(b) The 70 percent of Shia were opposed to all Sunni, including Whahhabism (Bin Laden's sect).
(c) That leaves zero support for Al Qaeda's cause if the Americans are kicked out of Iraq, for the expelling of the United States is the ONLY common cause of all factions.
12. AS THIS SITUATION CURRENTLY STANDS: Iran has everything to gain by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and everything to LOSE by saying or doing anything; they already have a 70 percent majority in Iraq, and if the conflict is allowed to resolve itself without further interference by the United States, the Shitte will prevail.
13. Support for Al Qaeda by Iran would be strategically INSANE. It would place Iran in direct conflict the Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and every other Sunni nation in the Middle East at a time when a major victory over Sunni minority domination in the nation immediately next door was imminent. The President of Iran is neither stupid, nor insane. For him to have announced an intent to back Al Qaeda, would be for him to back the destruction and re-oppression of the Shia majority in Iraq; A LOSS FOR IRAN.
This alleged "unification" between Al Qaeda and Iran DID NOT HAPPEN. It is a lie. It is a lie of the same magnitude as the claim that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda; Al Qaeda HAS NO ALLIES OUTSIDE OF THE STREETS OF AFGHANISTAN, EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA. NONE.
The truth is, that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" ARE ABOUT TO BE DEFEATED; as soon as the United States leaves, the score would be settled between the vicious Sunni minority's decades of bloody oppression, and the majority Shitte. The United States would THEN LOSE IT'S ENTIRE PRETENSE FOR FURTHER INTERVENTIONALISM FOR CONTROL OF THE OIL.
Like the lie about Saddam's alleged connection with Bin Laden, and like the recent deliberate mis-translations of Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding the removal of Israel from MAPS (not THE map), this lie is designed to take effect within the collective ignorance of the American public as the other lies did. It is highly fertile territory, no thanks to innumerable Democrats who repeatedly alleged Iran was the "real threat" as Bush waged war on Iraq; it played directly into the hands of the manipulators who "catapult the propaganda".
The recent developments have AIPAC's finger prints all over them; the Neo-conservatives bent on America's "full spectrum dominance" (PNAC) of the region were NOT going to give up after a defeat in Iraq, and as I have long argued, knowing that they can not attain their ambitions by conventional warfare, their ultimate goal is pretense to unconventional warfare; First use of nuclear weapons.
Ultimately, this conflict is not about "Islam vs. The West": It's about the East vs. The West: China's access to oil, and it's capacity to develop an axis relationship with Iraq and Iran for oil.
The complexity of the geo-political strategy is what enables the directors of America's foreign policy (none of whom were ever elected) to largely hide itself from the American people, the overwhelming majority of whom have no understanding of the ideologies or goals of the various players.
So the two big lies which unraveled eventually have now been replaced by a third lie, and unless smart people can undertake to educate their fellow Americans, this third lie is going to be far more difficult to expose for what it is, and it has more disastrous consequences.
I predict that the "Iraq study group" and commission, will attempt to lay the groundwork to regionalize America's conflict. The only way they can pull it off, is to once again re-direct using an organization who's only life has been granted by the United States; Al Qaeda.
In the coming weeks I predict there will be another claim, or actual event, which puts the United States into direct conflict with Iran, thereby diverting the Democrats from disengaging the United States from it's imperial quest. Just know this: You are still being lied to; mightily lied to, and if you dismiss that notion, you'll have been fooled three times in a row.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not just align himself with Al Qaeda; that is ABSURD.
I'm hearing you. Thank you for writing this article.
If you are available to answer a question, could you please explain the MAPS statement made by President Ahmadinejad of Iran with respect to Israel? Thank you, again.
by
Lilydove (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 9:38:12 PM
He did NOT say "Israel should be wiped off the map". He said Israel should be taken off of maps. It's an important difference because the mistranslation clearly alleges a threat, while the actual statement was an ideological position of not recognizing Israel as Israel, and carried no direct threat. Arab maps do not show Israel. His statement was thus a request to the U.S. to abolish it's policy, beginning with it's assumption of what Arabs reject.
The mis-translation was very deliberate.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 2:23:16 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
