King of Jordan speaks out
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
The comments are infuriating... which is normal. It shows how many people are trying to be informed and professing their great wealth of knowledge while spewing hate and lies. Bias is a dangerous internal weapon.
All in All Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey (well kinda), Saudi, Syria (woohoo
), and many others have made formal denouncing of IS and their tactics. All of them are sending planes and some are sending light weapons over to fight ISIS. It's great that at least a couple are getting some media attention, however every time one does, the majority of the Islamaphobes roll their eyes and call BS, regardless of sincerity.
All in All Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey (well kinda), Saudi, Syria (woohoo
), and many others have made formal denouncing of IS and their tactics. All of them are sending planes and some are sending light weapons over to fight ISIS. It's great that at least a couple are getting some media attention, however every time one does, the majority of the Islamaphobes roll their eyes and call BS, regardless of sincerity.
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
I think Middle Eastern leaders are starting to at last wake up to the fact that the American led 'new map of the Middle East' is well under way and if they don't get more involved in fighting Daesh the who,e plan will come to pass.
New map????
Do tell what is being said...
Do tell what is being said...
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
you know that new country called Oil here/ Gas here Country... the one where people living in the region have no representation, merely a job, that they may or may not get paid for by the people trying to take the resources....
I'm a bit of an optimist on this, but still see it as a possibility.
I'm a bit of an optimist on this, but still see it as a possibility.
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]Wil the plan go back to the 1950's, actually further back but official strategies started aroun 1953 if memory serves.
To trace it back you need to look at a map of Middle East conflicts at the moment. Gen. Wesley Clark in Mar 2007 and again in Oct 2007 stated that he had seen a Pentagon memo stating the U.S. had a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Iran). He has since started towing the line again.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7019607843137254)]
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
Then consider the speech of Condaleeza Rice in Tel Aviv In 2006 stating “a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon. She said the pains of Lebanon would be “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.
Then go back to the 1996 Clean Break report, which puts forward the idea that rather than trying to find peace in the Middle East a strategy of to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" should be persued. The plan specifically states that To "shape it's Strategic environment" (it being Israel) it should implement the 'skittle effect' by taking out Saddam, which would then have a knock on effect and destabilise other threats.
Then there is the 1982 plan by Odid Yinon which states
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.”
It's easy to say he's just a journalist and it's one man's plan but look at his cv, in the 70's he was attached to the Israeli foreign office and the Prime Ministers office, so this isn't some random guy on the fringe. In 1982 he said "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
Then we have Bernard Lewis, who came up with the phrase Clash of Civilisations. An historian in simple terms but much more than that behind the scenes. A British born American Jew, who worked for British intelligence in WWII And then for the foreign office. On 19 February 2001 Lewis, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, signed a letter urging President Bill Clinton to launch a military offensive, which would have included blanket bombings, to destroy the Iraqi regime. This was of course months before 9/11. He has been described as "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq" as he was brought in as an advisor to the Bush administration.
However Lewis has called for the break up of the Middle East, along sectarian and religious lines for decades. He is very much a supporter of 'Greater Israel' so it's rather worrying that he would be brought in as a U.S advisor and his plan to carve up the Middle East goes back to him trying to sell this idea to President Carter. In 1992 he wrote "Most of the states of the Middle East are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, and no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates — as happened in Lebanon — into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties,” so he was fully aware what would happen when he kept calling for the toppling of the Iraqi regime.
Then we have Ralph Peters who drew a well known map which he put forwar "Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look", Armed Forces Journal, June 2006. While this has never been an officially recognised policy, the map has been used in NATO training. The map can be seen here https://www.google.com.eg/search?q=...obile&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-GB#imgrc=hF2ylFsO2xu33M:
And why was a democratically, secular leader of Iran taken out in 1953?
There are loads of other references to this, which show Egypt should be broken up with Israel getting Sinai, Egyptian Coptic Christians (currently 7% of the population) being given Upper Egypt as a state, Lebanon becoming a Christian country, Libya should be broken up into 3 parts, with western friendly Libyans getting the oil rich area, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, etc all broken up.
Smaller states are weaker states. Put it all together, you have Israeli concerns about its security, it's desire for a friendly Christian buffer zone on its borders and it's need for resources, added to western needs to petrochemicals and it's imperial nature and you have the plan for the new Middle East. A plan we can clearly see happening on the ground today.
[/COLOR]
To trace it back you need to look at a map of Middle East conflicts at the moment. Gen. Wesley Clark in Mar 2007 and again in Oct 2007 stated that he had seen a Pentagon memo stating the U.S. had a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Iran). He has since started towing the line again.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7019607843137254)]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
Then consider the speech of Condaleeza Rice in Tel Aviv In 2006 stating “a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon. She said the pains of Lebanon would be “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.
Then go back to the 1996 Clean Break report, which puts forward the idea that rather than trying to find peace in the Middle East a strategy of to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" should be persued. The plan specifically states that To "shape it's Strategic environment" (it being Israel) it should implement the 'skittle effect' by taking out Saddam, which would then have a knock on effect and destabilise other threats.
Then there is the 1982 plan by Odid Yinon which states
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.”
It's easy to say he's just a journalist and it's one man's plan but look at his cv, in the 70's he was attached to the Israeli foreign office and the Prime Ministers office, so this isn't some random guy on the fringe. In 1982 he said "Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
Then we have Bernard Lewis, who came up with the phrase Clash of Civilisations. An historian in simple terms but much more than that behind the scenes. A British born American Jew, who worked for British intelligence in WWII And then for the foreign office. On 19 February 2001 Lewis, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, signed a letter urging President Bill Clinton to launch a military offensive, which would have included blanket bombings, to destroy the Iraqi regime. This was of course months before 9/11. He has been described as "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq" as he was brought in as an advisor to the Bush administration.
However Lewis has called for the break up of the Middle East, along sectarian and religious lines for decades. He is very much a supporter of 'Greater Israel' so it's rather worrying that he would be brought in as a U.S advisor and his plan to carve up the Middle East goes back to him trying to sell this idea to President Carter. In 1992 he wrote "Most of the states of the Middle East are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, and no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates — as happened in Lebanon — into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties,” so he was fully aware what would happen when he kept calling for the toppling of the Iraqi regime.
Then we have Ralph Peters who drew a well known map which he put forwar "Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look", Armed Forces Journal, June 2006. While this has never been an officially recognised policy, the map has been used in NATO training. The map can be seen here https://www.google.com.eg/search?q=...obile&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-GB#imgrc=hF2ylFsO2xu33M:
And why was a democratically, secular leader of Iran taken out in 1953?
There are loads of other references to this, which show Egypt should be broken up with Israel getting Sinai, Egyptian Coptic Christians (currently 7% of the population) being given Upper Egypt as a state, Lebanon becoming a Christian country, Libya should be broken up into 3 parts, with western friendly Libyans getting the oil rich area, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, etc all broken up.
Smaller states are weaker states. Put it all together, you have Israeli concerns about its security, it's desire for a friendly Christian buffer zone on its borders and it's need for resources, added to western needs to petrochemicals and it's imperial nature and you have the plan for the new Middle East. A plan we can clearly see happening on the ground today.
[/COLOR]
Freaking imperialists stuck on world domination... Drives me batty