Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

The US and Israel need ISIS because they like mercenary armies. So those mercenaries could become active in Syria to overthrow the legitimate government there.

The notion of Greater Israel is alive and well in Tel Aviv. The US and Israel are partners in crime.

 

Delete please.

 

No, it is my assertion that the idea behind modern Israel and political Zionism was first theorized by Theodore Herzl, a European Jew. The Zionist Congress which eventually followed was exclusively European Jews based in Europe planning to found their modern state on an already occupied land in the Middle East.

Again, it has nothing to with race. Many Levantine peoples have blue eyes and/or blonde hair because they most likely inherited the genes introduced by Western Crusaders.

Empires and foreign powers came and went (from the Romans to the Ottomans), but the indigenous population remained on their ancient land. The idea of political Zionism is not concerned solely with the conquest and administration of a land, but the usurping of a land already home to an indigenous peoples, and transferring a whole new ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic paradigm into the context by the foundation of a modern state and mass immigration (and not to forget ethnic cleansing).

As explained above, it’s not an issue of who is in the government. The Zionists were not interested in simply conquering the place and collecting taxes from the original inhabitants, which is what all the empires who occupied the place basically did.

And how exactly was it not theirs, given that they’ve lived on the land for millennia?

 

Yes, but I do not think that he understands the legitimacy for the liberation and why it is specifically Israel who is being fought against in order to achieve that goal. The bottom line is that Israel is the obstacle on the way to the liberation of Jerusalem ...... therefore, one necessitates the other.

 

Except this was not Hitler fighting Communism - and the comparison is completely invalid. .

This was not a "World War" - The Syrian Army was not threatening the homeland of the US or any other nation.
The Syrian Army was not invading another nation.
The Syrian Army was not going after Jews, Christians and other marginalized groups - that was the terrorist proxy army.
The Syrian Army was not trying to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia Theocracy - that was the terrorist proxy army.


Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians
Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists

https://www.globalresearch.ca/virgi...ad-for-saving-the-lives-of-christians/5384338

“My personal thanks to the Syrian Arab Army and Air Force for protecting all patriotic Syrians, including religious minorities, raped, tortured, kidnapped and beheaded at the hands of the foreign jihadists”…

I cannot explain how Americans, who suffered so grievously at the hands of al-Qaeda, were tricked into supporting the jihadists.

But I do know that many U.S. officials disagree with equipping and training the terrorists who penetrate your borders from the Kingdom of Jordan and through Turkey. Senator Richard H. Black of Virginia, 13th District

The Syrian Army is not the "Third Reich" in this story - that would be the terrorist proxy army.

 

I didn't know that.

By putting all of the pieces together (to see the whole picture) this would be the logical conclusion, yes.

The U.S. is a rogue nation

Vocabulary.com Dictionary https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rogue%20nation
"A state that does not respect other states in its international actions".

LEXICO definition: https://www.lexico.com/definition/rogue_nation
"A nation which acts in an unpredictable or belligerent manner towards other nations"

But! note the American Webster definition! http://webster-dictionary.org/definition/rogue+nation
"A Third World state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and sponsors terrorism"

 

and if all that is exactly true to a T, what damned difference does it make who said let's go home first?

...or from Caucasian concubines bought or taken in conflict.

not "but" rather "AND" ... The Arabs never controlled the land.

1) The Jews did not return and RECONQUER Israel. The Allied forces won a war against the Ottomans.
2) right. The Jews did not want to "administer" the land from afar like an imperial power, they wanted to live there. Oddly, they did not choose to set up an Islamic state but "a modern state".

G-d those Jews for not being imperialists, eh?

I see. You are working on the principle of possession is nine-tenths of the law. But 9/10 is not 100%, is it?

I own two rental properties north of where I live. I live in someone else's rental property. My tenants do not own the property in which they live, I do. I do not own the property in which I live, the landlord does.

if I lost my properties to a foreclosure my tenants would have not one word to say about their new landowner. The tenant may choose to stay and continue leasing or they may choose to leave because they do not like the new land owner, however under neither scenario, do they become owners of the property.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. There was a war. The Arabs fought on with the allied forces therefore they were on The winning side. For their efforts they gained the whole of Arabia, save one tiny sliver which was set aside for the Jews.

