Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

I've always felt this was the case.....you decide.

  • 13-05-2012 5:25am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭


    Seymour Hersh for whom I have a great deal of respect seems to reason that the entire "Arab Spring" was never a spontaneous kick-off.

    I would agree. Things so huge are ALWAYS planned and in many years. I'm wondering if the Arab Spring was instigated purely to control North Africa and rein in that "arc of instability" that runs from Sudan to Tehran in order to control the entire Middle East and encircle China with a ring of steel or are there further maneuvres towards Russia as well.

    Destroying Syria is key to isolating and further destroying Lebanon and ultimately smashing Iran and killing a few million more in order to get BP back in charge of the Yadavaran oil fields since they were removed in 1979. But how does this play out?

    Obviously the objective is to seize the Caspian oil and gas reserves and kill anyone in the way. But why are nuclear powers like Russia, China, India just sitting and watching? Baffling. Are they au fait with the plunder or do they have a sucker punch?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31293.htm


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Seymour Hersh for whom I have a great deal of respect seems to reason that the entire "Arab Spring" was never a spontaneous kick-off.

    I would agree. Things so huge are ALWAYS planned and in many years.
    Such as?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    You have 2 main economic competitors for energy.

    Expanding - BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
    Shrinking - EU/US

    Caspian basin is land locked, attacking Iran at the request of Israel plays into the hands of the Russians which US policy makers are well aware of.

    Attacking Iran poses 2 main problems -- 1) Further aggrevate poor relations with countries invested there like China and India. 2) Europe's energy security is compromised resulting in further destruction of economy.

    Attacking Iran is what a stupid person would do so when you hear someone supporting attack on Iran, just nod your head in agreement because you're listening to a retard.
    Are they au fait with the plunder or do they have a sucker punch?

    What do you mean exactly?

    China and Russia are full of robber barons, they just let the US fall on it's own sword.

    EU calls for ‘non-Russian sources’ of gas


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Destroying Syria is key to isolating and further destroying Lebanon and ultimately smashing Iran and killing a few million more in order to get BP back in charge of the Yadavaran oil fields since they were removed in 1979. But how does this play out?

    I love the way these hypotheses conveniently shift every few months or so depending on what randomly happens in the world.
    Obviously the objective is to seize the Caspian oil and gas reserves and kill anyone in the way. But why are nuclear powers like Russia, China, India just sitting and watching? Baffling. Are they au fait with the plunder or do they have a sucker punch?

    I guess they haven't read all the secret plans exposed in blogs and articles on informationclearinghouse :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    jonny7 wrote:
    I love the way these hypotheses conveniently shift every few months or so depending on what randomly happens in the world.

    What's your "hypotheses"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    superluck wrote: »
    What's your "hypotheses"?
    I think he is referring to the various hypotheses that you put forward.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    I think he is referring to the various hypotheses that you put forward.

    Which is what exactly?

    What have you gleaned from my views on this?

    Your post along with Jonny7 illustrates to me, neither of you have a clue what's being discussed, nothing less.

    To be perfectly frank, it screams "I haven't a fckin clue what you're discussing"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    superluck wrote: »
    Which is what exactly?

    What have you gleaned from my views on this?

    Your post along with Jonny7 illustrates to me, neither of you have a clue what's being discussed, nothing less.

    To be perfectly frank, it screams "I haven't a fckin clue what you're discussing"

    Here is a hypothesis from you:
    Attacking Iran poses 2 main problems -- 1) Further aggrevate poor relations with countries invested there like China and India. 2) Europe's energy security is compromised resulting in further destruction of economy.

    Attacking Iran is what a stupid person would do so when you hear someone supporting attack on Iran, just nod your head in agreement because you're listening to a retard.
    And here is one from outtagetme:
    outtagetme wrote: »
    Seymour Hersh for whom I have a great deal of respect seems to reason that the entire "Arab Spring" was never a spontaneous kick-off.

    I would agree. Things so huge are ALWAYS planned and in many years.

    HTH.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    Right,

    Now where is your hypothesis? Where is Jonny7 with his opinion?

    Seriously, do you even have the ability to formulate an opinion on what we're discussing or do you just repeat whatever you heard on the news?

    I see nothing in this thread from you MB or Jonny7 that contributes to the topic constructively.

    Maybe you should spam in AH instead.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 104 ✭✭outtagetme


    Such as?

