The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

reply to post by masqua


I've wondered that a time or two myself.

Why, if what you surmise is true, would the U.S. be more comfortable with dealing with China's control of that resource, then Canada?

Curious, indeed.

reply to post by masqua


This "economic" war has been going on for a while. Redneck is on the right track.

China is a predatory Nation, with predatory trade practices.



If you get the time, listen to this. Its not a video per say, just the show.

Its a eye opener.

Great history lesson, Redneck. Just got done reading the whole thread.

I don't see Obama backing down, even if Congress says no. He'd have too much face to lose. As Commander-in-Chief, he's allowed a 60 day intervention, winding it down for thirty, for a total of 90 days, without Congressional approval. He knows that.

However, if one missile is fired, the whole area goes crazy. I don't understand how they don't realize that.

Didn't his momma ever tell him not to poke the hornet's nest?

reply to post by Druid42

Didn't his momma ever tell him not to poke the hornet's nest?

Speaking as a life-long country boy....

The only time it makes sense to poke a hornets nest is when you have buddies standing by with flamethrowers.

(For those who don't know, it is almost impossible to kill a hornet's nest from the outside. You have to lure the hornets out of their nest to kill all of them. Those nests are tough.)

TheRedneck

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by masqua

 

This "economic" war has been going on for a while. Redneck is on the right track.

China is a predatory Nation, with predatory trade practices.



If you get the time, listen to this. Its not a video per say, just the show.

Its a eye opener.

China always had a clear goal of becoming a super-power, Chinese are the best long term strategist. They have silently but consistently built their strength while stealing other's secrets by all means and sabotaging other countries (especially in Asia) by secret weapons transfers and funding.

However China is not a predatory nation in the sense that you describe. China has become 'world's factory' at a great social cost which is often ignored. It is West that has a long term policy of plundering other nations natural and human resources.

reply to post by seagull

China is an enigma buried deep inside a riddle, wrapped in a puzzle.

I tend to assume that in a war with Iran, China will come down on the side of Iran because they receive so much of their oil. But that's far from the whole story. China is also dependent on the US marketplace for their industrial growth. They have still not reached economic critical mass, where their economy can support their industry without outside markets.

On the other hand, China holds a vast amount of US securities and could create some serious economic turmoil here if they so wished. They do not wish, because that would endanger their exports.

China is also a conundrum since their culture is so vastly different from anything here. They have a different sense of morality, a different view of the spiritual, a different view of appropriate behavior, a different view of personal honor, a different view of the role of government, and a different view of family, just to name a few examples. This difference is so great that it is even difficult to translate from one language into the other without making a connotation error.

I believe China is interested in China. They enjoy the pleasures and conveniences that Western culture brings, but they are also concerned with maintaining their cultural identity. China is also known for their long-range goals; while goals here are considered long range at 10-20 years, Chinese long-range goals can span multiple generations easily. In the end, I believe they will do what is in their best interests and not what is in America's or Iran's or Russia's or even the planet's best interests.

OK, maybe they're not that hard to understand after all...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by seagull

China is an enigma buried deep inside a riddle, wrapped in a puzzle.

You're right about that, BUT ....

I don't believe they'll be making any sort of abrupt changes or moves anytime in the near future.

They have FAR TOO much invested in American interests and infrastructure ..... tollways, international highways, utilities and sea ports.

nah... China won't do much more than vociferate a strong disagreeance, coupled with backroom supply of armaments, etc. .... much akin to what Russia will/would ACTUALLY do, despite Putin's 'brass balls 'false bravado comments' parade in the media'.

just my personal thoughts....




(?)

reply to post by TheRedneck


Well-researched and well-written. I have one tiny complaint, and that is that I think you are both overstating the threat to Israel and understating its involvement in this issue.

Israel has some legitimate concerns: their small size means a single nuke would wipe them out of existence

This is not going to happen anytime soon. The only Muslim country with nukes is Pakistan, and despite our incursions into its territory, it has not shown or even discussed a willingness to strike US or Israel. It's for the same reason that Russia will never nuke the US: they would get nuked right back. What we used to call Mutually Assured Destruction and the Israelis call the Sampson Option. Additionally, nuking Israel could damage, irradiate or destroy the Dome of the Rock and the fallout would kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. That fallout wouldn't stop at the borders of Israel, either. Same goes for chemical or biological weapons.

