Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

Direct U.S.-Israeli support speaks for itself.

You deny reports of U.S.-Israeli support of ISIS (posted by alexa) based entirely upon the fact that the reports (in your own words) are Arab sources.

 

Maybe we will know the truth some day?

I think, yes, the American corporations are controlling what the president says and what he does. Some people say there may be a direct connection with Israel also. It's possible.

No, I only used Putin as an example of comparison of someone who probably runs his own country just to show that American presidents probably do not and the reason I do not think they do. I mean, if you listen to Putin and you listen to American presidents there is a big difference between Putin who presents his view in an intelligent, logical manner. American presidents do not motivate their view with any logic or intelligent input which seems typical of people who do not know what they are talking about or who are only repeating what someone else said without being able to defend the point simply because they do not understand what they are talking about.

I agree. I think he gets advice on how to achieve those goals but the goals themselves are his. American presidents just say what they are told to say.

I don't know but I cannot see much Democracy in the U.S.

Never mind Trump. If there was any Democracy in the U.S. ... Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would be in prison right now.

Grandchildren? I thought you are only 30.

Send that note to me too.

 

Agreed

I did not know he was commander of Hezbollah - but, even if he was - how is this "something bad" - akin to Hitleresk like evil. - and if not there .. where on the scale ? (from good to evil) is being a commander of Hezbollah - one in the capacity of foreign advisor who also gets you stuff.

So lets draw this picture- Hezbollah - not good - done some bad things - acts of terror (kidnapping of soldiers not being one of them - as that is not an act of "terror")

What ever we define as "terrorist act" - it must fist be defined - especially in the context of this conversation. And we can each give definitions later.

Regardless of what you or I come up with as a definition - if we apply that definition to Israel - they are going to have a far higher terrorist ranking than Hezbollah - in fact - it is not even a competition.

Netanyahu calls for sanctions over ICC war crimes investigation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ions-over-icc-war-crimes-investigation-israel

That is from a couple of days ago

The fact of the matter is that this blood feud goes back 8 decades - and both sides have done nasty things - it is a long list.

The US has supported one side of this feud throughout these 8 decades - arming one side for most of that time.

Iran has supported the other side of this feud - but only more recently on a relative basis (Hezbollah was only founded in the 80's - political influence perhaps -) and the relationship is far more complicated - especially over 40 years. They were not really a major influence until the PLO died ..

Iran was not part of the earlier wars -"Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey".

So where on the scale is being involved with support and/or "guidance" for Hezbollah - and the Palestinian liberation movement in general.
What is the new name "Islamic Movement" or some such thing.

The US has armed Israel to the teeth - and the situation has been asymmetric for many decades - Israel has "abused" this power - right wrong or otherwise. Even the US has condemned some of Israeli's actions - so ridiculous they were on the bad side of the scale.

Israel has violated the conditions of its sovereignty over a certain piece of land - hundreds of times over the years - its just routine

Then you have the other side of this blood feud - who does receive both humanitarian and military support from Iran - some via various groups (religious missions - Muslims do it too) some via the state.

There is no right side here - its a blood feud - but - if we are keeping score - by any objective measure - if we are going to call Hezbollah "Terrorists" - then what are we to call Israel ?

So Iran - has supported the Palestinian liberation movement - we have supported Israel. Are we "terrorists" on that basis ? Acts of war - in a longstanding civil conflict - are in a separate category .. so 50/50 for me on that question.

My point here is that it is far down the slippery slope to call support for the Palestinian Liberation Movement - support for "Terrorism" - Sure we hear this false narrative from the MSM on a regular basis - but we are talking reality here - and not fantasy

The oil refinery - same story - this was an act of War. Which is different than "terrorism"

The reality is that Iran has not given Hezbollah sophisticated stuff. The rockets fired by Hezbollah/Hamas - are supped up fireworks. These are not cruise missiles . Give one instance of Hezbollah firing an actual "Missile" into Israel. There are rumors that Hezbollah may now have one or two - but, they have never used them.

Israel on the other hand - 1000 lb bombs in the middle of densely populated areas - during the "non conflict" times - not talking during the wars in lebanon/gaza.

but forget arming Israel. What about how we armed a radical Islamist Proxy army in Syria - real terrorists - head choppers. Vastly different from "Hezbollah". Not even comparable on an objective basis.

Hezbollah did not bomb the twin towers - and they are not even Sunni - do not share the ideology those that did - completely unrelated groups in context.

Al Qaeda did 911 - group that holds Saudi inspired extremist Salafi strict sharia ideology - as does ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab -the nutjobs in Pakistan and India- and so on. El Saud has been exporting this ideology around the world for decades - supporting and sometimes arming these groups.

