'US deploys troops in Israel for Iran war'

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Okay, this is odd...

the first time i clicked on this thread... obviously, not now... I got this "Official U.S. Firewall" splash screen that said the FBI, Homeland security, and [some other site, I've never heard of] have prohibited this site from being viewed.

Looked very much like the screen I saw back on "black Friday" (4/15/2011) when PokerStars was shut down.

WTF?? Anyone else.

freaked me out.

Ya i just got that too...

is this for real? Or some ATS advertising

If Homeland security shut down this thread than it would be shut down...unable to view, that would defiantly validate what this thread is about...and what we can expect in the future.

Originally posted by The Great Day
is this for real? Or some ATS advertising

Of course it is ATS advertising. If you read the page, you would have known. I didn't even have to read it completely because it said blocked for users in the US and I don't live in the US

Before any major conflict comes censorship.
The less you hear about a proposed invasion or war ...almost always points to real war.

Iran for some reason keeps goading the west, just like Iraq did....as if they were suicidal, or at least we were told they goaded the west.
Perhaps they really were begging for mercy.
Well a few hundred thousand civilian deaths later, the west has moved sideways , and out of Iraq.

Mmm now where could they be heading?

Yes I know we are TV watching internet consuming airheads...but it takes not much brain power .

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by The Great Day
is this for real? Or some ATS advertising

Of course it is ATS advertising. If you read the page, you would have known. I didn't even have to read it completely because it said blocked for users in the US and I don't live in the US

your so smart...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by The Great Day

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Okay, this is odd...

the first time i clicked on this thread... obviously, not now... I got this "Official U.S. Firewall" splash screen that said the FBI, Homeland security, and [some other site, I've never heard of] have prohibited this site from being viewed.

Looked very much like the screen I saw back on "black Friday" (4/15/2011) when PokerStars was shut down.

WTF?? Anyone else.

freaked me out.

Ya i just got that too...

is this for real? Or some ATS advertising

If Homeland security shut down this thread than it would be shut down...unable to view, that would defiantly validate what this thread is about...and what we can expect in the future.

edit on 7-1-2012 by The Great Day because: (no reason given)

It's ATS fighting against censorship and showing what you'd get if it's allowed to go through.

reply to post by steveknows


Steve...if censorship was such an issue...I would never be allowed to post here. Honestly....with the certain understandable exceptions....there really is little censorship going on and when it does happen....those who do it are crucified.

Censorship unto itself is not a very good way to keep a secret. The Agency understands this and thank GOD...changed their tactics in the early 70's to allow who ever and whatever to be allowed into the media.

It is when someone tries to cover something up that it draws attention. If you pay a story not attention then no one gets suspicious and it goes away. Thusly....there are alot of true stories out there that die because no one reacts thus no one believes they are true. Split Infinity

Hmm..why am I seeing a re-run of the cold war here?
Every time the Russians did something, voilá NATO had some big, massive practice in Germany, and/or around Norway and Finland. " operation sea-lion" and stuff like that.

"Plus ce change, plus le mème chose.."

The military-industrial complex needs at least the threat of war, now the Iraq campaign is coming to an end, Pakistan/Afghanistan is slowly vecoming robo-wars etc. Etc. Not enough money to make there. So, time for a ground-war, the panacée for all economic woes...

*shakes head in desperation*

Originally posted by Dr Expired

Well a few hundred thousand civilian deaths later, the west has moved sideways , and out of Iraq.

Mmm now where could they be heading?

Looking at a map of bases around the middle east, looks like they've surrounded Iran.

But then, I don't feel sorry for Iran ... they should have known, and they "should" know. Why would the west be selling them a particle accelerator? why would they stack weapons there?

Iran should have, sided with Iraq ... no matter how bad their relation was. They should have sided with Ghaddaffi, no matter what their differences were. They should side with syria.

None of these guys are doing anything, except saving their own butt ... and they'll end up, just like Ghaddaffi, Saddam and even the president of Syria. Barrack Obama, may decide not to go to war ... but then, Barrack Obama has a "murder squad". He has an assassination squad ... that of course, is against the Geneve convention. But then, their campaign against Saddam, Ghaddafi, is also against the Geneve convention. The convention particularly forbids, to target individuals ... wars, are not about individuals, they're about ideas that are not rooted in any individual. But the individual, when scared, especially the cowards ... will buy the "ticket" out, and blame it on some individual. This is what is being done to the people of the middle-east. They are being inaugurated, into the idea of "sacrifice the individual" ... which means "crucify jesus", and save yourself.

Most of these guys, are buying weapons and technology from the west. And it all looks good, and they think they are "independant". Then, as with Iraq, when it comes to a real war ... ooobs, then they "lack training", or "no spare parts". And end up being sitting ducks, on a road home from what they thought was an invitation ... killed en mass.

