The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

jedi_hamster
reply to post by Village Idiot

 

Americans won't care about Israel. not that much. the trouble is, any false flag against Israel may be precisely the excuse Israel would like to act - and they would probably just launch their Samson Option, dragging everyone around, including USA, into war. i doubt that will be the case though, US government will do everything to get domestic support for attack on Syria, and 'helping out Israel' just won't cut it. not this time.

Looks like my thoughts are on the right track

"RT sources: Syrian rebels plan chemical attack on Israel from Assad-controlled territories"

reply to post by Village Idiot


That article is from days ago. An attack on Israel would obviously get us in the war, but most Americans don't care about Israel and would still resist.

I think things are going to calm down pretty soon because there is an overwhelming outcry from nato citizens to abandon these crazy war plans. The ptb might be ruthless, greedy, satanic...but digging their own grave is for fools.

They are trying to weasel their way out of the situation after getting caught red handed with their misdeeds exposed by RT for the most part. Good thing russia stepped up to the plate although they could have done that a bit sooner and saved everyone some aggrivation.

Are ptb going to abandon everything? In the long run maybe not. I fear a false flag on israel or usa and the scapegoat being iran, not syria. Could happen five years from now or never. Time will tell!

reply to post by TheRedneck


Just wanted to say that this is a thoroughly beefy topic with great information. I really appreciate you taking the time to create this and respond.

Now, with that being said I was thinking about some of the things I have read in this topic and you had mentioned in terms of where an attack might be. I think you mentioned Austin Texas. The reason why I am bringing this particular city up is because it would be a wholly horrible place for a "terrorist" attack to take place.

-Live music capital of the world
-Lots of democrats
-lots of glbt(could be used to have an anti-gay terrorist slant). This is in no way trying to put down gays as I fall into that category myself but the political angle of the recent court proceedings and flip flop bs from our president makes me skeptical of the timing. This would also force the majority of the hipster 99% wallstreet kids to support action against Syria, as not doing so would be "homophobic".
-Lots of wealthy people
-Lots of Tech companies

Just thought I'd put my thoughts. This whole petrodollar warfare topic had a lot of information I hadn't thought about and it makes me sick to my stomach. I am going to read through again to see if I missed anything.

reply to post by TheRedneck



I have a great attention span and read your the entirety of your post(s). I know the history and I agree that anyone wanting to fill in any blank can go out to the webz and find out for themselves. You did an awesome job and for that, I thank You.

As you can see, I just joined today, Thanks as well for your work as a Mod, this looks to be a very active site and all of the members I have viewed so far are well spoken, outspoken and unafraid. All good traits.

I hope to contribute soon. I am still completing my profile. I have led an interesting life, one I hope will serve me well in this forum. Until then I say...

Bravo. BravO!

It seems like an ideal recipe:

1. Kill a lot of Shias so that community is thoroughly radicalized and crying for revenge.

2. Stage a terrorist attack in USA, and blame it on Shias.

3. Start a war against the main Shia country - Iran and snatch its natural resources.

Very good plan drafted by NWO.

Let us see now the 'execution' part. Even the worst dictators tremble in their boots at the sight of human blood.

Hope Obama is taken to places where people are getting killed and see the mutilated corpses.

reply to post by Networker321

Well, welcome to ATS and you are very welcome!

I agree, we have the best members on the Internet. I know of no other forum where subjects like this can be discussed with as much civility as at ATS.

But, then again, maybe I'm a bit biased.

TheRedneck

TheRedneck
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

That's a pretty solid analysis, sir. Thank you, for taking the time.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz




And, uh, hey you 2... guess who's got tickets to the Ole Miss game, tomorrow...

Hmmmm... No one wants to watch this team right now, anyway...

It would appear we have a (temporary) stalemate. The US has officially agreed to work with Russia and Syria to eliminate the chemical weapons.

I just read over the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons posted today by the State Department. It contains two deadlines: elimination of production facilities and implementation of UN inspections by November, and complete removal of chemical weapons by middle of next year. This tells me one of two things have happened:

• The US has given up on the idea of using direct intervention in Syria. This would indicate that the rebels are winning and expect to be in control of the country soon without direct overt US intervention.
  
