Iran is Brink..... Pakistan is Destination....
- Thread starter angryoldman
- Start date
Mehrushka
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
I think israel is more interested in iran than pakistan,and US is more interested in pakistan than iran(bigsmile)
fasmik
Senator (1k+ posts)
How dare u call Aale saud my master? I have no affiliation to any monarchs. I only was discussing the facts and anyone who is open to live discussion is not a friend of iran and hence not ur friend ....this is a blind assumption from ur side. I expect us to discuss our facts on this forum and conclude in a positive manner. I also understand that the differences in sects are intense and severe in ignorant less educated class. The high ulema from all sects have most in common but ordinary foolish people create senseless differences and end up harming each other, which Allah will never forgive.
So brother why cant we have serious mature discussion here free of all prejudices and blind faith?
fasmik
Senator (1k+ posts)
Bhai asal ma ap ki brainwashing complete is tarah hui ha ke har wo insaan jo constructive discussion chahta ha aur facts discuss karta ha woh iran ka dushman ha, aur jo iran ka dushman ha woh islam ka aur ahle bait ka dushman ha. Bhai ap ne sab ka theka nahi le rakha. Sab musalman hain aur zimadaar hain.
Secondly madrasa ka label koi buri baat nahi hai bilkul us tarah jis tarah Taliban hona koi buri bat nahi jo US ke asli dushman they aur un ko hata dia gia. Ab apke dimagh ma yeh fix ha ke taliban apke no 1 dushman hain so be it. Waise ap apni history theek karein. Iran US collaboration in afghanistan and iraq is open fact. In afghanistan Iran trained and supplied all equipment and ammunition to the northern alliance and in iraq it is still working with govt to hunt down and kill all opposite sects The prime minister of iraq has fled to turkey coz he was sentenced to death by noori al malki for murder. Zahir ha majority govt cant be fought thats why he fled and we can well imagine the serious rift among sects there.
Meny ap per taliban honay ka to label hi nahi lagaya, ye to chor ki darhi mein tinkay waali baat hay, or jahan tk brain washing ki baat hay to ye kaam kahan hota hay sab achi tarha jantey hayn...
iran or iraq ki baat meny khud hi maan li thee, mager afghanistan wali baat ki koi daleel nahi hay aapkay paas, or iraq mein kisi sunni kay qatal mein iran nahi mulawis, pichlay 3 saal mein 2 baar alhumdulilha iraq jachuka hun, wahan bhuat bari tadad ahlesunnat ki imam hussain a.s or imam ali a.s kay rozon per hazri deti hay or namaz bhi parhti hay masjid mein
ye firqa waryat ka bhoot utardein aapne sir se or jahan jo qabil e tareef ho uski himayat karein, jis tarha mein afghanistan mein larne or america ki bajane waley afghan taliban ki bahaduri ko salute karta hun...
baqi meri kisi logical baat ka yani hizbullah, syria, bahrain se mutaaliq apki khamoshi kafi hay apki tareef mein
that was a question.....more in sarcasm.......
plz plz don't start again.......pti needs die hard cheergirls to succeed.......(bigsmile)
Mehrushka
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
oooh taking sides now ;) as for cheergirls,everything is fair in pakistan politics as long as it helps you win (bigsmile)
read post# 12, part of which you quoted and you will realize I am not taking any sides.....
Mehrushka
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
FINE....u got me on this,maybe i was looking for a fight here:P
fasmik
Senator (1k+ posts)
Bhai ma bilkul khamosh nahi hoon kisi baat pe...jo bhi najayez ziadti karey ga hum uske khilaff jihad karein gey. Aur ma apne aap ko sirf musalman kehta hon kisi sect ki numaindagi nahi karta....Meri afghanistan wali baat 100% correct hai aap ja ke investigate kar lein....Aur agar Iraq ma aman qaim ha tu Allah ka shukar hai....bohat achi baat hai....musalman aik dosre ko qatal karain yeh hamain gawara nahi.
