Israel-Iran

Aazaad

Established
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
282
As resourceful as marching your children across minefields to clear them, which is something (Shia) Iran did during it’s war with (Sunni) Iraq, but I’m positive you don’t know anything about that.
Have even seen a veteran of that war?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,423
America is 100 times as powerful as Iran, but instead of flattening the country and killing millions in a war, as they surely could, they just took out the second most powerful terrorist in Iran without (apparently) killing a single innocent person.
The USA had a 100 times more military power than Vietnam. Throwing trillions of dollars at your military industry isn't going to win a war half across the globe. You also seem to forget that Russia and China wouldn't simply let Iran to the lions. They have mutual interests in Iran's continuity and autonomy, whether from an energy or a geostrategic point of view.

Your statement here:
American troops are in Iraq by congressional authority, and with the permission of the Iraqi government.
... is really quite something. The invader overthrows a government, replaces said government, then you're going to use this new government's approval of the invader's presence as an argument in favour of the invader's occupation and actions. Mind blown.

I personally don't think you're a shill, Thunderian, and I will refrain from ad hominems, but understanding geopolitics in the Middle East without taking into account the Zionist factor that dominates it, is impossible. Don't think your unwillingness to acknowledge that is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

1982: The sectarian violence in the Middle East and its balkanization is the means of destabilizing Israel's neighbouring countries, break down Arab unity and have Israel emerge as dominant power. This strategy was described in Israel's Yinon Plan of 1982.

1996: The "removal of Saddam Hussein" and the "containment of Syria" are plans detailed in the US-Israeli Clean Break report, led by Zionist American Jews Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, who had this to say about it:

Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make "a clean break" from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, "The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and "Jewish interests" are not the main reason for it now.

A key policy of the Clean Break report:

Rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three.

1998: Perle, Kristol and Wolfowitz (again) reaffirmed their intentions to overthrow Hussein in the Project for a New American Century in 1998 where a certain catalyst was required to manufacture popular consent to have the US engage in warfare in the ME.

Everything that happened since is history.

Daesh and Al Qaeda were serving Zionist interests in destabilizing the region Israel had targeted. It was the Syrian government and army, with support of Iran, Russia and Lebanon that defeated them. Soleimani was the general on the ground responsible for that. That's why, among a plethora of other reasons, Israel wanted him gone; a reckoning for destroying Israel's Jihadi proxies.



Who are the men on Israel's potential hit list?
Senior defense officials have warned that Israel is facing an Iranian storm that is coming closer to her borders. But who are the men behind the storm?
1578237203398.png
Who are the faces behind the dire warnings from Israel’s top military officer of “multiple enemies on multiple fronts”?​
Senior defense officials have warned that Israel is facing an Iranian storm that is coming closer to her borders. But who are the men behind the storm? And what has Israel done to stop them?​
1) Qassem Soleimani
Born in 1957 in Iran’s Kerman province, Qassem Solemani joined Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in 1979 and advanced rapidly, rising through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s to lead the 41st Division while he was still in his 20s.​
Considered a military genius, Soleimani was appointed commander of the IRGC in 1997. Until a few years ago, he remained almost invisible to the public eye. But he was busy: In the 1990s, he was responsible for Iran’s anti-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan, and for organizing Iraqi Shi’ite militias following the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. More recently, he rescued the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria.​
Considered the head of the snake, Israeli defense officials have named Soleimani as the No. 1 enemy responsible for Iran’s ongoing entrenchment in Syria and its ongoing support for Hezbollah’s precision missile project.​
...​
They've got 2 out of 3 with Baha Abu al-Ata (right) and his wife being killed by the IDF on November 12.

Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah is next in line.
 

TempestOfTempo

Superstar
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
8,076

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
Got it on now, thanks. The thing I notice is how many independent journalists, activists, researchers, analysts, etc. are saying the exact same thing about the US and Israel. @The Zone made this ignorant post that "ohh there's no truth because our sources disagree on facts." That's just wrong. Either you get your information from Zionist/corporate news sites, or on the opposite side you follow INDEPENDENT sources who report from people on the ground and specialists the MSM chooses to ignore.
Well, that was jerk like! Quit calling me out for a post I made elsewhere. BTW, I started this thread and will gladly have it closed if you cannot keep your emotion in check.