The Israeli fingerprints all over numerous false flag attacks and incidents of provocation throughout its short history show that it is dedicated to keeping its neighbors destabilized or disenfranchised so that it can continue to expand its settlements. This is how empires are built.

I fully agree with you that the US is desperate to save a sinking economic ship, but it is too far gone to be propped up by preserving the petrodollar. The collapse is inevitable. What we're seeing now is the push by Israel towards using the US military might to cripple as many Muslim countries as possible before the whole thing implodes. Israel is being publicly distant from this situation, but you can bet there are a lot of late-night calls between Obama and Netanyahu.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

You may be right.

It's a pretty certain bet China is following one of their long-range goals, and as long as that goal is being accomplished they will probably be content to sit and watch. BUT, should we interfere in that goal, or should we insult the Chinese in a way they believe requires a response, a response is what we will get.

Now, I ask you, how do you insult the Chinese?

The answer is, you never know. That's where the extreme cultural differences come into play. China does not have a history of nation building, but they do have a history of protecting themselves, sometimes ferociously. And considering they have so much manpower, that's one dog I don't want to poke.

I do know China is involved in the South Sudan, where they apparently have found some massive oil reserves. So is Russia and the US, but China I believe was there first. Maybe they see it as a back-up supply should something happen to the Iranian oil supply?

It is an interesting comment on the effectiveness of propaganda that, despite being a little familiar with China's history and cognizant of the fact that the Chinese are not historically aggressive unless provoked, my gut screams "Red China!" every time I think about China. The concept of "Red China" being the evil communistic tyrannical overlords of a nation of peasants is a tool of propaganda from the days of the Cold War. Yet, I still have to struggle with it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Propulsion

But again, WHAT will they do to make it happen?

...second and seven for the Cowboys as they continue to keep the Rams off balance in this one-score game. Kyle Orton at quarterback, the kid from Purdue, takes the snap... he's back, looking for a target... he's got a man open downfielld... what a bullet! Right on target, this is going to change the tone of the game... and it's caught! and dropped... what?.... The Cowboy receiver just collapsed in mid-catch. Referees are calling for a time out while they can check on... wait, a referee just fell over in his tracks! Now two more Cowboys uniforms are lying on the field, four, no, five Rams next to them. It looks like the whole field is collapsing in a wave. The fans are starting to collapse as well, and now the police are trying to maintain order... people are stampeding out of the stands, some onto the field, most out of the back... there's a pile of bodies lying at the edge of the stands now, some are literally jumping... jumping out... onto... uh... something is.. wrong... help....

Source: nothing, I just made this up.

The next day, it is announced that only twenty three people caught in the stadium survived, and all of them are still in a coma and in serious condition. The Dallas Cowboys were not among them, and neither were the Rams; no players survived. The culprit was Sarin gas, the same chemical weapon used in Syria by Assad. President Obama calls on Congress to reconsider their earlier refusal to take action against Assad, and now besieged by calls, emails, and texts from angry constituents hungry for revenge, they approive a wide range of actions against Syria.

Now I ask you: is that so far-fetched, knowing what we know?

TheRedneck

Thanks TR for referencing my nightmare form back on page 2 of this thread.


If "thanks" can be possibly appropriate given the circumstances we all seem to be facing at this juncture in history.



Please know that it is NOT my intent to, in any way derail this most important thread, but I've learned to follow my "gut" at times like this, and to pay close attention when "coincidences" being to occur in extraordinary frequency (synchronicities?).

As I noted in the text of my post last night, there was a explosion in the distance, heard as I wrote of my belief that a nuclear weapon would Not be the "terrorist"/False Flag weapon of choice, used to goad a reluctant American public to demand retribution against Assad and Syria.

Now, oddly enough, since making that post, I find that my Private Messages, sent to and from my iphone, are being delayed, intermittently.

Last one, sent to me at 1:01 this afternoon (Sunday Sept 8, 2013) was not delivered to me until 7:43PM this evening.


Coincidence?

Synchronicity?


Have I somehow "touched the 'Third Rail'"?


Take care,


And Stay Wary, my friends!

reply to post by TheRedneck

I've been thinking about location... the last time an attack happened in the heartland (OK City), there was outrage but not a lot of support for the government to do something about it. The Trade Towers had the exact desired effect. With the current demographics and political leanings, perhaps somewhere in Texas? Dallas, Houston, Austin?

An attack on the US soil serves no purpose.

