The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Israel never said that they don't have nuclear weapons. as a matter of fact, it's a public knowledge they have a lot of them. and if there's a - false flag or not - chemical attack launched from Syria at Israel, i wouldn't consider it too far fetched that Israel would just nuke the hell out of Syria (Israel has a relatively small territory, so chemical attack would be a big thing for them), dragging Iran into conflict, then nuke the hell out of Iran, 'helping' to advance the cause of their puppets in DC.

reply to post by jedi_hamster


Pregnant pause , do we already have a bun or two in the oven?

Along these lines of a coming false flag terror event, the New York Times is currently reporting that …”thousands of utility workers, business executives, National Guard officers, F.B.I. anti-terrorism experts and officials from government agencies in the United States, Canada and Mexico are preparing for an emergency drill in November that will simulate physical attack and cyber attacks that could take down large sections of the power grid.” To date, 150 businesses have volunteered to participate in the drill. This is a scheduled two day drill commencing on November 13th.

thecommonsenseshow.com...

reply to post by Pinkorchid


do you really think they will wait until november? i don't think so.
i would rather put my bets on aliens revealing themselves than on the "nothing will happen in september" wishful thinking.

reply to post by jedi_hamster


Reread what I posted and you will see I am correct. I said they don't officially have them. Its common knowledge they do, but they went behind out backs to make them and they habe never let inspectors in so no one knows what the official number is.

I didnt say they didnt have them, but its an irony that they hold Iran to a hypocritical standard. If they started shooting them off the world would come down on them.

If they responded to an attack with nukes Russia ans other countries would come down on them.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


the world would just sit and watch in sick awe.
Israel is a mad dog. too dangerous to bother.

reply to post by jedi_hamster


I disagree. If they used nukes first Russia would likely hit them hard.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


what for? tactical nukes would just make Iran vulnerable. Russia would probably move troops there and into Syria, to try to secure the situation. and at that point US citizens would realize that if their government will push further their own agenda, it'll end up in a world war. Israel would back off, because their 'final battle of Armageddon' would be still ahead, and without US backing - US military would probably rebel against their government at this point - there would be no point in moving any further. it would be partial mistake on Israel's behalf - because USA isn't ready to risk a world war just to play Israel's game. US government is - but the military and citizens won't allow it to happen.

and Russia would gain nothing from attacking Israel at this point. they will just wait until USA is on its knees.

It seems to me Russia and Iran are just biding their time with Syria giving up their chemical weapons. In the meantime this is happening. A nice opportunity for Iran to beef up on their anti-aircraft missiles.

reply to post by strangefires

Great link!

Russia provides a transit route for U.S. and NATO military cargo to Afghanistan, a facility that will become less important once most of the troops in the U.S.-led coalition leave in 2014.

Source: www.reuters.com...

Could this be the reason the US is getting so impatient? Almost time for the troops to come home, and maybe Russia is ramping up pressure elsewhere in our plans?

TheRedneck

TheRedneck
reply to post by strangefires



Could this be the reason the US is getting so impatient? Almost time for the troops to come home, and maybe Russia is ramping up pressure elsewhere in our plans?

TheRedneck

The pressure is on big time. Russia is looking for a checkmate before the US can cry foul again. If they can heavily arm Iran against Israel, before Syria becomes vulnerable, what chance does Israel have in a proxy war?

reply to post by strangefires

I think I mentioned a few times in this thread that the one thing I was not certain about in all of this was why timing suddenly became so critical. I think you may have just cleared that up.

Getting Syria under Western control does little good if Iran doesn't need Syria as much any more.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


there's one more thing, and it's a serious one. from all the threads and posts on this subject, all that's left on ATS is this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it was described as a photoshop hoax, but i say that's complete, total and utter BS. there are tons of mails, all in .eml format. the fact that some screenshots were posted with fragments highlighted (screens were done by someone else than the hacker, he just posted it on pastebin afaik), was used to 'debunk' it. there's one important detail though.

many of those emails are signed with digital signatures, including the one pointing out that the chemical attack in Syria was done by US military. now, these signatures are military in origin - they weren't signed by a company like verisign. they were signed by DoD, and i've downloaded DoD public certificates to verify them, and those certificates are real - they belong to the military people that supposedly wrote those emails, so the hack had to take place - otherwise the hacker wouldn't be able to obtain said certificates without being a recipient of many signed emails from them.

so why 'supposedly'? because each signed email in .eml format has an smime signature, containing the certificate. the certificate itself confirms the identity of the sender, while the signature contains a hash code of the email contents - so one can verify if it was altered by a third party. so far, i was unable to validate any of those emails, but that doesn't proof anything yet - the messages are screwed. headers were obviously altered by some server-side software unaware of smime signatures, turning multipart/signed into multipart/mixed and modifying email content as well. i am working on reversing those changes, my guess is that it's a matter of some newline character clusterf... . once i'll find the exact changes that were done by the software and reverse them, i should be able to verify the signatures - and since the hack is obviously real, most of those emails shouldn't be altered, so the signatures should be valid. and when the signature of the most important of those emails turns out to be valid, well. we'll have undeniable proof that US military was involved.

and no, the fact that i'm modifying those emails to validate them, isn't flawed. i'm just fixing the mess created by server-side software (or perhaps by the hacker himself). if the signature will validate, it means that the email contents are original and that only the person having said certificate (and its private part) could write it - and that hacker could hack some yahoo accounts, but he certainly didn't hack personal laptops of such high ranking officers (it would give him nothing in this case i guess, considering the fact they're probably using smart cards to store certificates). and in case someone wouldn't know, faking such certificate/signature with today's technology is mathematically impossible in any reasonable time.