I said it clearly on my profile (not here) that some people (no names mentioned but you are owning it) link to a lot of MSM sites that fit their narrative and we all know how true MSM sites are, right? I include myself in the statement in that I feel no links are 100% accurate or truthful. IMHO. If the comment got to you, say something where the post was made or quote me accurately but don't call me out on a thread I created while intermingling or mixing up what was said elsewhere into conversations I am not a part of.

Keep it between the lines and recognize I have not even been conversing here or with you in any way of late. Quit blurring things, please. For accuracy, this is the comment that seemed to bother you enough to call me out here for whatever reason.

Can you remember when links to the news were actually unbiased? It has been a while, huh? It pretty much means that no arguments here are sound due to favoritism. And that leaves us with only opinions backed by those shoddy links.
 
Last edited:

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
Vietnam proved that it's hard to defeat a determined enemy who can live underground and march 30 miles a day carrying a 70 pound pack while living off of rice....
To add to this America was so powerful that they went into Afghanistan and tried to eliminate the Taliban only to be negotiating with them now. That's some power the US has ;)
 

UnderAlienControl

Superstar
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
7,964

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Well, that was jerk like! Quit calling me out for a post I made elsewhere. BTW, I started this thread and will gladly have it closed if you cannot keep your emotion in check.

I said it clearly on my profile (not here) that some people (no names mentioned but you are owning it) link to a lot of MSM sites that fit their narrative and we all know how true MSM sites are, right? I include myself in the statement in that I feel no links are 100% accurate or truthful. IMHO. If the comment got to you, say something where the post was made or quote me accurately but don't call me out on a thread I created while intermingling or mixing up what was said elsewhere into conversations I am not a part of.

Keep it between the lines and recognize I have not even been conversing here or with you in any way of late. Quit blurring things, please. For accuracy, this is the comment that seemed to bother you enough to call me out here for whatever reason.

Can you remember when links to the news were actually unbiased? It has been a while, huh? It pretty much means that no arguments here are sound due to favoritism. And that leaves us with only opinions backed by those shoddy links.
Yes I tried to interact on your profile but was unable, something with your settings possibly.

Sorry you took such offense at the word "ignorant", but I have strong feeling about the media. Here's the comment again:

Can you remember when links to the news were actually unbiased? It has been a while, huh? It pretty much means that no arguments here are sound due to favoritism. And that leaves us with only opinions backed by those shoddy links.

IMHO this is wrong. There are sound arguments- backed up by facts. I'm proud to be following the journalism/commentary of someone distinguished like Ron Paul. He's speaking from factual evidence, offering experienced insight. On the opposite side is SoS Pompeo making up claims of deaths and the "immanent threats" of Soleimani, which are unfounded. Pence is claiming Soleimani was involved with 9-11, which is a lie. The president of the USA has made (possibly) 10,000 false claims in 3 years. This is extremely important to realize. The corporate media that reprint lies are enemies. The only bias are from those who don't want us discussing the truth.

There is a quiet campaign by the major news agencies to silence alternative media. Obviously FB and Google are already prioritizing "credentialed" news feeds. I envision this debate heating up until, if the elite have their way, independent journalists will be altogether blocked from the largest platforms. This is a serious issue. We have to support our independent outlets and stand up to smears and misinformation.
 

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
I sometimes wonder what people see when they read other people's posts to not realize they have harped on MSM news as much, if not more than others here. I mean, how have you missed all that I have said on the subject of truth in media or seeking a middle ground, unbiassed takes? How did you miss my YouTube rants on their censorship? Considering I am now a registered Libertarian, I find it interesting you are pointing Ron Paul out to me. It is frustrating how you retain what I said on my profile yet miss all other comments I have made similar although slightly different from what you have said above.