So if this Soleimani guy is guilty of "supporting terrorists" "Hezbollah" - what are we guilty of in supporting Al Qaeda/ISIS - to a far greater degree than Iran's support for Hezbollah.

 

We know that people like Pompeo, Pence etc had managed to get Trump to agree to Soleimani being killed after he stopped the previous intent to hit Iran after the drone was brought down and we know that Trump said he would only do that if an American was killed so that to some extent makes the rest of this a co-incidence but the other reason which has been suggested for the killing of him at this time was because he was on a Diplomatic Visit to Iraq to meet with the Saud's re de-escalation. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been meeting since the oil fields were hit and I think KSA may even have got them some money. Trump or the US had already been told about this meeting and one possibility for killing him at this time could be to stop this getting together between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The RT video I have below suggests that in any war the Saud's and the UAE are likely to get the worst of it and the Saud's saw when their oil was hit that the US did nothing so that could be a motivation. A motivation which could in reality change the entire situation in the ME leaving 'tiny' Israel very much on her own. There could be a strong motivation to stop that from both the US Neo Cons and Christian Right and Israel itself - possibly why they were the only people told. I am not saying this was the reason but I think it is another possibility to be kept in mind. I am not sure I go as far as it leading to the dollar losing its position as reserve currency but that is what was argued below.

 

I need to be more specific? We officially and publicly commenced our military aggression against Syria during the Obama administration. What do you want, a time and date stamp? Be honest.

The description of "civil war" is incomplete and disingenuous. As we have done in so many other countries around the world including Iran in 1953, we and our allies began covert operations with mercenary forces against Assad, and told the media it was a "civil war" which was a complete line of horse manure. The complicit media repeated it, and gullible viewers believed it.

 

I agree. Iran, Irak, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, etc. "Reinstating peace" my ass. Initiating hostilities and war is more the truth. Swoop in, make war, occupy, control.

 

The best way to understand the Sunni-Shia division isn't to focus on the historical details that led to this rift, but to examine the issue here more broadly, in general terms and in the thematic narratives which inform that division. The historical details that matter can then be placed within these thematic narratives, giving them their historical content and substance. I will focus here on the Shia themes and narratives.

The most salient themes in Shia ideology, developed when the Shia did not hold power in the Muslim world, revolved around dissent against what had become the established order, viewing those in power, on the one hand, as usurpers (illegitimate rulers) and, on the other hand, as unjust tyrants. Connected to this were potent themes about martyrdom, with its climax in the stories and passion plays developed during "Ashura" to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein near Karbala, in an uneven battle between the forces of good represented by Imam Hussein against the forces of evil, represented by the tyrant Yazid (the Ummayad Caliph of the time).

These Shia themes were developed, initially, not long after the Arabs had conquered Iran, ending many, many, centuries of Iranian rule over a large chunk of the empire they had acquired. Seeing these new Arab rulers as "usurpers" was particularly in tune with sentiments of those who had belonged to the realm of IRAN, even if the initial dispute over succession after the death of the prophet Mohammad had been a purely intra-Arab dynastic dispute: the Shia Ali (partisans of Ali) had argued that the rightful succession belonged to Ali and to the prophets family through him, while the Sunni (traditionalists) believed that the prophet's successor was to be chosen in the traditional Arab manner by consensus of tribal leaders. As it turned out, however, the Islamic caliphs (after the 'four rightly guided ones in Sunni jurisprudence) weren't either those chosen in accordance with Shia methodology nor those based on consensus of Arab tribal leaders either. The Umayyad caliphate that wrestled power over the realm of Islam became a hereditary institution, except its rulers were not from the line favored by the Shia. The Sunnis accepted these rulers as legitimate; the Shia did not.

The Umayyad caliphate, which was a strictly Arab caliphate, was eventually overthrown after roughly a 100 years of power in a revolution spearheaded by an army raised in Iran's northeastern region of Khorasan. It was replaced by the Abassid caliphate -- a caliphate which eventually turned on the Shia despite the latter playing a major role in bringing them to power. Nonetheless, the Abbasid caliphate ushered the so-called "Golden Age of Islam".

Persians played a huge, disproportionate, role in this period of Islamic history. While the Abbasid Caliphs remained Arab (albeit, ones which were sometimes the offspring of Persian mothers), the administration of the empire now often fell to the old Persian aristocracy. And much of the scholarship of this period was by scholars of Persian descent. Nonetheless, while these developments, along with the Persian renaissance of the 9th and 10th centuries, made it easier for the Persians to accept their new Muslim faith, and detracted from some of the appeal of the old "Shia" heresy that served as a basis for dissent and for viewing Muslim rulers as usurpers, the Shia ideology remained potent with many within Iran and the larger Iranian world of Islam. It was also very popular among those who had other reasons for dissent and refusal to accord legitimacy to the established rulers, particularly among the 'down-trodden' and disenfranchised elements in Muslim society.

