Forgetful Mullen's 'unintended consequences'

reply to post by bestideayet


On a side note, princeofpeace is right this isn't breaking news, and you have posted in the wrong thread.

This is breaking "alternative" news, your post belongs in the Middle-east section.

No but somebody doesnt need to start a thread that says "...attack on IRAN! BREAKING!"

Originally posted by Nomad451
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

Yeah you are right but you don't have to fly off the handle and "shout" about it.

It's not like the US suddenly finished a military plan on Iran and said "Yep, all done. This will work, this is a great attack plan! Right, off to the press to announce this to the public!"

It's just a small propaganda move on Iran psychologically. What the US and Israel needs to quickly wake up to is that NO ONE with a brain supports this yet again totally bogus illegal coming war.

they also need to wake up to the fact that Iran ain't gunna budge! The US will get their asses handed to them on a platter if they take on the Persians

Israel flouts more UN resolutions than any country on this earth, so why the h..l doesn't Israel get any flack for that. Israel just gets a slap on the wrist for cosmetic purposes.

Why the h..l don't they pressure Israel into declaring its nukes and subjecting its nuclear programme to UN scrutiny?

Such hypcrisy, such double standards - they play these terrible games with the potential risk to millions of people's liives, with the same lack of care as if they were playing a computer game.

reply to post by princeofpeace


Your right, I do agree. It's easy for people to jump the gun and get way too ahead of themselves here on ATS and everywhere...

Mullen's announcement does not equal to an imminent attack on Iran, nor does it mean that any attack plans have been just recently finalised

reply to post by Nomad451


Would you mind giving an explanation about what the difference is between breaking news and breaking alternative news? It's genuinely something I'm not clear about.

Thanks.

reply to post by Nomad451


My guess is they are continuing their strategy of 'prepping' Joe Public.

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Nomad451

 

Would you mind giving an explanation about what the difference is between breaking news and breaking alternative news? It's genuinely something I'm not clear about.

Thanks.

I'm pretty sure breaking "alternative" news means fringe news I guess, like maybe something to do with cloning or UFO's. Such as the recent release of UFO files...

Actually here is a thread from a moderator explaining it www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting blog analysis HERE re a projected date of 10 August. However, it's worth noting one of the attached comments to the blog which states:

A comment: It is much more likely that Pakistan is in the immediate cross-hairs than Iran. Unless we pull out our covert weapons (opening Pandora’s box, as the Ruskies have their own flavors), Iran is close to impossible to take. This would do little for Israel, but it will accomplish what we need next in the region, which is a crippling blow to China’s influence. So to please Israel, a green light for both Lebanon and Syria could be given. These two fronts would leave Iran effectively isolated, more effective than attacking them. Remember that those who have the power of ‘false-flag’ can apply it where ever and whenever they wish. The fact that they’re telegraphing their punches to Iran indicates a low likelihood of actual engagement.

Comments?

Originally posted by bestideayet
So we're actually planning a war on Iran. There is a plan of attack already in the talks within our government. So much for transparency, huh?

Dude, the US (and probably every other country out there) has plans to attack everyone. They only thing they probably did was take them out, dust them off, and updated them.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Dude this is beating a dead horse. The US has attack plans drawn up for just about every country on the planet. Its what MILITARY PLANNERS DO!!!!

Yes it is and they are updated all the time. It seems like anytime their is any tension between the US and anyone someone asks the military do you have plans to attack so and so. They of course answer yes and then people take that and turn it into a quote and make people crazy with it.

reply to post by bestideayet


Please remember the difference between attack and occupation.

Only a fool would occupy Iran.

I say lets do it! But not with an Iraq style attack. We already have troops in teh region just jump them over to Iran. Start the whole war off with about 3 nukes then go in and blow the rest of them to Allah. Its time the United States started becoming the big man on the block again. War is the only answer peace can only come through God and we aint god so lets kill some folk.

If the Neo-Cons think they can get away with such an outrage, they are sadly mistaken. Prepare to see civil war break out, shortly after they bomb Iran.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
I say lets do it! But not with an Iraq style attack. We already have troops in teh region just jump them over to Iran. Start the whole war off with about 3 nukes then go in and blow the rest of them to Allah. Its time the United States started becoming the big man on the block again. War is the only answer peace can only come through God and we aint god so lets kill some folk.

Ok lets start with you and your family.

How about some white phosphorous to get things started!

A while back Arron Russo did a docufilm called freedom to fascism.
In this film he talked of a meeting he had with one of the Rockefeller guys. and the man said there were going to be a few things that will happen.
1) 9/11
2) invade Iraq and take down Saddam
3) take down Chavez (still pending)
4) invade Iran
this was said a few years before 9/11 ,. so I'd say that this Iran thing is bound to happen no matter what..
If you watch this film or the newest conspiracy film "Wake up call" you might see things differently.

reply to post by Smack


Not likely. Civil War will not come until something big. Bombing Iran is hardly a bleep on the radar. It has no correlation.

Originally posted by Smack
If the Neo-Cons think they can get away with such an outrage, they are sadly mistaken. Prepare to see civil war break out, shortly after they bomb Iran.

While Iran is not stable and the military not trusted the Revolutionary Guard will keep them in line and it would be more likey an attack on Iran would solidfy the regime. Of course maybe your talking about the US and if that is so then idea of a civil war is just silly.

Actually, this thread may serve a purpose, with the headline looking as it is, perhaps, as some suspect, if imadinnerjacket see's it, maybe he'll finally get this thing kicked off, in a panic, and we can stop hearing all this d#mn rhetoric, over and over again....

The whole nuclear argument is moot, no-one in the western world is stupid enough to drop the first nuke. After that happens every nuclear capable country will launch.

It could be that Israel are just going to hit the Iranian nuclear installations before they come online like they did with the ones in Iraq years ago (1993? was it?)

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Its a contingency plan - but a very real possibility.

They yanks have got contingency plans for just about everything.

...everything but fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or invasion of Iraq...

no-one in the western world is stupid enough to drop the first nuke.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki. USA are dumb enough, and last I looked they're in the West.

Nukes are supposed to be a deterrent, they're not supposed to actually be used...

[edit on 5-8-2010 by mirageofdeceit]