In short, I think you took my comment elsewhere totally out of its intended context and seemingly made it sound like a part of a conversation I have not been in or that it was in reference to whatever it is you are talking of here. If it is okay with you, please keep me out of conversations I have nothing to do with while making it seem I have a stance or am now a part of you misinterpreting my comment that had zero to do with anything in this thread.

I do not care to read back ten pages to see what exactly it is that you are arguing in the thread and how the heck I got pulled into it.

I have noticed more and more people are including or trying to insert posters in conversations by calling them out by name in threads they are not actively participating in. That really needs to stop for it is baiting.
 
Last edited:

Truthteller

Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
793
I have refrained from posting about politics, but will post here as Facebook, Instagram and other social media owned by zionist Mark Zuckerberg have been censoring posts about what is going on with Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iran.

Assasinating Soleimani has brought reactions unprecedented in the history of Iran and the region. While many Iranians dislike the corrupt and undemocratic regime, Soleimani was above all of that. He was the number one most popular figure attached to the regime and had the status of a hero. Now he is widely revered as a martyr among Shia muslims around the world. His influence goes way beyond just Iran. Soleimani was the ISIS exterminator and his named equallednational security. He fought during the Iran Iraq war to protcet Iranians from invasion. Later he was responsible for killing ISIS and saving Iraqis and Syrians from their clutches. Guess US politicians got revenge for ISIS which they helped create with the Mo$$ ad and Saudi Arabia. Clinton admitted to it herself, ISIS was an organized plot by these people to destabilize the region even more and bring death so they can reach their goals.

The pattern is undeniable

2000s- the start with 9/11 and the Iraq Afghanistan invasion
2010s- destroy syria and yemen
2020s- new decade time for Iran and by default Lebanon.
Their goal is destruction of the entire region so they can rebuild and own all the land and resoruces including the invaluable oil. It is a crucial step in world domination and building the NWO empire. At the heart fo this is a country I cannot name.

What Trump did not anticipate while illegally killing Soleimani and Iraqi General Abu Mehdi Mohandis on Iraqi soil while they were invited by the offficial iraqi government was the reaction. Now Iranians of all stripes are united, and millions of iraqis are united with them.
Look at the footage from Soleimani’s funeral which MSM won’t show you. These are not tens of thousand of people, these are millions of mourners who attend on their own will all around the country. This is the biggest funeral you will ever witness, in fact grander that Khomeinis.

Ahvaz a smaller city traditionally not a stronghold for the iranian refime
Mashhad in northeastern Iran
https://twitter.com/RuptlyVU/status/1214195320378347522?s=20
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1214137025013702656?s=20
https://twitter.com/TehranDC/status/1214180873031032832?s=20
Tehran the capital, millions of people.

Of course not limited to Iran, even Iraqis were mourning and now the parliament had voted to get American troops out. The war has already begun. Many threats from all parties. Iran out of the nuclear deal completely and Trump had bid to bomb Iran including civilians and historical and cultural sites (a war crime). Nuclear bombs are not out of the question.

 
Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
The USA had a 100 times more military power than Vietnam. Throwing trillions of dollars at your military industry isn't going to win a war half across the globe. You also seem to forget that Russia and China wouldn't simply let Iran to the lions. They have mutual interests in Iran's continuity and autonomy, whether from an energy or a geostrategic point of view.
There isn’t a reason why the US would invade Iran. Targeted strikes on Iran’s command centres, power stations, refineries, etc. sets Iran back 100 years overnight. Iranians are ready for a change in leadership, and will negotiate for a quick peace with the US. Then Halliburton or whoever gets all the contracts for the rebuilding. You know how it goes.

The big picture is that the mullahs are finished, Iran’s proxies are cut off, and peace floods the Middle East.