My message to Iran ... give up now, or if you don't want to ... ask the dragons to help.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
But then, I don't feel sorry for Iran ... they should have known, and they "should" know. Why would the west be selling them a particle accelerator? why would they stack weapons there?

Iran should have, sided with Iraq ... no matter how bad their relation was. They should have sided with Ghaddaffi, no matter what their differences were. They should side with syria.

None of these guys are doing anything, except saving their own butt ... and they'll end up, just like Ghaddaffi, Saddam and even the president of Syria.

Excellent point! I think the same applies to every nation that is not part of the West. Every such country will come in the crosshairs of the West sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. No one who bends to the West now, has a right to expect any sympathy when they become the targets.

let me guess and if ppl start to question this its the old they may have nuclear weapons excuse right? lol

reply to post by Observor


If Iran or Syria or Hizbullah in Lebenan are attacked now, all three will join forces unlike Iraq and Libya who were left all alone. Also coming to their aid will be Russian and Chinese weapons, intelligence and even special ops forces in the underground. Best hope for the US-NATO is when the hostilities start, the people of Iran and Syria turn against the regimes and start a civil war like they did in Libya. Locals do the dirty and dangerous work while west does the targeting from the skies. But it won't be as easy as it was in the case of Libya and others.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Observor

 

If Iran or Syria or Hizbullah in Lebenan are attacked now, all three will join forces unlike Iraq and Libya who were left all alone.

Not sure exactly how they join forces and what purpose it will achieve other than making the West involved in a war on all 3 fronts. Even that is not going to impact the ability of the West to achieve their objective, of destroying the countries. It may be slightly more expensive to them in terms of losses sustained, but nothing more.

Also coming to their aid will be Russian and Chinese weapons, intelligence and even special ops forces in the underground.

Sure, but all of that can only increase the cost for the West, not stop them from achieving their objectives.

Best hope for the US-NATO is when the hostilities start, the people of Iran and Syria turn against the regimes and start a civil war like they did in Libya. Locals do the dirty and dangerous work while west does the targeting from the skies. But it won't be as easy as it was in the case of Libya and others.

A descent into civil war will make the West's job easier, but is not necessary. They have no intentions of immediately occupying any of these countries. They will bomb them enough to destroy any semblance of internal order, cut them off completely from world trade and occupy the oil fields at a later date when there will be little resistence.

The West cannot be stopped be as long as they are capable of picking who they attack with impunity. The only way they will lose that capability is if the US descends into a civil war and chaos or if the US is destroyed in a first strike by either Russia or China or both acting in tandem. Russia knows this Western expansionism will not stop with the Middle East. Eventually it will come closer to Russia's borders and even across their borders should the US acquire the capability to decisively neutralise any first missile strike by Russia on US soil. It is not a matter of if, but when. So unless Russia is willing to roll over, they have to strike first, strike a death blow and do it soon.

reply to post by Observor


I like your post, and I agree with most all of your points. While I agree with your view, I would like to add that in my perspective, it's not helpful anymore to talk about the big moves in terms of being made by countries, at least in terms of the West. The US at this point is merely a tool for the Western Elite. A very useful one. Well, more like a utility belt really. They have their blunt objects (military) and their surgical knife (CIA). So I wouldn't really say that the US itself is an imperialistically hyperaggressive entity, rather the PTB are wielding the nation in this manner.

Spectators must look back into history and also forecast who earn the most profit in war. As we all know George Bush Sr. and Saudi BinLaden Group, I am not pointing finger to anyone but have anyone seen both party profit? Including the history on how they gained their wealth? And also during which time? I know you some of you may be stubborn on certain answer as you are trying to proof your point of view. But my main argument is, why didn't other company get the contract during war time? To some of you, again you may try to support your closed minded point of view. Ask yourself why do these few people are much more richer and not featured on Forbes or anything, because they do not want independent investigation from anyone of us, try that and you will be branded "Terrorist. As for the more stubborn and closed minded people, try volunteering with your local candidate see how they bitch slap you when they win.

Originally posted by blargg
reply to post by Observor

 

I like your post, and I agree with most all of your points. While I agree with your view, I would like to add that in my perspective, it's not helpful anymore to talk about the big moves in terms of being made by countries, at least in terms of the West. The US at this point is merely a tool for the Western Elite. A very useful one. Well, more like a utility belt really. They have their blunt objects (military) and their surgical knife (CIA). So I wouldn't really say that the US itself is an imperialistically hyperaggressive entity, rather the PTB are wielding the nation in this manner.

I would like to believe you, but don't since I don't find much evidence of it, only some very creative explanations.

But when all is said and done, it is irrelevant whether the Western populations are overwhelmingly psychopathic or it is just their elite. Since the populations of the West are either incapable or unwilling to change their elite, the effect is the same. So what could be done to stop the West remains the same.

