U.S. Finally Figured Out How to Fight a Proxy War Against Ourselves

Jon Stewart nailed this on on the Daily Show last night. We are now on both sides of the Sunni-Shia conflict.

Battle Buddies with Iran over the fight against ISIS over Tikrit. U.S. providing air support.

Saudi Arabia fighting the Hafiz backed by Iran in Yemen. U.S. providing air support.

Wait...now...whose side on are we on again? Yeah...exactly.

Sorry I just had to let this out. I'm glad I'm not the only one not able to make sense of this insanity. I'm sure there'll be a video clip of this soon.

Is he wrong?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And we figured out how to fight our own weapons systems, too.

"Losers"

Now we can have our cake and eat it, too.

a reply to: intrptr

You'd think we'd leave a back door disable capability in there somewhere. Oh wait...the Chinese or whoever built these probably did.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You'd think we'd leave a back door disable capability in there somewhere

Thats "self defeating", though.

To have a war on terror you need terrorists… with guns.

Happened in Iraq, too.

Iraqi army "abandons" US equipment to ISIS

Difficult to define true intent. In Iraq at least the guns were dropped when the Iraqi army fled…

But in Yemen, how does one simply 'misplace' half a billion worth of arms and supplies?

Supply Officer:"Where'd it go?"

Orderly: (shrugs)

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Just taking a page from the Rothschild play book. Finance both sides of a petty conflict. No matter who wins, you make tons of money.

My Grandfather, a WW2 vet, would be rolling over in his grave seeing that we have become what he was fighting against.

I guess this was inevitable when we force the brains behind the third reich to run our military industrial complex.

It is sad that I wish for a reset in my own country, but it is the only way the evil we dispense will stop.

Although I am aware that the evil vacuum will be filled instantly once the US falls.

a reply to: ~Lucidity



We do have to use mental gymnastics to be sure . I notice the narrative msm uses in these conflicts ."Russian backed separatist" " Iranian backed rebels" never mind that the US lost 500 million $ of weapons . Oh yea the moderate separatist in Syria ... When in fact it's Saudi backed ISIS .US trained and supplied terrorist's . Oh wait they lost those weapons too .It's really hard to say what the truth of the matter is from one day to the next .

I think that the US needed to invade Yemeni after their special forces had to leave and couldn't get the mandate from the UN ,so decided to send in their proxies .Makes you wonder just what was happening there .

"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible." 1984, Book 1, Chp. 3

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Just taking a page from the Rothschild play book. Finance both sides of a petty conflict. No matter who wins, you make tons of money.

This.

It's easy to see what side "we" are on- Both.
"We" are the central banks, of course. Or at least their pawns. War costs big money, and big money (plus the distraction of war) keeps them hidden in their tall towers.

It's just going to get more and more ridiculous until somebody pulls the plug.

Tear it down.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Wait...now...whose side on are we on again?

Think you'll find that one hasn't changed much...America has always been and always will be on America's side.

What's good for the US is good, even if the rest of the world goes down the toilet in the process.

Yeah this might even possible be worse than us giving Pakistan money and arms they then turned around and used on our own troops and allies, particularly the Indians, in Afghanistan.

The US is not providing air support in Yemen and does not provide air support to forces supported by Iran in the ISIS fight. For example the US would did not provide air support in Tirkut until after the Shia militias were orded to withdraw.

Of course US interest in Yemen is that the radicals are kept in check. Both sides also want that. So in Yemen the US does not have much care what side is running the show as the both want the US back in Yemen hitting the radicals.

originally posted by: MrSpad
The US is not providing air support in Yemen and does not provide air support to forces supported by Iran in the ISIS fight.

I know for a fact that one of those statements is 100% incorrect. I can't say which one though.

It appears the leaders in Egypt are calling out the US hypocrisy.

Egyptian commentators charged the Obama administration with playing a double game and hindering its war against terror.

"The U.S. administration is continuing to jeopardize its relations with Egypt by appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable," Egyptian columnist Ezzat Ibrahim wrote.

"The U.S. administration says it is combating these groups at home while it is supporting them abroad," wrote columnist Mohamed Salmawi. "This meeting has grave indications because it shows that Washington has not abandoned its policy of double standards toward Islamic terrorism."

SOURCE

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Wait...now...whose side on are we on again? Yeah...exactly.

The banksters side, it has never been more blatant that supporting BOTH sides makes them rich, and furthers their overall agenda.

They don't even try to hide it anymore.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

History repeating itself...Iraq-Iran War all over again.

It`s a common strategy of the Empire of Chaos, set two teams up against each other to create chaos to be able to stay in control.

Just saw that the Iranian-backed militias have pulled out of Tikrit in a protest over US airstrikes.

What a mess over there.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Reminds me of the Iran Iraq War when the US gave weapons to Iran via the Iran Contra affair while at the same time give weapons to Iraq.

i dont think its a correct representation

Iran on their own accord went in to fight ISIS in Iraq because ISIS would eventually move into Iran.

The US are supporting Iraq with air strikes

The houtini's are staging an uprising in Yemen, which has forced Saudi to hit them because they dont want a rebel #te groupon their border.

our enemies just happen to be our enemies enemies.

what will be interesting is if the yemen conflict escalates will Saudi directly assist ISIS against Iran?

this yemen thing isn't something new like people seem to think, it's been going on for about 13 years now or more with america bombing rebels and terrorists and even using special forces on the ground, we even lost a naval vessel in yemen a year before 9/11 even occurred due to these rebels and unfortunately the government collapsed recently so we pulled out since the people we've been fighting have taken over, saudi arabia has no choice but invasion if they wish to prevent being overthrown next.

people who only know peace and only know of war by words and images alone should stop acting as if they understand situations like this, as if the solution is so simple. mind your own business if all you have are arrogant, self-righteous and pretentious words of ignorance, isis might be an enemy but they are just one enemy out of many so why should we abandon one threat just for isis?

this naive attitude is what has created these messes in the first place, abhorring this and that, expecting our governments to fix all these foreign problems and not understanding how irresponsible they are behaving in their good intentions, intervention, aid, charity, human rights, womens rights, democracy, peace keeping, etc all being used as excuses to intervene and you wonder why they hate us?

it's not the wars they hate us for, it's because westerners are too damn nosy, arrogant and think they know better, pushing our ways upon them all while acting as if we are doing a great and noble service for the betterment of the world while blaming others for the problems created by those actions; namely america and funny enough alot of americans seem to be the ones most easily misled by these lies and half-truths.

and all you non-american westerners need to get off your high horse pretending innocence, acting as if everything is all our doing alone, as if you've done nothing in all this when it can be argued that you are the ones leading us around like you own us since ww2, putting all the attention on us so you can act in relative silence while your actions are blamed on us in the end, so many of our actions in recent times were at the behest of our allies that i've began wondering if they are planning our destruction from the inside by pushing us into conflict in all directions to protect them.