Sorry about mrk123 (I'm used to another forum where quoting automatically notifies the original poster)
As for Israel/ USA History
- Israel tried its level best to woo Bush on an preemptive strike on Iran but Bush balked. Israel played that tune too much and they got a shutup call from republicans. Israel didn't touch that issue (publicly) until after elections (remember that these were the last days of Bush Admin and people wanted out of war). I can't recall the name but one high level Israeli official also said that they can not risk to alienate the republicans who won't forgive any actions they deem damaging to their cause .
As for now
- Romney did not make the 'Iran' issue a central campaign for elections which Netanyahu expected (major failure)
- Obama for the first time declined a meeting with Netanyahu. This is the first time USA president declined such an offer from an Israeli counterpart.
- Obama drew the notorious 'redline' for Israel, USA won't back a preemptive strike and USA won't give Iran an ultimatum.
- The serious papers in Israel are suggesting that Netanyahu is acting carelessly which may result in damaging USA relationship permanently. Washington Post and NYT are also leaning toward Obama's position.
Don't be offended but if you think Israel can lead USA into a war which it does not want you should go through some history books. Israel is a proxy of USA, its not the other way round. It is also very unlikely that USA will allow any foreign power to dictate its sitting president (with Netanyahu its more like blackmailing) and the dynamics of voters are such that for every Jew voter Obama loses he will gain three more.
The only way I see USA going to war is when it suits USA goals which might be to protect its proxy (Israel) or to safeguard its access to oil resources (Most Arab countries are also in favor of attacking Iran). On the other hand Iran has helped USA in Afghanistan and Iraq and today carries enough influence in these countries to hurt US interests there. Lets not forget China and Russia both of which are not in favor of escalating Iran issue.
Please put forward any three decisions which you think were imposed on USA from Israel (since you believe Israel controls USA).
Go through some of these links (Last two are Jerusalem Post & Haaretz):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/11/obama-binyamin-netanyahu-us-visit
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...benjamin-netanyahu-barack-obama-iran?page=0,1
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285088
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/bibi-and-the-bulgarian-proverb.premium-1.464869
muntazir
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Ist of all i dont need to call you a saud agent but ur intention against iran showing or giving me an idea any how you have nothing in ur pocket against iran diplomacy these days only west or gulf states ruler are aginst iran any how. Also like a healthy debate but if some one seiosly like to do but you dont reply me wbout wat iran is doing in syria? Or did they not supporting hozbullah and hamaas this act does not satisfied you about iran rule in hat region?
InsafianPTI
Minister (2k+ posts)
OK, I don't say israel controls USA but Its a fact that israeli lobby is very influential in USA, I remember when obama raised the palestine issue about a year ago AND the backlash he had to see from israel, this is what all the british media talking about The israeli lobby won't let him get away with it.
US may have chosen to go easy on iran but at the same time they did not push them on palestine (maybe you are right a turmoil in middle east suits them)
USA is perhaps not bound to listen to what israel says but they do NOt risk annoying them........at all.
secondly from what I have read so far israeli lobby does project its agenda through their favourite candidate...........and I think now its Romeny.........the kind of statemnets he gives about palestine in his 'private dinners' edxplains Israeli links.
and have you forgotton all the campaign they did against obama when he got in power through pro israeli media?
obviously I don't live in US, my perceptions are based on the news and some facts.
so I have just read what [MENTION=14890]mrk123[/MENTION] quoted uyou and I agree, maybe what you say was right historically that Israel don't use to interfere in political campaigns But this time it doesn't seem like the case.
At least this time they are not following the rules.......
US may have chosen to go easy on iran but at the same time they did not push them on palestine (maybe you are right a turmoil in middle east suits them)
USA is perhaps not bound to listen to what israel says but they do NOt risk annoying them........at all.
secondly from what I have read so far israeli lobby does project its agenda through their favourite candidate...........and I think now its Romeny.........the kind of statemnets he gives about palestine in his 'private dinners' edxplains Israeli links.
and have you forgotton all the campaign they did against obama when he got in power through pro israeli media?
obviously I don't live in US, my perceptions are based on the news and some facts.
so I have just read what [MENTION=14890]mrk123[/MENTION] quoted uyou and I agree, maybe what you say was right historically that Israel don't use to interfere in political campaigns But this time it doesn't seem like the case.