However, an attack on a US vessel stationed near Syria would fit the agenda perfectly.

reply to post by TheRedneck


S + F !! Thank you Redneck on an excellent history of the M.E. Region and the involvement of U.S. along the way.

Just thought I'd also share some additional specifics on Iraq and our relationship with Saddam during the Iraq/Iran War.

When Saddam was our friend
Saddam Hussein enjoyed U.S. support in his long war with Iran in the 1980s — even after Iraq repeatedly used chemical weapons. Iraq used mustard gas against the Iranians in 1983, with no objection from the Reagan administration. In 1987, Foreign Policy magazine reported last week, the U.S. gave Saddam intelligence that an Iranian invasion was imminent at a hole in Iraq's defenses. "An Iranian victory is unacceptable," President Reagan wrote on an intelligence report. In response to the U.S. warning, Saddam repeatedly attacked Iranian forces with sarin, killing more than 20,000 and injuring thousands more. He later used sarin to kill more than 5,000 Kurds to put down an uprising in northern Iraq. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks, told Foreign Policy that the U.S. chose to ignore Saddam's use of chemical weapons because Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils. "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas," Francona said. "They didn't have to. We already knew."

Source

So history will continue to unveil in some cases many strange 'bedfellows' during many of the Worldwide conflicts. As you've described, this can be a very complex web of actors and operators....sometimes playing multiple sides.

Thank you for a very thought provoking thread! Great Job!!

The real reason why Syria will be hit by US presspass.nbcnews.com... from the link

McDonough says attack on Assad regime would send message to Iran
Sun Sep 8, 2013 9:14 AM EDT
320

By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday that an impending U.S. attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons.

McDonough said on NBC’s Meet the Press that “to communicate with them we have to be very clear, very forthright. This is an opportunity to be both with the Iranians....”

He said, “nobody is rebutting the intelligence; nobody doubts the intelligence” that is the basis for President Barack Obama pinning the blame for an August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria on President Bashar Assad's regime which is fighting to suppress a rebellion that began in 2011.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough visits Meet the Press to discuss recently released footage of a chemical assault on the Syrian people.

McDonough noted that “our troops have not been subject to chemical weapons attacks since World War I” and argued that “we have to make sure that for the sake of our guys – our men and women on the front lines – that we reinforce this prohibition against using chemical weapons.”

If Assad is not deterred, he will put chemical weapons on the front lines in his battle against the Syrian rebels and that would mean “a greater risk of them being proliferated” and perhaps falling into terrorists’ hands, McDonough argued.

He added that “the momentum on the battle field will be changed by a targeted, limited effort” but he said ultimately “there’s not a military resolution” to the civil war in Syria, only a “political, diplomatic resolution.”

McDonough’s appearance on Meet the Press and other Sunday talk shows was one part of an intense public offensive headed by Obama himself, including the president doing interviews Monday with six television networks and culminating in his speech to the nation Tuesday night.

McDonough said Obama wants Congress to be “a full partner” in military action against Assad’s regime.

Obama faces one of the crucial weeks of his presidency with the Senate headed for a vote as early as Wednesday to end debate on a measure authorizing an attack on Syria; the measure’s supporters need 60 votes to move it ahead to final passage.

Reaction from members of Congress has ranged from endorsing an attack to wariness to fervent opposition.

The division on the issue hasn’t followed party lines.

Even the Arab League has doubts of Military action
worldnews.nbcnews.com... from the link

Arab League agrees with Kerry on Assad chemical weapons use – but not military action

NBC News' Andrea Mitchell updates David Gregory with the latest dispatch on John Kerry's speech as she travels with the secretary of state.
By Andrea Mitchell, Catherine Chomiak and Alastair Jamieson, NBC News

PARIS — Arab League nations agreed Sunday that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used chemical weapons and that it crossed an internationally recognized red line, but none have publicly endorsed the U.S. proposal for punitive air strikes against the Assad regime.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Saudi Arabia has backed airstrikes, but the Saudis have stopped short of saying that publicly.

Kerry told reporters in Paris that all members of the regional bloc had indicated that they would add their names to a G-20 statement — already signed by 12 countries — that calls for a strong international response to the Aug. 21 poison gas attack near Damascus, but not military action.

Posted above are just snips fro m the full articles , they are not in full.