You refused to answer my earlier question: for Arabs living in Ottoman land, what is it to them if their administration/governance is Turkish or Israeli? It was never Arab ... Why the deep unmitigated rancor at moving from Turkish to Israeli government?

 

OK I am trying to understand it. After the US moving of the Embassy, Israel believes it is the owner of an undivided Jerusalem and just about every time I look for news on Israel I discover some activity at Al Aqsa against the Palestinians - that of course is where Israel's extremists and the Christian Zionists want the third temple build before there can be Armageddon.

They link I gave said

so here Al Quids means 'The Holy One' not liberation.

I think it is a guilty conscience. As I said I also wondered if this is the propaganda given to the Israeli public just like pretending he was killing thousands of Americans was that given to American people.

What exactly is he saying? Israel wants him dead because they are scared Iran will come and liberate Jerusalem for the three Abrahamic faiths? I know I keep hearing Christian Zionists saying that Iran has a story similar to their desire for Armageddon. Are they giving Israelis the idea that this is what the future is? Totally lost.

It remains that this man was the Head of the Get rid of ISIS mob and that Israel does not want Syria to be free of ISIS and that it is believed that murdering him will mean ISIS will be able to rise again and more and more people will be killed in horrendous circumstances. I am sure I read before that in Syria whenever the US believed things were getting sorted it would do something to make sure it was not so..

 

Your understanding is much better than most people. There is enough proof that the U.S. and Israel want to ISIS to thrive (within certain limits) and you have stated the reasons why this is true.
Like you said earlier: Israeli Intel Chief: We Don’t Want ISIS Defeated in Syria

 

I am not a Christian Zionist ... But that information is easy to find on the net.

https://www.hudson.org/research/7906-messianism-in-the-shiite-crescent

Both sunnis and shias believe in the apocalypse. and you can be sure that they will not be singing kumbaya and holding hands together as their apocalypse plays out. The above article gives a reasonable synopsis.

 

Thank you. Unfortunately this is a very biased source.

cont'd http://militarist-monitor.org/profile/Hudson_Institute/


What I know is that the American Christian Zionists are the people who have been working towards this and of course the neo cons, Christian Zionists and Netanyhu have been working together since the CZ's were appaled at the idea of a 2 state solution - at peace before the 'Jews' and to them it is 'Jews' have control and rule over all the land it says in their Bible. Perhaps Iranian Monitor can fill us in?

 

So prove it right or prove it wrong..or simply hear it out. That's what I do.

IM's input will be helpful. However one adherent's perspective would also be biased.

While the search for "unbiased" sources is laudable, I'm not sure that's attainable.

Perhaps our efforts are best spent in contemplating "various" sources

 

I would waste my life doing that. When things are legit it is possible to get legit sources to say so.

I am glad however you introduced me to these people. It gives more information on the work going on by American Christian Zionists and neo cons and no doubt Netanyhu and thinking that there may be a possibility that the Israeli Public is getting scared out of their nickers by them, it is interesting to notice more of the work they are doing that they are indeed closely allied with Christian Zionists. They also were closely involved with PNAC. I saw that they were working against anti zionist thinking in Universities and thought it was in the US but No, they are even telling Israeli students themselves what they should be thinking - that is neo cons and Christian Zionists telling Israeli Students what they should be thinking.

Here is a bit more information on these people

All the sale old even Elliot Abrahams. You can guess the rest.

and all that led to the killing of a Man working against ISIS with it would appear the ordinary Iasrelis having been previously indoctrinated to believe Iran was coming to get them rather than fighting for its life after all the hatred coming from these people.

https://newrepublic.com/article/156166/pence-pompeo-evanglicals-war-iran-christian-zionism

Now these are the ones who not only want their Armageddon but have been working for it since 67 and particularly with Netanyhu since the idea of a two state solution came in - something which would have destroyed their intention for Armageddon and Rapture.

 

And yet, it would seem you've found (or I provided ) a legit source for CZ views on Islamic end times.