Iran, of course, did not become officially Shia until the Safavid dynasty established the Shia faith as Iran's official religion in the 16th century. But once it became Shia, almost all Iranians who were faithful to IRAN rallied under the Shia banner and Iran became overwhelmingly Shia. If the Persian renaissance had already given Iranians the cultural distinction they yearned and preserved their ancient heritage by keeping the historiography (and mythology) of pre Islamic Iran alive, the Shia banner allowed them to reject any claim by any outside potentate to political power on Iran itself. Instead, the throne of Iran now belonged to people who explicitly ruled in its name, as "Shahanshah of IRAN" (King of Kings of Iran), which became the title of the Iranian monarchs after the 16th century, as it had been the title of Persian monarchs before the Islamic conquest of Iran.

In power, in Iran, Shia philosophy, political theory, and theology, now had to develop its own distinct traditions as well. I will address that issue in my next post. While the most salient aspect within the Shia-Sunni division is political, the philosophical and even theological distinctions that emerged are also significant. Very much so.

 

You must be kidding claiming that you do not know that we supported ISIS - Seriously - How much proof would you like ? How about Congress stating this .. would that do it ?

1) We led a massive global effort to arm the radical Islamist Jihadists right from the beginning.
2) It was not a "civil war" - it was an armed insurgency. The moderate Muslims of Syria were on the side of Assad - fighting to keep their freedoms - fighting against a radical Islamist proxy army that wanted to take those freedoms away and turn Syria into a strict sharia totalitarian theocratic nightmare - like Saudi Arabia.

 

Yes - so wise to break the millennia old covenant against assassinating foreign leaders - Brilliant.

Then you go into some mindless diatribe about the left wanting WW3 and the market to crash.

Did have any concept of how easy it is for a nation states to assassinate people these days ? OHHH .. .UGGGG ... Gosh - Ya geese - guess I didn't think of that ?? .

 

"We have to be connected to Israel in order to enjoy the second coming of Christ .... and I hope it comes soon"

What a freaken moron - He wants the entire world to be destroyed - as foretold in the "Holy Book" - thinking he will be rescued in the "rapture"

 

Can't speak of any rapture - but Ezekiel 38 and 39 gives a detail account of
the Jews back in their homeland a second time (written during the first exile)
and attacked by a coalition of what appears to be African/Middle East and
Russian forces (assuming Magog speaks of Russia - the nation to its
"uttermost north.")
This account has nothing to say about saving Christians. Says Magog will
go out and kill many - people not involved in Israel's victory. I wouldn't like
to be around when nations "send fire" upon each other and cities of the
world fall.

 

The fact that you believe something doesn't mean you have to approve of it.
I believe that global warmists will win out over the deniers - doesn't mean I
want to see my planet cooked.

 

Dude - did you listen to this fellow. This is an embarrassment - not only to Christianity - but to humanity in general. Quit trying to reason a way for stupidity - not to be what it is.

Look - it is one thing that one wishes for an afterlife - and at the same time - believe in a prophesy that there will be some apocalypse in the future - involving destruction of the earth.

Nothing wrong with either. I believe in a fiery death for the earth as well at some point in the future - at the hand of the Sun God - Ra - Amen Ra .. Praise be the Sun God .. with the golden halo - just like Jesus was depicted as - and celebrated as in earlier days ..

Claiming that some relationship between the Israel and the US is required to enjoy this apocalypse - and that one hopes it comes soon - that is a different ball of mind bending mess.

Projection of the future on to the present being just the first of the logical problems - That the US - and a relationship between US and Israel is required is another wisp of man made dogma on steroids.

Are you not aware of the state of sophisticated mind control that folks like this guy are under ? I thought we had discussed this previously.

The "Ben Carson's" of the world - saying that the Darwin's theory was influenced by Satan.

The principalities are at war don't you know ? - this is a war for your soul - Satan has come to earth and is around every corner trying to trick you - he is gathering his minions -to fight the final battle - which is happening right now - for the end is coming soon.

Its called ramping up the fear factor - Second Chapter of Cult mind control 101.

 

We are talking about people who are working to create it because of their beliefs which include a genocidal hatred of Muslims.

They are working to make their dream come true.

Your choice to compare it with was interesting. Both you see as ending in the destruction of the world. However in the second it is the deniers whose 'belief' will be responsible for the destruction of the world so destruction is there in both.