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I know the original story is fron RT.

Just wanted to say, I despise info wars, but that is a very astute observation in that article. I didn't think about it, but if someone did use CWs on Israel it would be insane media blitz particularly because thegas and jewish people connection. There would be crazy allusions to the Nazis.

There is no way Assad would work so hard to stop intervention and then throw it away using CWs. People would have to be able to see that, right?

Why do you despise infowars? I find them 10 times more reliable than msm in the usa. AJ has temper tantrums but he is the one who has been railing against globalism now for over a decade, he has exposed the bilderbergers, infiltrated bohemian grove, etc. He has hosted ron paul, gary johnson and other libertarian candidates on his show. Really.....

IF there is any future false flag BET on israel getting attacked by the rothschilds by them setting off a dirty bomb or unleashing some rather "low grade" bioweapons such as anthrax. Rothchilds are traitors of zionism in the fullest sense but few suspect this. The iranian government will get blamed and israel will be "forced" to retaliate viciously like never before, perhaps nuking iran, which will get russia pissed and nuke usa.

Funny i found this thread as #6 on reddit's world news of all places.

reply to post by TheRedneck


And the plot thickens my friend: Todays news

As the web we weave expands so do our enemies...

reply to post by strangefires

Yeah, that ankle-biter is yapping again.

I see North Korea as akin to Israel, just with China holding the leash instead of the US. In case China needs a diversion setting these chess pieces up, it doesn't take much for the whole world to turn and look at Kim Jong Un.

I keep lumping Russia and China together when I talk about potential enemies of the US, but the truth is that they are both working for different results. Russia and China both are sovereign countries looking out for their own best interests. Each has smaller friendly nations they control, and who they will use to whatever advantage they need at the time. Israel/Turkey and Iran/Syria are sitting in the Middle East staring each other down, while Korea is way over on the Pacific. I don't think they will be getting directly involved in a skirmish, but a diversion? An assault on South Korea (or anyone who is our ally) to turn our attention? Quite possible.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Okay, so now that this info has had almost a week to marinate - and, Obama's 'onfusion of the union' address has occurred... what are your thoughts?

[just an excellent argument and presentation, sir ]

regarding those hacked emails..

i was able to verify the signature on some of them by reversing the damage done by yahoo mail service. that means, both the certificates are real and contents weren't altered. those emails were really written by those people from the military, certificates are signed by US DoD and weren't even revoked (which wouldn't make those messages any less true).

i'm still working on verifying the signature on that single crucial email. i'll keep you posted.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

Everything I have seen has convinced me I'm right.

Kerry is practically foaming at the mouth to get into Syria. Obama's address was confused, because he's confused over what to do right now. The chemical weapons deal suggested by Russia is a perfect play to neuter the US argument to go to war, meaning the Russians saw what I did (no surprise).

The attack I suggested as forthcoming is not the best plan. Any time you unleash any type of weapon on your own people, there are potential problems. Add to that the fact that I really don't believe the US government is conducting true "false flag" operations in the US. Will they look the other way so they use a disaster they might have otherwise prevented? Yep. Will they actually covertly convince others to execute an attack? Yep. But I just don't see direct agents pulling this off themselves. There's too much chance of being caught, and can you imagine the outcry if the US was caught red-handed bombing or using WMDs on their own people?

Right now, no one in the current administration is sure what the best course of action is. As I type this, I believe there are literally swarms of government agents going over a myriad of different plans to see which is the best for their purposes. I believe everything was set until Russia suggested Assad turn over his chemical weapons. Suddenly we have a new problem; if we attack after such an offer, we lose all credibility internationally as well as with our own people. It also takes away our trump card. If we are, as I suspect, the ones who supplied chemical weapons, and if Assad turns his over and allows UN inspection to verify, we can't supply the rebels with chemical weapons any more without running a huge risk of being caught red-handed.

I also think that there's something else going on that we the people are unaware of. If I were Assad and was trying to stalemate America in this, I would let every American-based operative know what was going on and to take absolutely no actions that could be considered terrorism. That means in order for a domestic attack to occur, someone American, and probably someone in the government, has to pull the trigger and run the risk of being caught and the whole tapestry unraveling. As long as we had terrorist cells in this country, we had a public opinion tool that we could use if needed, a large part of why the Mexican border is so open and will not be closed.

Sooner or later, I'm sure they will find someone fanatical enough to ignore what's needed by Syria and to launch an attack. But just any attack won't do. As I mentioned earlier, it has to be something that will change public opinion overnight, without question. That probably leaves out 95% of the plots going on right now. But sooner or later won't work very well if this deal goes through. In order to blow the deal, there has to be a Syrian strike on US soil, at least in theory, right now before Assad can turn over his weapons and let the UN inspectors in. We're caught between a rock and a hard place and there's not much room to squirm out of it.

I'm starting to think there may be a desperation move on the part of the US... either they decide to launch an attack on our soil by themselves, running a major risk, or they will simply attack before anyone realizes what has happened and try to cover it with trumped-up propaganda. Either way, we are going to war.

TheRedneck

those may be interesting it seems:

www.activistpost.com...
www.newswithviews.com...
www.globalresearch.ca...