Israel & US: Partners in International Crime

Originally posted by intrptr
Ludicrous. Try asking the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya about "hypotheses".

Why would I do that... Iraq is not even mentioned in the Report we are discussing.

Originally posted by intrptr
Yah, we all get led around the Mulberry bush, don't we? It's right there in the choice of words for all to see:

"Intervention"
"Regime Change"
"Globalization"
"New World Order"

Sounds like a "Game Plan" to me...

Again you really should read the report and understand it before commenting on it. Your paranoia and ignorance are undermining your credibility.

Obama is dead set against military action against Iran. How does that factor into your fear mongering and blatantly obvious fact that you never read the report?

Please, explain to us how Obama's actions right now are some how fulfilling your and others myopic interpretation of a report you apparently never read?

What does Iraq, Afghanistan etc have to do with Iran? Different situation, different president, different political party.

Or was your rant just another Anti American knee jerk reaction coupled with blind hatred and an inability to think for yourself?

reply to post by Xcathdra

One does not need a report to understand what is happening and who is behind it. Media buzz words for the era paint a clear enough picture:

"Intervention"
"Regime Change"
"Globalization"
"New World Order"

The report "Path Thru Persia" just augments all the hype.

Denying your ignorance isn't working, but thanks anyway.

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

words are telling

edit on 9-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

I read it all. In my job...actions speak louder than WORDS! I find it very curious...and ignorant...that many Arab Leaders tend to bring up the Palestinian Issue whenever they get caught doing something F@%&#$ UP! It is like a Magicians...SLIGHT OF HAND...or...PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

The Muslim world at one time was VERY DVANCED in science, medicine and Math....but this all got warped and a good exampleof a later modern day analogy of this was JENNA...the father of Pakistan after it's split from India...decreed that Pakistan would be a SECURAL NATION. If you were to go into the streets of ISLAMABAD....and asked the common person about this...they would say...THAT IS A LIE! EVERYONE KNOWS PAKISTAN WAS FOUNDED AS AN ISLAMIC STATE! Actually....it was not. Split Infinity

reply to post by Xcathdra


Report doesn't mention Obama either. President isn't in charge of corporations military or pentagon by the way He's just a figurehead.. But you believe otherwise...okay. Its been interesting sparring with you. Thanks for the lesson.

It seems if someone says they read the report you say they have not. And if they read it, you say they have not understood it, And if understood then, out of context. And if in context then not implemented. Hmmm, you see where this is leading.

Originally posted by intrptr
Report doesn't mention Obama either. President isn't in charge of corporations military or pentagon by the way He's just a figurehead.. But you believe otherwise...okay. Its been interesting sparring with you. Thanks for the lesson.

Actually no he is not a figurehead. That example would more appropriately attributed to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The President is in fact Commander in Chief, which makes him the head of the military, as well as the Pentagon. Our military must have a civilian leader, and we do.

Originally posted by intrptr
It seems if someone says they read the report you say they have not. And if they read it, you say they have not understood it, And if understood then, out of context. And if in context then not implemented. Hmmm, you see where this is leading.

Because people did not bother to read the information before posting. Because of that its being taken out of context. There are a few pages that explain the report and what it is for. People either ignored those facts because it did not support their position or people read it and did not understand it, which is evident in their posts where they ignore the information.

I agree... it has been an interesting debate / discussion with you. Thank you for that.

A bit of "sabe lo todo."
Aren't we?
I'm showing the intentions of "think tanks" and hint at their financing - while you stick with formal declarations. No educated person will believe these reports are not expected to form a pool of information aimed at policymakers.) Yes, maybe they are not on the payroll of the gov't. They are no the payroll of those who made the largest campaign contributions as well as set up movements like the Tea Party. The payroll of those that do the largest media campaigns for war policies. It is ignorant to deny these - they are well documented elsewhere on hundeds of pages here. Murdoch? Fox News? Kocs Brothers? The Bank that sank Greece?

They are like script writers for movies studios. Sure, until it's official, you can't tell FOR SURE that the actual policy comes from Brookings and three others. But as soon as it is proclaimed, there are telling similarities. Remember People for a New American Century?

In Iran's case, in earlier threads, you were desperate to show intentions versus formality. So that is what mattered then for you - whatever strategy promotes your war agenda. Like Ahmad said this and that
(where we proved on every second page that he didn't.) Well the intention behind COULD be what you said. But you stuck to formality while making glaring formal mistakes - Ahmad never said "wipe israel off the map." That does not mean many RG's do not say something like that openly. They may say "# the US" evey night when they drink their illegal vodkas. There I would agreed with you. But you gave not a chance.

Seems like you are serving the hawk Israeli side. Well, serve them well then! We should not stick to form when we can read between the lines. I accept that. From any poster. Except I might read different things between the lines. You are free to write more on how you personally feel about the news item discussed.

The mission statements for one of thes dink dongs should actually read: Well, you know how it goes, guys, the truth is we're getting X million USD from Koch Bros monthly in gold as long as we can churn out more intellectual and a more popular justification scenarios for a quick attack on Iran, 'cause that' the command, that's what Koch wants. He also said something about a gold temple being burned to ashes too but let that be handled at the Department of Religious Studies. Anyway, not now John, I'm just terribly busy proving Iran has the worst human rights record even though in countries not so far away they kidnap kids to make them rebel soldiers - freely to rape and torture to death any adult outside of the sect. F**** them, there we'd never go, we want Iran's bourse and possibly its oil by mid-2012, Plus our allies want to nuke them so actually they would prefer a NUCLEAR IRAN - so that they can blast the place to smmithereens.

Well I've been an employed writer myself. Not for this kind of money though.
Ask your handler how much would it cost to have well-informed arcticles without a relentless push for power to be published on ATS: I could argue for a war in Iran tommorrow somewhat better than you. You sound like a self-educated person who knows everything better than anyone else.

Am I corresponding with a Chief of Staff here in disguise?

I have LENMRNQ-8 just in case.