The Christian Zionists are working politically to make their version of the bible come true. That requires them to make sure 'Jews' rule over all of Palestine because that is what they believe their bible says. Despite this being against International law they are working for this through their power in the American Government. This will eventually lead to Armageddon when they go into Rapture and everyone else dies. At this time they will at last get some 'Jews' to become Christians - possibly as many as a third of them. The rest of the Jews will die with everyone else. They are working for World War 3.

Any sane person would not be working for World War 3. Any spiritual person would not hate - well would not hate full stop but would not hate an entire ethnicity. This group of people however have a history of it. The previous group they hated were Jews themselves and Many people including myself see no evidence this has changed.

Now that is the position of the believers there.

In the other example of where we may destroy the planet which you gave it is the deniers which cause the destruction of the planet because of their inaction. It is not just what you believe in but whether what you believe in is valid and what your action on your belief will lead to that is important.

Christian Zionists are working to make their 'belief' a reality. Their belief will cause the destruction of the world.

Climate Deniers are working to make their belief come true. Their believe will cause the destruction of the world.

 

If you go to Israel you might be lucky/unlucky to see an incendiary kite fly your way,
or a rocket streak overhead -
now these devices usually go in one direction - from Gaza to Israel.
The ambition is to blow up or burn alive people in Israel.

I say that's genocide. And its hate.

You won't see Israel firing rockets or incendiary devices into Gaza. Most Israelis
feel sorry for the Gazans - they are trapped because Hamas seized the enclave.
And Hamas rejected some amazing offers such as expansion into the Negev,
a free port, airport, rail connection, industrial parks etc.. Hamas itself is trapped
in a genocidal hate.

The first people to ever medically treat Palestinians were Christians. And today
Israel provides medical treatment to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. In
fact, all the hospitals the Palestinians have ever had were build by the Jews.

I suggest a lot of the hate doesn't just emanate from Palestinians, it also comes
from the Western Left. I was shocked to see a picture of thousands of Palestinian
flags flying at a UK Labor conference in 2018 - no wonder they lost.

 

Of course you do darling. Has even one of these killed or injured anyone? and you completely ignore the over 200 Palestinians including children medics and the press who have been murdered and the tens of thousands injured for either doing their job or protesting that Israel has them shut off from land which is theirs and which they have a legal right to be living in.

Of course not. They use snipers as they decided they would before the protest began - not having the 'patience' to police a lawful protest. They also bomb Gaza most days. The UN has said that Gaza has been made unlivable in due to the continued bombing it has received since Israel 'gave' it to the Palestinians.

I wish that were true but it is not. Some of them have sat up on polls to watch the killing. Some Israelis do have empathy for the people of Gaza. On that there is no doubt and they are very worthy people but far too many have condoned this killing.

For a long time I had a quote from the time they were thinking of giving Gaza its 'freedom' as my signature. I cannot find it but what they were saying was that they knew when they imprisoned the people in Gaza under siege they would put them into such an intolerable position that there would be war war war. Them on the outside killing the people imprisoned there. That along with ending the need to pretend they were going to go for a two state solution is the real truth behind them apparently giving Gaza back to the mainly Refugees who live there - you know those who were forced out of their homes across the border that they are killed for protesting about.. That will have pleased the Christian Zionists no end because the people of Palestine could never have their own state could they? The bible says it must be run by Jews. - or rather their version of the bible does. Just like with extremist Muslims not all Christians are Christian Zionists working for WW3 in Israel.

I notice you have not denied a word I said. I am not going to respond to any more of your intended distractions....or is this an excuse for the need for Israel to have rule over all of Palestine and for that to lead to Armageddon?

 

Maybe these Gazan rockets are for entertainment?
I have a strong suspicion they are designed to kill.
They will get more accurate with time, particularly
the Iranian ones.
I think in the latest round of kite attacks the Israelis
went after a "Hamas target" in Gaza - they didn't
fly incendiary kites back, or begin a barrage of
rocket fire - they knew who they wanted.
Also, three Gazans were killed after infiltrating into
Israel. They were armed.

Of course, giving Gazans "back" their land means
the Jews will have to leave. Where do you think
they should go?

 

Your cherry pick missed the point

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-15#post-1071368436

the not denied a word I said refers to this post


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-15#post-1071368363

but I will leave you to waffle now.