Your statement here:
... is really quite something. The invader overthrows a government, replaces said government, then you're going to use this new government's approval of the invader's presence as an argument in favour of the invader's occupation and actions. Mind blown.
What’s mind blowing is having to remind everyone that the US pulled it’s occupation force out of Iraq eight years ago, and Iraqis have been voting in free elections for 15 years, mostly electing leaders who are pro-Iranian. Iraq is not under any kind of occupation, and hasn’t been for years. US forces are in Iraq now because they were officially invited in by the Iraqis as part of coalition to fight ISIS. This is all pretty accepted historical fact, but you're welcome to dispute it if you have new information. The grand total of US forces in Iraq now is just a few thousand, and when you compare that to the number of troops they had there when they actually occupied Iraq, closer to 150,000, you start to realize just how ridiculous the idea of a current US occupation of Iraq is. Finally, as has already been pointed out on this thread, the Iraqi parliament has asked the US to leave, and today, the US announced they would. Some occupation.

I personally don't think you're a shill, Thunderian, and I will refrain from ad hominems, but understanding geopolitics in the Middle East without taking into account the Zionist factor that dominates it, is impossible. Don't think your unwillingness to acknowledge that is deliberate, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I have respect for you, as well, because you're one of the rare ones who puts thought into their contributions here. But I imagine I get just as frustrated with people who blame Israel and the US for everything that's ever happened in the Middle East. As if, pre-1948, it was a nature preserve for bunny rabbits over there, Sunni and Shia holding hands with Christians and Jews, dancing in rings together.

The sectarian violence in the Middle East and its balkanization is the means of destabilizing Israel's neighbouring countries, break down Arab unity and have Israel emerge as dominant power. This strategy was described in Israel's Yinon Plan of 1982.

1996: The "removal of Saddam Hussein" and the "containment of Syria" are plans detailed in the US-Israeli Clean Break report, led by Zionist American Jews Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, who had this to say about it:

Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make "a clean break" from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, "The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and "Jewish interests" are not the main reason for it now.

A key policy of the Clean Break report:

Rather than pursuing a "comprehensive peace" with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three.

1998: Perle, Kristol and Wolfowitz (again) reaffirmed their intentions to overthrow Hussein in the Project for a New American Century in 1998 where a certain catalyst was required to manufacture popular consent to have the US engage in warfare in the ME.

Everything that happened since is history.
I used to be part of the "America bad" crowd, but my opinion changed as I got more serious about the subject. Part of the reason is that I kept finding myself defending the points of view of terrorists and their sympathizers, while ignoring any information that cast anyone but Israel or the US in a bad light, just so I could be consistent in my own view. As it turns out, it's no way to look at things. Yes, America has committed some pretty stupid and evil acts, and invading Iraq is about at the top of the list. But the problems with Iran go much further back, and it's possible to think the US acted badly in Iraq, but is not the bad guy in this situation with Iran.

Daesh and Al Qaeda were serving Zionist interests in destabilizing the region Israel had targeted. It was the Syrian government and army, with support of Iran, Russia and Lebanon that defeated them. Soleimani was the general on the ground responsible for that. That's why, among a plethora of other reasons, Israel wanted him gone; a reckoning for destroying Israel's Jihadi proxies.
This is absolute nonsense. Soleimani's militias spent most of their time going after Sunni militia who were not ISIS, and when they did wipe out ISIS fighters, they were known for massacring entire villages at the same time. How do you think half a million Syrians were killed during the war there? Most of them were direct victims of soldiers and militia under Soleimani's control.

I don't know where you get your information from. I have been a student of the Middle East for 20 years, and I listen to many people on the subject -- not just Zionists, lol. I pay attention to what experts are saying, even when they disagree with each other -- especially when they disagree with each other -- because when you do that you can generally triangulate what the truth is. I'm confident I have a pretty good grasp on it, because there are some facts that everyone, no matter what side they take, agree on, and one of them is that Soleimani was a ruthless killer of any that were considered enemies of Iran. Given that, it's bizarre to come here and be told that I'm clueless, by the same people who are so uninformed that they think Iraq is still currently occupied by the US.

