iran and the british media

[Mandy]

i don't think thats quite true, that israel pulls the strings of britain and america, if you really think it is - show me an example of where america or britain pursued a policy that worked against there own interests but in the favour if israel ...

How about Iraq ?

It is said that Israel is the ONLY winner out of the destruction of Iraq (and the associated costs, human & financial) to Britain and the US.

Luke, I can provide many references on the web for the above.

Who do you think benefited from the destruction of one of the few military powers which can resist Israel (Iran being the other, and we know where that is heading).

Our whole Iran policy is against Britain's national interest (but in Israel national interest).

Did you see the video I referred to above ?


https://www.spiderednews.com/Videos/80731.htm
"Republican Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out -- Again ! - AIPAC Exposed"

FYI, the expression is "Israeli-Firsters" because the US (and British) politicians put Israel's interest ahead of US/Britain's interest.

[luke]

who says that?

that kinda ignores that british and american business are profiting from iraq, its the british state department thats been helping plan iraqs new oil laws that shares its profits to america and britain for the next thirty years, it ignores the continuing dollar hegemony, it ignores our history of the area and oil control, it ignores the christian rights biblical view of israel

see my point is yeah, its in israels interest, but we would not pursue those policies unless we benefited - it can demonstrated how britain and america has benefited from iraq

see in a way i agree with you about israel, i don't like israel at all, but i think it misses a lot to say israel controls our media, israel controls our foreign policy - its to simplistic a view. we follow israel ( or go along with ) when it works in our interests, but i don't think you can demonstrate where we've followed israel to the detriment of our interests

so if anyone can show me show me a policy from israel that we've followed that we didn't benefit from, like i say i'm willing to change my view

will check the video gg, cheers

[Mandy]

Luke,

No amount of "benefit" to US or Britain would outweigh the HUGE cost over the decades of supporting Israel, and Israel's wars.

Here is one quote :

https://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?

“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”

Summary

For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel – shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress – that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel’s greatest regional enemies.

While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists.

Americans have already paid a high price for their nation’s commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price – not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state – until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.

---

Another supporter of my views is the v. smart Mike Rivero at https://www.whatreallyhappened.com

See category https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archi ... _iraq.html as to the numerous articles about Israel pushing for the Iraq War .. and they being the only beneficiary at the HUGE EXPENSE of US interests (and by implication, Britain's interests)

[luke]

you still haven't showed me a policy - a quote isn't evidence that we follow israels policies to the detriment of our interests

see i agree with a lot of what your saying, but i stand by that we won't follow any policy of israel that doesn't work in our ( big business & government ) interests

i know there are examples of where america has stepped in to stop israeli policy when they have worked against american interests, but nobody has yet shown me any the other way round ...

see you say 'has been a calamity for America' - it has for the american people, and public opinion around the world, but the elites don't care about that ( except that the war hasn't gone according to plan ) - government isn't meant for them the military industrial complex is taking in more money thats going to arms manufactures and haliburton etc than ever before - the elites are raking in the money left right and center, new oil deals, opening iraq's economy to western business, even vodafone are raking it in in iraq! they have the people complety in fear, willing to accept any infringements on there liberty and freedom in return for 'security'

yes the iraq war works in israels interests, but also britains and americas - and i still say, if it hadn't worked in our interests, we wouldn't have invaded - regardless of what israel wanted

[Mandy]

Luke,

Hope about the US policy to give BILLIONS every year to Israel (grants, loan guarantees etc), when the money would have been better spent on US infrastructure.

US needs the money more than Israel.


Another policy : Supporting Israel's flattening of Lebanon. This support brought nothing but criticism from round the world.

Another policy : Suppressing the truth about Israel trying to sink the USS Liberty in 1967

The the politicians might have been "conditioned" to think what is good for Israel is good for US & Britain, but that is a by product of the lobbying by the likes of AIPAC as seen in the video I referred to. i.e. Just because the politicians thought it was good for Britain and US doesn't make it so .. it just means the politicians have bad judgement (and thinking about Bush & Blair, that doesn't sound surprising). BUT they are still in the pocket of the Israeli Lobby .. whether they realise it or not.

Put another way, by the time politicians get anywhere near the levers of power in the US and Britain, they would generally already be in the pockets of interests which put Israel first.

[luke]

but supporting israel here works in americas interest, having a well armed client state in the middle of the oil producing region of the world is priceless, keeping the arab and muslim countrys divided again is priceless, plus you also have to tie in many americans religious view of israel, that it needs to be there for the end days, for biblical prophecy to be fulfilled

don't forget its down to britain that israel is there at all! ( the balfour declaration )

the bombing of lebanon also worked in our interests, or would have done if it had been successful in removing hisbullah, which is what it was all about - to remove any possible retaliation for any forthcoming attack on iran

show me a policy that works AGAINST americas or britains interests that we've followed on israels say so

[Mandy]

having a well armed client state in the middle of the oil producing region of the world is priceless

The problem Luke is that it isn't the case. Israel has brought nothing but instability and higher oil prices.