 

Sorry, I am supposed to be working - and attending to neither this fully nor my work.
I don't think any Israeli wants to see Armageddon.
The tragedy for the Gazans is their dictators will not compromise with Israel - no
matter how generous the offers. It's Arabs or Jews to them - that's it.
I can't answer all your points due to time. But generally speaking I find that most
people who argue these points are being factual - but facts alone won't cut it, you
need the Truth. And over the years I have looked hard at both sides, but find myself
arguing with people who have only looked at one side. I know because my arguments
are novel to them.

Treat "Christian" Zionists like you would any other group. That's all they are,
a group. They don't dictate Israel's or America's policy. When both Christians
and Jews protested America selling AWAC's to Saudi Arabia the USA govt
told both to go jump.

 

Of course they don't particularly as according to Christian Zionists it will see the death of them! They have been asked a bit about this from time to time - you will notice in the Video which got this discussion going that when asked by Max Blumenthal they denied they were still intending this. He did not believe them. I have also noticed this pointed out to other Jews who are working with Netanyhu and the Neocons to get Israel all of the land that it says in their bible that Jews should own prior to Armageddon. They tend to say yes they know but they think they can deal with that. What you have are two people wanting the same thing. The total colonisation of Palestine (and possible some more area) by Jews. They can work together for now.

Absolutely not true. Hamas correctly did not believe that Israel was being honest about the Two State Solution. Possibly Rabin was but they were certainly right that there were others who would make sure it did not happen.

Now granted Hamas's way of working at that time, not now, at that time, was suicidal bombings. They claimed they only targeted civilians after the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre by a Jew. Through ignoring the rules of war and care of civilians Israel kills about 1000 civilian Palestinians to every Jew killed. Indeed Khaled Mashal said he several times asked Israel to have an agreement that neither of them will kill civilians but that Israel refused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre​

So we have the situation where Hamas does not believe this two state stuff is genuine and is engaged in attacks on Israel. At the time the European Union were doing their job properly as being one of the four.. They recognised that conflict resolution had to be tried. They did not know if it would work but they knew it had to be tried because no resolution could happen while Hamas not included in talks.

They sent in a British man, Alastair Crooke who used to work for MI6 and had been involved in conflict resolution in Northern Ireland and in Afghanistan. He worked with them. He discovered that they would only not recognise Israel because Israel had never recognised a Palestinian State. He discovered that they would be open to two states on pre 67 borders. He managed to get them to start a cease fire......all should have been going well and moving on to final discussions on the two state solution which was already way past its time limit.

Israel then broke the cease fire killing some members of Hamas knowing this would provoke Hamas into replying. After this Blair told the Germans he wanted them to recognise Hamas as terrorists and give Israel freedom to do what it wanted against the Palestinians - take their world class army against a few guerrillas and mainly civilians, build more prisons for political activists and assassinate whoever they wanted with no comeback. By the very first of those Bush and Blair acting for Israel created the situation where there could be no two state solution. A two state solution could never be created while Hamas is considered a terrorist as that is used as an excuse not to speak to them and it would be impossible for any two states to come into being without speaking to Hamas.

http://www.conflictsforum.org/2011/permanent-temporariness/

So, it was the United States led by Bush who people say was the first President of the United States to have as his focus working for the Christian Zionists who managed to get Blair to agree to this who managed to get Germany and to an extent the EU to this. The result to make sure a two state solution could not happen and Israel wanting to do whatever she liked with her superior force to Colonise Palestine. The EU did try to get Hamas off the terrorist list a few years ago but I don't think that worked.

Then you are claiming ignorace of Christian Zionism. I assume that is why you could not talk about it but still felt obliged to try and distract.

 

America and Russia signed on to the state of Israel. It was Russia who helped Israel in
1948, not America. And America refused to support Israel in the Six Day War UNTIL
Russia got more involved than it already was. Same with the Yom Kippur
war. America's interest wasn't so much in helping Israel as stopping the Soviets.
There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Israel is a strategic
interest and close ally to the USA - stereotypes about "alt-right" and "neo-cons"
and "Christian Zionists" are one tiny element of a big picture.
For every one Christian Zionist there would be ten thousand Islamic Zionists.
On Fatah's Facepage it says it all, "Islam is the weapon and our children are
the ammunition."
Uh... why children of all people? Because children make good TV fodder when
they are destroyed fighting battles they don't understand.

 

Irrelevant to discussion. Give yourself some time to read the information I left so that you haver a little more knowledge where you are making mistakes.

 

Yes, he was such a glorious and respected leader! As was Khadafi, Hitler and others.

 

So where was Christian Zionism when Israel needed America in 1948 and 1967?
How many Christian Zionists are there, and what is the extent of their influence?
What do Jews and Israelis think of Christian Zionists?
Why is support for Israel in America slowly declining?
Are Christian Zionists also declining like American religion in general?