BBC continues to spread unfounded zionist warmongering by Israel

My god, Israel is just drooling for a conflict with Iran.
And of course, once the shit hits the fan, the U.S. is right beside it's faithful friend to lend assistance....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15281.htm

 

When Iran had a 40 foot banner hanging from the foreign ministry in Tehran that said "Israel must burn", I suppose you think they meant disco inferno.

 

^ LOL.

I think there's about a billion muslims who wouldn't mind seeing Israel in ashes ( Notice how I say about a billion, that means 500 Million muslims don't care ).

 

There are also plenty of non-muslims who would like to see Israel burning... :X

 

what matter is the opiniion of THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN... fuck other people... they are peopel they wont do muhc.. but if the head guy says that... something is wrong ....
They wont dare doing anythign against Israel, but if they do or play more with nukes... Sadly Iran will be destroyed and put back to 1955..... adn then again.

 

Yeah, neo nazis for example.

 

Who, topolm?

Yeah, i know, but enough people of many persuasions have been fucked by zionism that compiling a list of Israels enemies would be quite a task.

 

Hmmm... honestly, I think we need to form an international panel of only males. A couple of Israelis, couple of Muslims, couple of neo-conservative Christians, etc....

The reason for the panel: Everyone will drop trough and compare the length and girth of their penises. I think most will find that they're mostly the same size.

 

I find that the people who hate Israel the most are those drawn to extremist ideologies in general.

Anyway here's another Ahmadinejad quote for you to make excuses for. He'll keep you busy, that Ahmadinejad.

 

If Israel was built on more than Zionist Millionaires ( Billionaires for our time ) for the purpose of making more money off of incoming Jewish citizens, Israel would be better off. That and if it was made on stable ground....instead of...you know.....kinda pushed onto the Muslim world.

 

*raises an eyebrow at Shane*

You are trying to bait Topolm out of hiding, aren't you?!


Tsk tsk, silly.

 

What you mean Iran and the USA v's Israel - no chance almost as improbable as the USA and Israel V's Iran
You seem to ignore the fact that behind any and all rhetoric there is the fact that Iran and The USA are strong trading entities that do business on a scale that would harm the US economy should it stop.
The fact is that Iran complained bitterly about Hussein and Iraq prior to the first Iraq war and there is no doubt in the minds of economists that Iran and the USA have good diplomatic relations but politically it is not astute to show that relations are good. What muslim wants their leaders to trade with the USA when the USA is killing muslims?

But for some strange reason, the programme makers infer from their more accurate translation the same diabolical intent on Ahmadinejad's part as suggested by Netanyahu's fabricated version. Iran's nuclear weapons, we are told by the programme as if they are already in existence, have "presented Israel's leaders with a new order of threat". In making his speech, the BBC film argues, Ahmadinejad "issued a death sentence against Israel". and you are falling for the same trick I just wrote about - its just a game of rhetoric to keep the voters and slaves happy - theres no friggin panic its been the same since israel was formed

 

Your POV makes sence if this was just rhetoric, but it's not.
Between Bushco's increased pressure on Tehran, Buchco's support of the lebanon conflict(massacre), Israel's ramped up prop(and it has increased over the last decade), Bushco's disregard for diplomatic solutions (afganistan/iraq), the influence of Iran in lebenon and currently iraq, The "Ike Strike" and other's making themselves comfortable within striking range of Iran...

The U.S. been planning a war with Iran since before they funded both sides of the Iraq-Iran war in the 70's, and israel is a big part of the equation.

It's all about energy geopolitics.

the U.S. has to secure certain areas of the globe before mid century in order to successfully compete against Russia, China, The EU, and Latin/South America during the resource wars.

We're playing a game of last man standing.

 

Only in the Iraq war - cant think of anywhere else he has refused diplomatic solutions, even over Korea his people are using diplomatic channels.

Also on the borders of Syria
and I believe you will see syria get closer to being attacked than Iran.
You may be right of course but only a few weeks ago I missed a documentary on TV that I wanted to see but I did see a discussion about the documentary and it was explaining how the USA is not only working with Israel but also with Iran. Infact part of the reason for the first war with Iraq was because Iran asked the USA to step in - Iraq and Iran hated each others politics and then Hussein got bitchy about the USA and thats when it all started going haywire

Of course they did - at least I will take your word that they did - but theres really nothing new in this - Britain does it all the while in Africa or used to - thats diplomacy for you and also bear in mind Britain and the USA are the biggest arms dealers in the world
Maybe it was a good opportunity to sell ammo and guns.
after youve replied I'll have some links to post - I'll try to get sources for my statements

 

Money is a great incentive, but it's only a bonus.

The real goal is what it always has been: economic, political, cultural, and religious global domination.

The wet dream of every State from anytime.

Unfortunately in the begining of the 21st century the goals of the State are the same, their power has increased and they are all on the brink of collapse (give or take a few decades).

Their only chance to salvage an existence is to increase and utilize their power.

It's temporary of course, few if any current States or going to survive the Chaos of the coming Crash, but like any person gasping precious air on their deathbed they will cling to life as long as they can. discontents be damned.

At least that's my educated opinion.

We could always be wrong, but i don't think i am.

We going to see more conflict in the middle east.

We are going to see the EU, China, Russia Latin/South America and the U.S. tighten their grip on their respective satilite states (think of a dying industry doing a series of mergers), drawing lines in the sand.

We are also going to see an increase amount of assaults on civil liberties in each of these regions (no choice, if they want to compete and survive they must accomplish their goals and cant allow their populace to interfer).

We are going to see a rise in factionalism and marginalization in each region (expect racism, nationalism, and yes more fundamentalism), i'm not sure if this is designed in order to shore up the States most hardcore base or if it is a subconsious desire of members of the populace to control as much of their world as possible knowing that the world is about to change drastically.

Also expect a growing gap between rich and poor as resources become harder to obtain and/or extract and those who have make dam certain that they continue to have...

 

There is archaelogical evidence to show that people have said this since the early days of the Egyptian empires some 3000 years ago

Conflict in the Middle East is merely a part of the rich preserving the raw materials to benifit industry and to crush the workers into accepting the new methods of industry - on the whole I cant really say I am either for or against the war - there is a case to be made for the attitude "why should I give a damn - more oil means I stay warm and my food gets to the supermarket"

Thats right but since the vast majority of people have nothing to contribute but manual labour and a low level of skills requiring an average intelligence, or below, then you must ask yourself - would anyone suggest that we topple the rich and their industries that are based on genius, could you design a form of transport? or a nuclear power station ?
or manage funds so well that you keep millions alive?
no-one believes the west will lose a war to the extent that the west will be over-run and become enslaved to the ideals of the east.
So the question is - why the panic? whats the problem - you can surely see that it benifits you to be in the west.
Even if we did something about the wars etc like topple the rich. we would have no academics and inventors that would stay and ordinary people are ordinary because much as they want - they aint got it in them to stand out and lead

My point is - I cant see what te problem is - theres two sides to the story - they could give the west what we want - or the west takes it
blood or bread - which is better? Cuz one way or another the west gets what it wants - with you or without you