A short guide to the Middle East...

[The_Big_Lebowski]

Found this the other day. What do you think?


http://i.imgur.com/477wpCQ.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[R4F1]

Qatar, Turkey are backing Muslim Brotherhood.

Qatar, Turkey, Saudi, UAE are backing Syrian rebels.

Saudi, UAE are against MB. Because they don't want their local affiliates to depose them.

Qatar and Turkey, dont have the fear of being deposed by MB, so they don't care.

US does not support MB, that is bullshit to fit the paradigm that US us supporting all Islamist groups (which they arent)

US supports Mubarak/military, which is why they can kill more people than Gaddafi did, and no one bats an eye (whereas Libya got invaded).

[Ry]

the US supports perpetual conflict and always has and they will fund both sides or switch sides whenever it is politically expedient in order to keep a conflict going for as long as possible. The US does not support MB they supported Morsi being the head of MB because Morsi like Obama was an and all talk bullshit artist that still got the top position despite having nothing in common with his base. The MB is also not monolithic its like saying all parties that call themself "liberal" are the same in every country.

[R4F1]

I don't think the US cares who is at the head of MB, because MB is not much of a top-down organization; its a "party" in the most traditional sense possible (with no one/few persons pulling the shots). Morsi however, is just the figurehead for that party, you could call him a puppet if you like; so in that sense, there is some similarity with Obama (tho i would say Morsi is not as diabolical as Obama).

As i always say, we need to be specific in criticism/analysis of any given prolonged political affair or conflict. What may seen like a single perpetual motion, may actually not be. So what I'm going to say that is that, there is difference between the early Arab Spring revolutions and the latter Arab Spring revolutions. In other words, Egypt and Tunisia were organic populist movements. Both Islamists and Liberals were a part of them, as both wanted the status-quo (Western-backed dictatorships) to fall. This IMO took the US totally by surprise. But they could not do anything about it because, it was being touted as a "democratic revolution"... and unlike Nicaragua/Iran, the world was watching so they couldn't just simply thwart it, because it was a social-media driven revolution.

Losing Egypt must have come as a shock, because Egypt was the main recipient of US aid and pretty much worked as the body-guard for Israel. So i believe what the West did, was use the fervor and opportunity of the Arab Spring to direct it themselves. And so Libya was easy pickings, they decided to arms the rebels (who made a small minority), and then NATO bombed Gaddafi out of power. Qatar got involved, because Qatar realized the power of their network Al-Jazeera during the Arab Spring (and ever since then AJ has changed its editorial-policies totally; going from critical of US foreign-policy to being a tool of it).

And of course, when the enemy is secular, the US arms the Islamists. And when the enemy is Islamist, the US arms the liberals or other opportunists. Some took this tactic of the West (in Libya, and then Syria) to assume that all Islamists are backed by the US, and that includes the MB. But that is blatantly false. The US didn't depose Mubarak or instill Morsi, it happened on its own. That's why today we see the Military/Mubarak coming back, while the US watches and did nothing (while people are killed by coup).

tl;dr: My point is, Tunisia and Egypt were organic revolutions. Whereas Libya onwards were all a hijacked/manipulated "revolution". When the west lost some puppets, they decided to gain new puppets (by taking over Libya) while also using it as a distraction-method. Now that people have been effectively distracted the past 2.5yrs (with Libya and Syria, hijacking the Arab Spring fervor), the US has decided its the perfect time to act to get back Egypt (without looking 'anti-democratic' anymore).

[Ry]

It is not something we have to guess at the Israelis wrote out the plan for Syria in their own policy papers. Look up oded yinon then look up perle and clean break.

Arab spring is a tv propaganda term. Egypt had or has a populous uprising but the us hijacked it ber rabbit style briar patch

[The_Big_Lebowski]

This whole thing is starting to make my head spin a bit, and I'm not sure if that's by coincidence or design. I keep getting images of that PNAC map of the middle east redrawn. Kick the hornets nest, then stand back and watch the infighting. Seems to work every time.

Obvious false flag just now in Syria....seems like Israel is closer to the problems it had in 1948 than ever before. So they either want this, or have lost control of the situation. I'm undecided. Wondering if the order from chaos routine is back in full swing, hmm, at any rate I'm starting to get the sinking feeling this is either going to go on for the next 100+ years, or end with a monumental bang in the next few.

Either scenario is less than appealing, and everyone is blatantly getting their life energy drained from them to finance it all either directly or indirectly.

Crazy.

[Ry]

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. 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. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15 thats from 1982

http://www.ancreport.com/forum/v ... 114&t=9538&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[R4F1]

It is not something we have to guess at the Israelis wrote out the plan for Syria in their own policy papers. Look up oded yinon then look up perle and clean break.

Arab spring is a tv propaganda term. Egypt had or has a populous uprising but the us hijacked it ber rabbit style briar patch

Nothing i said contradicted that. I think you didn't read the whole thing that i wrote, go ahead and re-read it. I'm sure it'll make sense then. And yes, I know about Syria being part of a previous plan, that part is guaranteed.

[Ry]

I wasn't disagreeing I was making it more clear by saying its not hard to figure out at all when they literally wrote it down.

[The_Big_Lebowski]

Netanyahu Says Syria Is Iran's "Testing Ground" - blames Iran for Syria crisis




^^