It is my own observation there is more to Syria than we are being told. The more I look into it the more I believe it is a event to get us in a bigger mess. If this is intentional or not I do not know, but it seems to add up as such. I could spend the next hour linking and posting all the links that point to this but if you the reader have been following this as I have then there is no need to do You know what Russia er Putin has stated The DPRK link EU UK link , the oil dollars connections and now the above Iran reason. It seems this is on the path to ww3 the facts are in, Whom used the Chemicals is still unknown nor at this point odes it matter it is time we say no TPTB, it is Syria's mess and we need not be the police force.

We need to wait for the UN report then take action . Yes this is giving Syria time to up the anti , but at this does it rely matter? The question that makes any out standing point is do we go it alone or have the world go in with us? I say the world needs to.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by 727Sky

One big dynamic should it come to war with China is the geography between China and Iran. In order to access the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman, Chinese ships have to navigate the South Pacific. That's a seriously rough journey should Australia and New Zealand ally with the US (as I believe they would). It is all but impossible to even conceive of a pipeline across the Himalayas.

They have one potential save in that area, though, and that would be a pipeline through Myanmar (formerly Burma). That country is seriously unstable right now, but it would be a prime location for a pipeline from an oil ort directly into the heart of China without any problems with sailing between it and Iranian ports.

I look for something to happen in Myanmar soon as well. It may already have and we just don't know about it; that's not an area which is easy to get info out of.

TheRedneck

Well.... Here it is....at least the beginning.
Myanmar companies seek joint operation with foreign counterparts in oil, gas

Myanmar's domestic private companies are seeking joint operation with foreign counterparts in oil and gas exploration and production on mutually beneficial basis, local media reported Friday.

According to official figures, there are 53 onshore and 48 offshore blocks being operated with foreign investment. Meanwhile, more and more foreign investors including those from the United States, Britain, India and Australia are tendering for engagement in oil and gas exploration and production in Myanmar's offshore areas. It is expected that tender winners will be announced in November after feasibility studies complete. According to the state-run Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, about 300 new test wells have been set for drilling in the next five years for oil and gas exploration. Meanwhile, natural gas from Myanmar's Shwe Field started delivery to China as of July 28 this year after gas pipeline was laid.

Foreign oil companies, engaged in oil and gas exploration and production in Myanmar, comprise Australia, Britain, Canada, China, Indonesia, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Looks like the USA is working on getting a slice....

reply to post by Snsoc

While it is true that the only known Middle Eastern country with nukes is Pakistan, that doesn't discount that a feared attack from assumed nuclear weapons held by Iran can be used as much as a defense of an attack as a missle flying through the air. I mentioned in my OP that no hard evidence of nuclear weapons capability or development has been uncovered by UN inspectors inside Iran, yet the resounding accusations of such still continue. That demonstrates that it is not necessary for a thing to be true in order for that thing to be used as a justification for an action.

You also make a great point about the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and its fate should Israel be nuked. That, I would say, is a greater disincentive for any Muslim country to launch an nuclear attack than any other. But it does not diminish the fact that Israel can use the perceived threat of an attack as justification for a pre-emptive strike.

The very heart of propaganda is that perceptions are more powerful tools than realities.

As to the economy... you may well be correct there too. I'm not going to say it can be propped back up even if the dollar-oil peg is renewed. But it does appear that some in positions of power disagree with us.

And yes, absolutely, the phone line between Washington and Tel Aviv never gets cold.

TheRedneck

Great post! I think our government is going to strike Syria with missiles and then carry out a big false flag with a nuke to say that it was retaliation for striking Syria. Thus, starting WWIII.

reply to post by Observor

If I may direct your attention to the events of September 11, 2001...

An attack on US soil caused such an uproar that the Congress voted overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, in response to overwhelming support form the citizenry, to grant George W. Bush carte blanc powers in fighting a "war on terror" that included the overthrow of the Iraqi government, even though not a single terrorist on any planes that day was from Iraq.

An attack earlier on a US ship in the Persian Gulf made very little political hay.

History says an attack on US soil will work to shift public and Congressional opinion.

TheRedneck

Just went online...

thediplomat.com...

Excellent piece...wish you would've added the 1953 coup and Nukes for Peace Program but still a great read.
S&F

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by GenerationGap


In the end, all we have on that single point about Nazi sympathies is speculation, and where speculation is concerned, yours is as good as mine.

TheRedneck

Source

History of Iran and the Nazis

Much of modern conflict is about cleaning up the mess the Nazis left behind themselves after they were gone, like everywhere in the middle east and bosnia etc.