IM can add texture; a scholarly work on Islamic apocalyptic thought more so still.

IMHO, listening to the viewpoints of others is never a waste.

 

please restate this in the interest of clarity:
Previously? To what?
Hatred from which people?

Sorry, it's the punctuation thing

and we're back where we started.

Again both Islam and Christianity have apocalyptic components.

The Sunni variation does not look identical to the Shia version.

And not all Protestant Christians believe that the end times will come with the rebuilding of a physical temple in Israel.

 

Point is that they had nothing to do with the land other than the fact that some of their ancestors may have lived there thousands of years ago. And if it was truly “home,” why were there other geographic locations considered before Palestine was finally chosen to be the place to set up a Jewish state in?

The Arabian Caliphs and their respective empires certainly “controlled” the lands at some point, and the indigenous peoples of the Levant and Palestine were gradually Arabized in culture, hence phenomenas like Arabic speaking Jews (outside of the Arabian Peninsula). This doesn’t mean that these original peoples are Arabian; indeed, this is a common myth used by Zionists to erase the history of the indigenous Palestinian peoples.

Except that it was their intention to found the modern state of Israel well before WWII. And the Ottomans have nothing to do with it, as Palestine for them was simply another piece of territory that their vast empire controlled. Doesn’t matter if the Brits or Turks or Arabs controlled the land- the indigenous peoples have always been there. And the European Zionists came to usurp them.

“Live there” is a far cry from establishing a modern ethno-state.

Not at all, as possession as nothing to do with it. Again, the former empires never owned anything. Great Britain never owned Palestine, it administered it. Same with the Ottomans. Same with the Caliphates. And so forth.

Your question is inherently flawed, because as explained above, the modern state of Israel is not in any way, shape or form like the Ottoman Empire. The former is a nation-state based on Western and European notions of civilization and an identity that’s exclusively Jewish. It only exists because hundreds of thousands of European Jews immigrated (mostly illegally) en mass to the region, against the wishes of the indigenous peoples.

The latter was an Islamic Caliphate rooted in medieval ideas of empire and governance, where conquered regions like Palestine were administered by local authorities, and vital for the Empire’s existence in terms of territorial power and tax revenue. The demography and natural balance of the region was not upset by the introduction of foreign elements on an innumerable scale.

 

You may wish to erase history but you cannot. There is not a library anywhere on the face of this globe that does not contain maps and and histories and books of every variety from all manner of civilizations confirming that Isreal was the home of Jews.

I hate to use a religious texts to make this point but by damned I shall do it anyway.

Sura 17:104
And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Sura 5:20-21
When Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember God’s blessings upon you, when He placed prophets among you, and made you kings, and gave you what He never gave any other people.”

“O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned for you, and do not turn back, lest you return as losers.”

Any Arabian Caliphs would have been paying taxes to the Turks, as well as living under their laws.

I'm not wasting my time talking about some Jew's wetdream. Stick with history.

you are splitting hairs. The land was set aside for a Jewish homeland. they can establish whichever type of government that they wish to establish.

The Allied powers took possession of it from the Ottomans. They divided all that land up and gave possession of the land that the Arabs lived on, which belonged to the Ottomans, it is now in their possession. one parcel was set aside for the Jewish people and they are now in possession of it. Evidently the Jewish people did not wish to administer it as an imperial power might, they wished to live there...again...if they can keep it. And their style of governance is their own business.

And why should it be?

 

The 'deep unmitigated rancor' you allude to must have a reason. And it does. While your earlier narrative about spoils of war is interesting and telling in some ways, at the end of the day, legitimacy requires more than brute force. (This is incidentally, the basic lesson from Professor Hart's work navigating between positivist and natural law philosophies in the Concept of Law).

A "Jewish homeland" on lands which were not inhabited primarily by Jews would not be considered legitimate based on any of the prevailing ideologies at the time of the Zionist project (except those of imperialists and Zionists). Not those prevalent in the West itself, whether those promoting notions of democratic governance, the the right of self-determination for people, or the, nationalist ideologies being promoted that had awaken Arab 'nationalism'. And certainly none in the larger region in which this "Jewish state" was to be established.