Who are the men on Israel's potential hit list?
Senior defense officials have warned that Israel is facing an Iranian storm that is coming closer to her borders. But who are the men behind the storm?
Who are the faces behind the dire warnings from Israel’s top military officer of “multiple enemies on multiple fronts”?​
Senior defense officials have warned that Israel is facing an Iranian storm that is coming closer to her borders. But who are the men behind the storm? And what has Israel done to stop them?​
1) Qassem Soleimani
Born in 1957 in Iran’s Kerman province, Qassem Solemani joined Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in 1979 and advanced rapidly, rising through the ranks during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s to lead the 41st Division while he was still in his 20s.​
Considered a military genius, Soleimani was appointed commander of the IRGC in 1997. Until a few years ago, he remained almost invisible to the public eye. But he was busy: In the 1990s, he was responsible for Iran’s anti-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan, and for organizing Iraqi Shi’ite militias following the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. More recently, he rescued the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria.​
Considered the head of the snake, Israeli defense officials have named Soleimani as the No. 1 enemy responsible for Iran’s ongoing entrenchment in Syria and its ongoing support for Hezbollah’s precision missile project.​
...​
They've got 2 out of 3 with Baha Abu al-Ata (right) and his wife being killed by the IDF on November 12.

Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah is next in line.
One thing I appreciate is the rightful designation of these men as terrorist thugs and deliberate killers of the innocent.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
I don't know where you get your information from. I have been a student of the Middle East for 20 years, and I listen to many people on the subject -- not just Zionists, lol. I pay attention to what experts are saying, even when they disagree with each other -- especially when they disagree with each other -- because when you do that you can generally triangulate what the truth is. I'm confident I have a pretty good grasp on it, because there are some facts that everyone, no matter what side they take, agree on, and one of them is that Soleimani was a ruthless killer of any that were considered enemies of Iran. Given that, it's bizarre to come here and be told that I'm clueless, by the same people who are so uninformed that they think Iraq is still currently occupied by the US.
Afew posts of yours a couple pages back..
Soleimani is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East, not to mention the recent deadly suppression of anti-Iran protesters in Iran and Iraq. Can one of you guys please explain why you’re mourning his death?
Soleimani was a murderous thug, responsible for so much misery and death, and openly threatening more violence against US forces. Since when does the White House need special authorization to delete a threat to Americans?
So it was prettty eerie that the things you have been saying here line up perfectly with the CBS report referenced here. You could aswell have written that report given your journo background but what do i know?

There isn’t a reason why the US would invade Iran. Targeted strikes on Iran’s command centres, power stations, refineries, etc. sets Iran back 100 years overnight.
Really? Because last i heard, "Boys go to Baghdad, Real men go to Tehran."
War Without End
One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the [Iraq]invasion, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”
Boys go to Baghdad..
Late in 2003, with the war in Iraq just entering its insurgent stage, the refrain “boys go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran” gained circulation within neoconservative circles. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to be the first step in a wider transformation. Plenty of men and women did go to Iraq, good Americans sent to fight in a bad war. They went in numbers not nearly enough to meet the need for the next war, if and when it should come to Iran.
 
Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
So it was prettty eerie that the things you have been saying here line up perfectly with the CBS report referenced here. You could aswell have written that report given your journo background but what do i know?
Give me a break. I also said:

there are some facts that everyone, no matter what side they take, agree on, and one of them is that Soleimani was a ruthless killer of any that were considered enemies of Iran
I feel like you should be smarter than this, to be honest.

Really? Because last i heard, "Boys go to Baghdad, Real men go to Tehran."
War Without End
One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the [Iraq]invasion, “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”
Boys go to Baghdad..
Late in 2003, with the war in Iraq just entering its insurgent stage, the refrain “boys go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran” gained circulation within neoconservative circles. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was to be the first step in a wider transformation. Plenty of men and women did go to Iraq, good Americans sent to fight in a bad war. They went in numbers not nearly enough to meet the need for the next war, if and when it should come to Iran.
Tell you what. If Iran gets invaded by the US -- like, boots on the ground, on to Berlin, marching with Sherman type of invasion -- I will be the first to say I was wrong.
 
Top