It would have been cheaper to "buy-off" Saddam Hussein .. but for Israel's interests, Iraq & now Iran have to be destroyed.

Please see PNAC .. whose architects were mainly zionists now running the Bush regime.

Israel's "marketing" skills is to try and make people believe that what is in it's interest is ALSO in the interest of the US & Britain etc.
But that is FAR from true. British and US support for Israel is probably the biggest strategic error they have ever made.

[luke]

Another policy : Suppressing the truth about Israel trying to sink the USS Liberty in 1967

you got me there gg

The the politicians might have been "conditioned" to think what is good for Israel is good for US & Britain, but that is a by product of the lobbying by the likes of AIPAC as seen in the video I referred to. i.e. Just because the politicians thought it was good for Britain and US doesn't make it so .. it just means the politicians have bad judgement (and thinking about Bush & Blair, that doesn't sound surprising). BUT they are still in the pocket of the Israeli Lobby .. whether they realise it or not.

Put another way, by the time politicians get anywhere near the levers of power in the US and Britain, they would generally already be in the pockets of interests which put Israel first.

i think theres a lot in that, conditioned, endoctrinated into a certain view, thats why i said on another thread about the same sort of thing, that a massive deprogramming of amerca is required, but thats never going to happen

[Mandy]

i think theres a lot in that, conditioned, endoctrinated into a certain view, thats why i said on another thread about the same sort of thing, that a massive deprogramming of amerca is required, but thats never going to happen

Have faith Luke. It is happenning .. With the help of videos like this from a REPUBLICAN congressman :

https://www.spiderednews.com/Videos/80731.htm
"Republican Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out -- Again ! - AIPAC Exposed"

[luke]

higher oil prices.

and you think they see that as a problem, that they are making record profits?! i'm sure i heard the price of oil per barrel is cheaper now than before the invasion of iraq ...

It would have been cheaper to "buy-off" Saddam Hussein .. but for Israel's interests, Iraq & now Iran have to be destroyed.

what do you mean, buy-off saddam, pay him to do or not do what?

[Mandy]

Luke,

The oil market tries to anticipate events. There was a spike just before the Iraq invasion, but that was in anticipation of the invasion happening. It doesn't mean the invasion reduced the oil price. Look at the oil price in 2000 - 2002.

The issue is the higher the oil price, the more money goes to "enemies" (who are enemies thanks to Israel).

By buy-off, it means that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because the Kuwaitis pressed him to repay loans which he took to invade Iran in 1980s (at the US's behest). US could have agreed to buy his oil at the then historically low price. Saddam Hussein would have signed any deal which was half-decent to him. Instead, he was forced to expose his underwear .. and STILL get invaded.

p.s. The following is one of many reports that having armies round the world (including to protect your interests from people who want to attack you because of your support for Israel) may collapse the US empire :
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/49603/

U.S. military expert Chalmers Johnson argues the catastrophe in Iraq and the staggering cost of running a military that stretches across 130 countries on 737 bases may finally cost America its empire.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Karl]

who says that?

that kinda ignores that british and american business are profiting from iraq, its the british state department thats been helping plan iraqs new oil laws that shares its profits to america and britain for the next thirty years, it ignores the continuing dollar hegemony, it ignores our history of the area and oil control, it ignores the christian rights biblical view of israel

yes BUT those British and US businesses very often are businesses with longstanding links to Israel
how many average UK or US citizens are benefiting- NONE
unless you include Haliburton truck drivers getting blown up by roadside bombs

[major.tom]

heroin - the opium of the masses.

I'm not sure if you meant that to sound daft, but it did!

Nice one, Faceless. It almost sounds like a Bushism.

And I thought the original quote was "religion is the opiate of the masses."

[faceless]

I like the version that replaced it with "television" - as in

television, drug of the nation
breeding ignorance
and feeding radiation

[Karl]

heroin - the opium of the masses.

I'm not sure if you meant that to sound daft, but it did!

Nice one, Faceless. It almost sounds like a Bushism.
And I thought the original quote was "religion is the opiate of the masses."

I thought it sounded ok. I customised the quote. We invaded Afghanistan and since then poppy cultivation is at record levels. The Taliban had wiped it out.
Most of that heroin goes to Iran but alot comes to Britain too. Everyday i see alot of people hooked on the stuff. Shoplifters mostly.
Now you tell me, many millions of people are being destroyed but the stuff which is keeping those people from becoming politically active and questioning the hand they have been dealt. Meanwhile the CIA which controls the heroin trade is making billions. Karzai's brother aparantly has made over a billion from it according to news.
Where does that money end up? It does not stay under the mattress in the bat cave. It ends up invested in banks over here and in the USA. The main thing british soldiers are doing in afghanistan is PROTECTING the poppy crops. I personally know several people from afghanistan and all of them say the same thing. Heroin has created a property boom in Afghanistan, people are driving expensive cars and building houses even gambling in money changing shops. Afghanistan has no exports other than Heroin. Many asylum seekers here are heading back to share in the boom.