10 replies to this topic

[General]

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and now Lebanon, today maybe the first day for Lebanon to get into civil war once again.

Do you think it is only the people there who bored from the shitty governments or there is an obvious foreign intervention ?

It is so obvious that they are paving and clearing the way for Iran. Any country where support may come to Iran is falling one by one! Lebanon was the last step and now it is beginning aswell :
http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20017397

[Krieger22]

I doubt that any country that might support Iran is being destabilized on purpose by anyone behind the scenes (besides the usual suspects would be better off fixing their own economies).

Other than that, the Lebanese situation is probably not representative: Hezbollah (Proven to be Iranian backed) isn't going anywhere, and won't be without a very bloody fight. It looks more like this terror attack got used by some politicians there to attack the current government. They always wanted to, now it's their big chance.

[CJ]

This conspiracy theory is just silly. As if the US and EU were scared of Arabs when those don't have anything but sticks to fight with.

The only countries that are supporting Iran are actually Russia and China, and the other countries on your list didn't even care about Iran to start with (and still don't)

[Camille]

isn't this all more or less about oil all over again?

[Ion Cannon!]

No, because by destabilising the countries which produce oil the production goes down and the price goes up. Hardly what western governments and indeed china want, no?

[General]

Ion Cannon!, on 22 October 2012 - 12:36, said:

No, because by destabilising the countries which produce oil the production goes down and the price goes up. Hardly what western governments and indeed china want, no?

Indeed, this is not what the governments want. But oil industry wants it.
Any of you guys watched the Lord of War ? Well, I have news for you, this is still going on today, and doesn't seem to be ending...

Oh and of course Libya Tunisia Egypt were not supporting Iran, but if Israel( or USA) were to attack Iran, shia Iran's terror arm should've been very active on those regions to reach Europe! But what is the common thing happened in all the riots in Middle East ? They are completely made of Sunni sect! Even thousands of Al Qaeda militants in this war!
Shia Iran and her allies vs Sunni terror groups ( or call them rebel if you wish )
And yea it is probably a coincidence that all these governments fell in two year only. While geopolitics of all these countries while not vastly different, were still different, people living there have different culture and way of life despite the similiarity, there is no way this is just a simple movement turned big. Foreign backing is so obvious! No need to mention mainstream media hysteria about the events.
Anyone still remember BBC showing photos from an Iraqi massacre and claim these children killed by Syrian army ? well, you probably not, it is easily forgotten.
You just watch it, no need to be a prophet of some kind to know what is coming. War with Iran is just so obvious and all we are seeing in middle east now is part of it!

[Ion Cannon!]

Yes I've watched Lord of War, but that was about the arms trade, not oil, they're very different.

Lots of the governments ousted were pro western, or at least had neutral relations with the west, in the case of egypt an islamic based government has taken over. Why on earth would western governments do that?

"there is no way this is just a simple movement turned big"

Of course there is, if people show solidarity, if they show they're not afraid the government has two choices - resign or start a civil war. In either case the movement only stops when the people are satisfied or have been repressed, however with foreign governments formally recognising the rebels and then backing / helping them this then makes the outcome more likely that the civil war will go their way, if there is one.

So on that last point, yes foreign backing comes in when it is clear the incumbent regime is not liked, but I hardly think western governments created the situation in the first place.

[Alias]

Ion Cannon!, on 22 October 2012 - 21:05, said:

So on that last point, yes foreign backing comes in when it is clear the incumbent regime is not liked, but I hardly think western governments created the situation in the first place.

Here lies the point of contention. The West has not necessarily directly caused the latest set of revolutions, but they have definitely been a reason why they have occurred due to the mass amount of worldwide governmental manipulation that the West has done in the last 60 years. While it isn't necessarily what the West wanted, they to some degree have caused some of the instability that plagues the region today.

Let's look at Iran for a minute. Iran was once one of the most civilised and westernised countries in the middle east. Soon, the Iranians elected a president that had policies that the UK didn't like, so they and the US overthrew the elected representative and the Shah became a dictator rather than western-style monarch he used to be. Eventually, the people got sick of the Shah and the Islamists took over, and now we have batshit-crazy Iran these days, which is easily the worst of the three outcomes. Ideally, if the west hadn't deposed Mossadegh there's quite a possibility that the Islamic unrest would never have led to a full scale revolution.

It's not surprising that many of the Middle-Eastern countries are untrusting or strongly against a Western-backed leader, and I think the collective action against certain leaders was caused by the previous policies of intervention.

Edited by Alias, 22 October 2012 - 23:55.

[Ion Cannon!]

I won't disagree with the above, however I don't think the west is behind these latest revolutions, as general was suggesting.

[Raven]

IMO the fact whether west being behind these uprisings will be a mystery. They may or may not have triggered them. But once they are triggered, they support it.

They claim that they support it for the betterment of the ppl in those countries. But if you look at all of them, now its just a piece of rubble. People may have been unhappy or the regime may have been harsh, but at least they had basic necessities for them. Now they have nothing, even their homes are in rubble. Do you think a regime changes would be able to heal those scars. The people replacing them would not do miracles turn things round. They would also be corrupt and brutal tbh. If you are following the stories, the Libyan and other opposition forces are also charged with HR violations and abuses. It just that these people are trading a devil for a devil at the price of their own country's infrastructure and blood. The West would get all the new contracts.

If the west wants to really help people suffering turn to Africa..IMO If a military intervention is needed anywhere right now it should be in Somalia.

Edited by Raven, 23 October 2012 - 09:50.

[General]

Raven, on 23 October 2012 - 04:42, said:

If the west wants to really help people suffering turn to Africa..IMO If a military intervention is needed anywhere right now it should be in Somalia.

THIS! But why it is not happening despite the so called humanitarian crisis going on for decades there ? Because Somalia is not part of the plan, it is easy to deal with when the time has come. But Iran going stronger every year, she gotta dealt with before getting out of control and reach... This is all that simple.