
Here's a video where he has to deal with a lot of tribalism or group dynamics, to the point that people are instinctual with respect to where they stand on the issue:
I'm not sure that any other "tribe" would have necessarily done any better just like I'm not sure that anyone else would have had a better Empire than America. The Chinese? The Russians?
But still: "It's a great human tragedy." --Fisk
Indeed.
Similar threads