At least this time they are not following the rules.......
Last edited:
I do agree with you that US foreign policy is NOT exclusively controlled by Israel but Israel's supporters (or Israeli lobby) wield considerable sway when it comes to formulating US' middle east policy. Israel also enjoys a very strong bipartisan support from the US lawmakers - who can be pretty hawkish in support of Israel with an eye to woo the wealthy jewish supporters to their side without risking any negative consequences of their stance other and ensuring a steady flow of cash to their re-election campaigns.
If you look at it - historically the Democrats were closer to Israel and to the jewish voters (they still are to most liberal/progressive upper middle class jewish voters). What happened over the last 3 decades is the phenomenon of Evangelicals gaining a lot of strength within the Republican party. This, coupled with the new found love between the Evangelicals and the state of Israel, explains the immense and hawkish support that Bush and every other Republican presidential candidate has shown in the recent years towards Israel.
Israel and US relations during the Obama years have been the most frosty since I believe when Carter was president. Liberal/progressive jews still love Obama and will vote for him but a vast majority of right wing jews loathe him. They think that he has turned his back on Israel and left it alone to deal with the threats in the middle east.
I don't know if I completely agree with you that Republicans gave a shut up call to Israel on a pre-emptive strike on Iran. You may want to provide some sources for your assertion. I think that the neo-cons(most of the leading ones are die-hard Israel supporters) who cooked up the whole idea of attacking Iraq had carefully laid out sequence of actions to tackle and further US' interests in the region. The problem is that their calculations and predictions didn't match the reality on the ground and the aftermath of Iraq invasion was pretty ugly. Of course Bush could not stomach another misadventure when Iraq was blowing up all over. If Iraq had gone over smoothly or as expected then I think they MAY have gone for a strike on Iran with or without Israel's coaxing. During Bush years a lot of covert effort was made to prepare the ground work to create a favorable environment for the next move. Some of it was evident during the protests in Iran after the 2009 elections. There were clear signs that whose side the US was on and I know for a fact that the US was directing the social media companies to assist the demonstrators.
Obama's foreign policy is complete opposite to Bush's doctrine. Some would argue that Obama has continued Bush's policies. I think he is a realist and not a very dogmatic president as some on the right would like him to be portrayed. He is a realist and a pragmatist. With the way things were going he had no choice but to continue the same policies to have continuity in a war that was started by his predecessor. I believe that Obama will not go to war with any other country with the economy in shambles and none of the allies having the stomach to support another war so soon - this along with his vision of the world he presented before his first election would make us believe that he will not venture into a war very easily.
We have to look at whats going on on this front in the context of American elections. To quote James Carville, the brilliant Clinton advisor, its the economy, stupid! Romney knows that with his non-existent foreign policy experience he can't beat Obama on this front specially when Obama has kept America safe and achieved the ultimate trophy by killing OBL. Romney will try to avoid making this election about foreign policy as he knows that he will lose out and if the polls are any indications than he is doing the smart thing.
The reality is that with the economy in the dumps and with the public opinion strongly against ANY other foreign invasion I don't think that ANY president - Obama or Romney would like to get involved in any military confrontation with Iran at this time. Even if Netanyahu keeps at it the US president could always use the counter arguments by people like Dagan (ex-chief of Mossad) and other significant voices from within Israel.
Everyone is feeling the pinch economically in this global economy and given the fluid situation in the middle east an attack on Iran could result in some unintended consequences on wider scale and not just the region. We know that Turkey is strongly against an attack on Iran - you rightly mentioned that Russians and the Chinese absolutely don't want it. People talk about Arabs supporting it but I don't think that other that Saudi Arabia any other Arab country that wants an attack or if even if it does its not a significant player. None of these Arab countries have openly advocated an attack yet the western press does slip in references about their desire to see that happen - not sure if its the reality or part of a propaganda campaign by the west and their friends in the media.