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Observor

 

The West cannot be stopped be as long as they are capable of picking who they attack with impunity. The only way they will lose that capability is if the US descends into a civil war and chaos or if the US is destroyed in a first strike by either Russia or China or both acting in tandem. Russia knows this Western expansionism will not stop with the Middle East. Eventually it will come closer to Russia's borders and even across their borders should the US acquire the capability to decisively neutralise any first missile strike by Russia on US soil. It is not a matter of if, but when. So unless Russia is willing to roll over, they have to strike first, strike a death blow and do it soon.

edit on 8-1-2012 by Observor because: (no reason given)

So in other words you are suggesting that Russia should have a pre-emptive unprovoked attack on US-NATO?

I would suggest that Russia develop atleast the ability to a) negate the decisive first strike ability from west b) make sure that reply and resulting destruction to the aggressor is so severe that end result of the war does not matter.

Originally posted by victor7
So in other words you are suggesting that Russia should have a pre-emptive unprovoked attack on US-NATO?

It is pre-emptive, but not unprovoked. Western aggression against non-Western states is provocation enough. I am not talking about "international law" which is no longer respected by the West anyway. West's agression against Iraq and Libya are already provocation enough.

I would suggest that Russia develop atleast the ability to a) negate the decisive first strike ability from west

Nobody has that ability, neither the West, Russia nor China. All the deterrant today anybody has lies in decisive second strike capability.

But that is a losing game. Russia can never realistically expect to depend only on her resources and match the ever expanding psychopaths of the West who draw resources from most of the rest of the world.

b) make sure that reply and resulting destruction to the aggressor is so severe that end result of the war does not matter.

That is what the current state is, MAD. However the West is constantly looking to secure itself from an incoming attack. Should they succeed, Russia will be sitting ducks for Western agression, just like the Middle East states today are.

reply to post by Observor


Russia alone cannot stand upto the west all by itself. It should look more towards the east and make a defined bloc with China, India and even Japan and Koreas. That makes more sense both militarily and in economics.

Seems Iran is not afraid of America, even with the examples of Iraq and Libya (we remember their crazy leaders how boasted at that time). Russia will not automatically start WW3 for Iran if at all. It is the same if USA starts WW3 for let say, Georgia.

Does Iran have therefore unknown capabilities? Nuclear bombs? Or something better? One report in Iranian media last year said they have flying saucers. And who gave them whatever they might have? Alien support for the earthly installation of Mahdi who should come from "heaven"? The fanaticism of the Iranian leaders is strange, but it should be taken for a fact. It should have a material backing if it is not a suicide bombing mission. Seems it is not, despite some may still believe that. We'd better be prepared for the worse - and that is we have a very advanced Iran, with home made space satellites, and possibly flying saucers in the style of 1947 saucers in USA. At least theoretically we should consider the option Iran is aided not only by China and Russia. Frankly, they will not risk their own existence for Iran. If they start WW3 it will be for other reasons and they may only use Iranian case as the needed public motivation. But I doubt they play entirely on one side. May be their aliens are different - with flying pyramids.

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Observor

 

Russia alone cannot stand upto the west all by itself. It should look more towards the east and make a defined bloc with China, India and even Japan and Koreas. That makes more sense both militarily and in economics.

That is exactly what the West is trying to actively prevent by the current round of expansionism. With the exception of Russia, all the states you mentioned are heavily dependent on energy imports and Russia by herself cannot supply the energy needs of these current/potential allies. The West by controlling the oil and gas outside FSU can effectively control how close these countries move towards Russia. They know very well their longterm interests lie in cooperating with Russia to destroy the stranglehold the West has on the world, but their shortterm survival requires they not antagonise the West. It is this dilemma of theirs which will esure this stranglehold will continue while the West slowly devours the world.

Short of an unforeseen technological breakthrough that puts one of the major non-Western players militarily ahead of the West (in terms of being able to launch a devastating military attack on the Western states, while being completely immune to an attack itself), or unpredictable social collapse in the US, this is a certainty. When Russia is convinced of the certainty of it and how close she herself is to being devoured, she has no choice but to act preemptively to preserve her own existence if not for the sake of the world.

Of course, it is possible for Russia to deploy her nuclear missiles in a state that is on the verge of being attacked by the West and when that state is attacked, give them the codes to lauch the missiles onto US soil. Of course, the fact that the nuclear missiles had been deployed in another country in the crosshairs of the West has to be kept secret, if that is even possible. If that is possible, I won't be surprised if they have already been deployed in Iran. I really hope that is the case and should Iran be attacked, it manages to nuke a few US cities. It will be the end of the Western hegemony. Wonder if that is the reason behind Iran leadership constantly giving the West the middle finger.