We are in the same position today, except the theater of conquest has now expanded from a 'sliver of territory' to much more.

In this context, the neocon agenda requires not just conquering the region and somehow putting down all resistance within the region in the name of an ideology which is inherently alienating to all those who don't fall within its exclusive parameters (putting down such resistance would be a horrific exercise, but the nihilists who masquerade as the new crusaders in the West are up it I guess), but it also requires corrupting and then conquering the very institutions of so-called 'democratic governance' in the West. The agendas, lacking the basic legitimacy in any of the established ideologies of our times (except the exclusivist ones I alluded to, which have no chance of winning too many adherents outside its exclusive circles), in either West or East, need lies and corruption to win over the institutions of governance. And they will need more that eventually.

 

I still don't know if that collateral damage against the war on terror is already verified, for all I know there is also one person of interest who were also killed a commander of Kata'ib Hezbollah, I could positively presume that they have bodyguards during the strike.

 

Agreed

I am not sure that the Moors of Spain would agree.

Be that as it may, the ...United...Nations...
voted yes on legitimacy in November of 1947.

I've been waiting to meet you, IM. Of all the posters on this board, it is your brain I am most interested in picking.

Not about Israel. I did my due diligence in that regard; I am comfortable with where I stand.

No, I'd like to speak to you about your country, then and now. I enjoyed your earlier history lesson very much.

Should I tell you a bit about myself and why I have an interest in Iran?

 

Absolutely. I certainly would be interested to know about your interest in Iran.

 

@Iranian Monitor

I grew up in a modest-sized, very dusty, college town. We had a fair-sized population of Iranian exchange students.

A number of us white-bread american types became quite friendly with these exchange students. I found them to be erudite and affable. I ate my first Iranian dishes in their homes. (Yum!) I was taught a few words of Farsi. And in 1978 I was gifted a Koran.

Then unfortunately, 1979 happened. I was at work when the news came down. As soon as I got off work I drove straight to my friends' house.

There was no answer at the door but the curtains were ajar and it was clear that the entire apartment had been cleared out in the space of a few short hours.

It was jarring. Everything that followed was jarring.

I have never forgotten those young men or the time that I spent with them.

Today I watch the talking heads on the TV or even educated people in my circle, and I have a difficult time reconciling what is being said with my experiences in my youth.

 

Well, since my interest is in offering people a different (in my view, more accurate) narrative about Iran than any of the narratives people are exposed to in the West, please feel free to ask about what might interest you on the subject.

In the meantime, though, can you let me know a bit about your educational and/or professional background? I have read your posts here and, while I certainly disagree with you on many of your points, I did find it interesting that you seemed exposed to aspects of medieval Islamic history and appeared, in particular, familiar with Muslim rule in Spain.

Anyway, if you would share a bit about your background, that will help me understand which areas I need to expand on more or less as it relates to Iran specifically and the wider issues involved more generally.

 

Neither my formal education nor my profession had anything to do with the ME.... That came about by my exposure to those Iranian students. Frankly, I had to know "what the hell just happened and why?"

It started a 42-year exploration of ME geopolitics and Islam. I have not taken my studies lightly, I have striven to be diligent. There is always more to learn, it is a job that cannot be finished.

When I left another state to make a major move, I donated over 90 books on the Mideast to a small regional college. I imagine those books collected dust until 9/11, not so much after. I was glad they were high-value books. I do regret donating a book of ancient maps.

Ironically, oh so ironically, one of the glaring holes in my study has been a comparison of Shia and Sunni Islam.

We all know how the split happened, but how have differences developed between the two sects? What does that look like in dogma and practice?

Not a conversation for this thread; and I certainly wouldn't want to push you to a conversation you were uncomfortable with but yes, here, I need more education.

 

And I've got questions on the Iranian view of Bush's war in Iraq.

A theory that I'd like to bounce off of you.

Iranian views on Putin.

Heck, I best write these down now that there's someone discuss it with.

What are your average summer temps? Winter?

So many disparate questions.

I should catalog and bullet point.
LOL!