Some Israeli officials or politicians (I can't specifically recall who) have made statements saying that according to their calculations if they attack Iran the retaliation would be bad and would continue for a few weeks but would only result in 300-400 casualties at the most. They emphasized that this is what most of their simulations are showing them. I am sure they are quoting the best case scenarios as I believe that a conflict with Iran would definitely result in some serious unintended consequences that could not be captured by the computer generated simulation models.
@Tutor
Last edited:
zubair1234
Senator (1k+ posts)
actually even if iran is attacked it will be a deception.irans regimen is not at all harmful for america and israel.because without iran it was impossible for america and its allies to ever occupy afghanistan or iraq.iranis millitias in some instances even fought against the pockets of mujahideen against whom america was also fighting.even now irani commandos are fighting along with basharul asad,s army of syria against syrian islamists ,and basharul asad is actually israels man.and israel is having nightmares that if basharul asad govt falls islamists will take over and israels existence will be at stake as israel has a long border with syria.
our media wont tell you this,as its pro iran, but irans foreign minister once acknowledged himself that without our help america could never have occupied iraq and afghanistan etc.
even americans also on few occasions have acknowledged that. a book written by a famous american claimed that "wahabi fighters" are our only real enemy,iran is not our enemy.so its all a drama of complex nature.america is "planning" to attack iran since 1990s.if it had to attack it it had done it already ,because in same period america attacked folowing muslim countries without any pior warnings.iraq,afghanistan,smoalis,yem,en,pakistani tribal areas,libya etc etc
so paksitanis be prepared,when you are waiting for attack on iran it may occur on you instead.america,israel does not even need to attack pakistan direct.all it needs is to ask india to do this for them.
america wants to secure pakistan and afghanistans tribal areas plus pakistani nuclear and missile programmes,though pakistani rulers and army are in americans pocket at present but a fear of islamic coupe here gives them sleepless nights.a true islamic coupe which will not just do punjabi movie like "barhaks" but will teach a practical lesson to americans and zionists in this region.
this is the real fact of this matter
our media wont tell you this,as its pro iran, but irans foreign minister once acknowledged himself that without our help america could never have occupied iraq and afghanistan etc.
even americans also on few occasions have acknowledged that. a book written by a famous american claimed that "wahabi fighters" are our only real enemy,iran is not our enemy.so its all a drama of complex nature.america is "planning" to attack iran since 1990s.if it had to attack it it had done it already ,because in same period america attacked folowing muslim countries without any pior warnings.iraq,afghanistan,smoalis,yem,en,pakistani tribal areas,libya etc etc
so paksitanis be prepared,when you are waiting for attack on iran it may occur on you instead.america,israel does not even need to attack pakistan direct.all it needs is to ask india to do this for them.
america wants to secure pakistan and afghanistans tribal areas plus pakistani nuclear and missile programmes,though pakistani rulers and army are in americans pocket at present but a fear of islamic coupe here gives them sleepless nights.a true islamic coupe which will not just do punjabi movie like "barhaks" but will teach a practical lesson to americans and zionists in this region.
this is the real fact of this matter
United4Pak
Minister (2k+ posts)
Israel doesn't want Obama re elected and probably the video is a link to gather support from US against Iran.
bass LBW hona baqi hai
I know it sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory but here I do agree with you. There is something fishy in all hue and cry this incident generated (in the Muslim and Non- Muslim world). I have not seen the movie (or whatever it is) but there have been far worse incidents (e.g. burning Quran) and nothing had this strong a reaction from both sides. Seems like western media is intentionally trying to keep this issue alive with lame theories regarding the producer/ director and actors. They maybe trying to sell the next war (maaaaaybe :P).