    Well, Iraq invasion was planned years before 2003. Normandy invasion was planned in 1941 in Casablanca between Churchill and Roosevelt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    outtagetme wrote: »
    Well, Iraq invasion was planned years before 2003. Normandy invasion was planned in 1941 in Casablanca between Churchill and Roosevelt.
    I agree, but these were military operations. I'm not sure how you would plan a social uprising in the same manner.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Have you forgotten the uprising in Egypt so soon?
    There is enough reason to suspect that was planned as far back as 2005,maybe 2002 i cant remember the year of the bilderberg meeting that their economy was a highlighted topic.
    I think it was hosted in Lisbon and i might have even created a thread related to it last year(or just posted in that thread that was made),highlighting certain things relating to the national bank of Egypt.Might have been the banks board members involved aswell iirc.

    There are many ways to achieve a goal like the one mentioned in the OP.
    Im sure things arent over for the Egyptians yet either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Torakx wrote: »
    Have you forgotten the uprising in Egypt so soon?
    There is enough reason to suspect that was planned as far back as 2005,maybe 2002 i cant remember the year of the bilderberg meeting that their economy was a highlighted topic.

    Do you have any proof?

    For a start, think about it, why would "they" want to destabilise an ally (Mubarrak) and a major US arms buyer (Egyptian military)?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Do you have any proof?

    For a start, think about it, why would "they" want to destabilise an ally (Mubarrak) and a major US arms buyer (Egyptian military)?
    Good point. There was a stable regime in place, and no threat to Israel. Now they might have the Muslim Brotherhood in charge - hardly an improvement for economic or strategic reasons?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    I dont know the politics of that region sorry.
    I just know their economy was dicussed in a bilderberg meeting and that the bank of Egypt was represented.
    Some other components related to other nefarious organisations were also present and have gained much from the debt created there.

    I wonder was the Bank of Egypt bailed out?
    If so it would further convince me this was orchestrated.
    My point was this is HOW it can be done on a social and economical level, as the question was posed.
    And again i say, there are many other ways to achieve these goals in relation to the OP.

    What i found the most interesting part of the OP, was the query of wether there was a sucker punch.
    That to me, is an interesting question.

    ps, if you wish to query the Ct about the Egyptian uprising i am pretty sure some very detailed posts exist from myself within those threads,that would supply alot of circumstantial evidence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Torakx wrote: »
    What i found the most interesting part of the OP, was the query of wether there was a sucker punch.
    That to me, is an interesting question.
    What do you understand 'sucker punch' to mean in this context? Just so we are on the same page. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    Good point. There was a stable regime in place, and no threat to Israel. Now they might have the Muslim Brotherhood in charge - hardly an improvement for economic or strategic reasons?

    A stable regime? Don't you mean a dictatorship that oppressed the people with help from the US?

    This is what you aren't seeing on the news lately.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    superluck wrote: »
    A stable regime? Don't you mean a dictatorship that oppressed the people with help from the US?
    Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What is your point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    What do you understand 'sucker punch' to mean in this context? Just so we are on the same page. :)

    Well with a americans walsing into Africa i would expect China and/or Russia to retaliate.
    Granted i dont follow the small tid bits of news and propoganda.
    But i would expect some kind of lash back.
    Since it seems they are not making major headlines in this regard, i find the question of wether they will sneak up and sucker punch the yanks at some stage when they are least expecting it..or maybe propoganda will interpret that in the future for the americans sake.

    That whole situation i am mildly curious about.
    I took the OP'ers use of sucker punch to mean, the chinese are sitting back and might have something up their sleeve.

    How else did you take that meaning? i couldnt see any other interpretation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Torakx wrote: »
    Well with a americans walsing into Africa i would expect China and/or Russia to retaliate.
    Granted i dont follow the small tid bits of news and propoganda.
    But i would expect some kind of lash back.
    Since it seems they are not making major headlines in this regard, i find the question of wether they will sneak up and sucker punch the yanks at some stage when they are least expecting it..or maybe propoganda will interpret that in the future for the americans sake.

    Well, the Americans aren't really waltzing into Africa at all, they have a pretty limited presence, and its mostly just business (business in Africa more than anywhere else ranges from normal to distinctly illegal, but just about major power has their hands dirty in this regard)

    Relations between the US and Russia are a little terse over Syria and Iran at the moment, but nothing serious. A bigger rift is UK - Russia, over events in the past years, but that seems to be healing too.

    China is getting a little uppity in the South Seas, it's expanding it's influence, it does concern the other powers, but not too much. There are issues over China's domestic policy, e.g. recently human rights being highlighted, but really there is so much trade between the US, Russia and China - it would take a huge escalation in events to see any sort of serious dispute break out.

    So directly - for the moment at least - there is not too much to worry about.

    However the Iran situation, other ME issues.. those are tinderboxes that can draw other nations in.. but, again, would take serious escalations.

    Spying, tough political rhetoric, trade tariff's, some proxy situations - they'll always exist - but for now, nothing too big to worry about, certainly no "sucker punches" I wouldn't think.


Advertisement