It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...obviously Israel would be seen as the agressors by the world if they were to strike the nuclear facilities...
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
At the same time, I know its going to take place anyway. So why prolong the inevitable?
ugh my bad.. I'm just sick and tired of warmongering threads on ATS so I jumped the gun here
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by seenavv
For the record, I dont support Israels military aggression. Period.
I am however, curios to know the reason as to why they haven't attacked Iran.
As for the "false flag", if thats all that they needed to require to attack Iran, how difficult would it be for Israel to make one happen?
Thematic Justifications: Demonising the Enemy
Apart from the "incident" whereby the enemy is incited to "throw the first punch", "thematic justifications" are used to demonise the enemy and justify a casus belli. WMD and regime change in the case of Iraq (2003), support to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks in the case of Afghanistan (2001), "regime change" and "democratisation" as in the cases of Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011).
The thematic justifications to wage war on Iran include the following:
1. Iran is accused of developing a nuclear weapons program,
2. Iran is a "Rogue State" which defies the "international community" and constitutes a threat to the Western World,
3. Iran wants "to wipe Israel off the map",
4. Iran is responsible for supporting and abetting the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
5. Iran is an authoritarian and undemocratic country thereby justifying a "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) intervention with a view to instating democracy.