  
• The US has a plan to blow this whole deal somehow before the middle of next year. The November deadline really has little teeth. UN inspectors can miss sites, and production facilities can be easy to re-implement, so either requirement can be propagandized back against Syria. Should this framework proposal be implemented in an actual agreement, I expect complaints about the efficiency of UN inspectors and access issues to suspected sites to be almost immediate.

There is another possibility... if the rebels can be kept in the know as to where the chemical weapons (which are of course the remains from the days before the Iraqi War began; we have aerial photos showing the convoys of trucks leaving for Syria) are located, the intention may be for the rebels to use the information gained from the UN inspections to acquire the weapons for themselves. Then the weapons can be used to either take out Assad's regime or implement another false flag event to discredit Syria's intentions and potentially bring us back to where we were a week ago... preferably after the current Administration has built up some additional political capital.

If this is the case, expect some serious anti-Syrian propaganda to be forthcoming form the MSM, and perhaps some "foiled terrorist plots" to be made public. Foiled plots are much easier to create out of thin air than actual attacks; all you need is a couple patsies to take the blame. Also expect Obama to either hide or come out with some changes in previous policy to bump that political capital up.

TheRedneck

TheRedneck
It would appear we have a (temporary) stalemate. The US has officially agreed to work with Russia and Syria to eliminate the chemical weapons.

I just read over the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons posted today by the State Department. It contains two deadlines: elimination of production facilities and implementation of UN inspections by November, and complete removal of chemical weapons by middle of next year. This tells me one of two things have happened:

• The US has given up on the idea of using direct intervention in Syria. This would indicate that the rebels are winning and expect to be in control of the country soon without direct overt US intervention.
  
  
• The US has a plan to blow this whole deal somehow before the middle of next year. The November deadline really has little teeth. UN inspectors can miss sites, and production facilities can be easy to re-implement, so either requirement can be propagandized back against Syria. Should this framework proposal be implemented in an actual agreement, I expect complaints about the efficiency of UN inspectors and access issues to suspected sites to be almost immediate.

There is another possibility... if the rebels can be kept in the know as to where the chemical weapons (which are of course the remains from the days before the Iraqi War began; we have aerial photos showing the convoys of trucks leaving for Syria) are located, the intention may be for the rebels to use the information gained from the UN inspections to acquire the weapons for themselves. Then the weapons can be used to either take out Assad's regime or implement another false flag event to discredit Syria's intentions and potentially bring us back to where we were a week ago... preferably after the current Administration has built up some additional political capital.

If this is the case, expect some serious anti-Syrian propaganda to be forthcoming form the MSM, and perhaps some "foiled terrorist plots" to be made public. Foiled plots are much easier to create out of thin air than actual attacks; all you need is a couple patsies to take the blame. Also expect Obama to either hide or come out with some changes in previous policy to bump that political capital up.

TheRedneck

I believe I was fairly close one this one. I did use the word "stalemate" not that long ago(page 12). The funny thing is that I was just joking around.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Stay safe is all I can say you have the exact setting position and time where you will be.

reply to post by TheRedneck


or.. it just all doesn't matter. chemical attack was probably a false flag, they've failed to convince everyone that it was Assad's job, so they're simply backing off to avoid looking like agressors.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

when one false flag fails, launch another one. simple as that.

reply to post by jedi_hamster

The funny thing about trying to play one side against the other, as we are doing in the Middle East, is that whenever we appease one group, we tend to tick off another. That's what appears to be happening in that thread you linked. Since we were forced to give in to Russia/Syria's "deal," now the rebels are upset.

It's not unlike what happened with Saddam Hussein. After the Iran-Iraq War, he was our buddy. We didn't continue to appease him and he turned rogue. If we don't somehow appease the rebels, they will turn rogue as well, and it is even possible they become so unfriendly to the US as to be unusable in an overthrow. Whoever gets into power afterward has to be friendly to US interests, else nothing of consequence was accomplished.

I still think we are looking at a chemical weapons attack on US soil. The thing is we have to now work around this new agreement. Just another obstacle in play in this massive chess game we call the Middle East.

I'm wondering if a false flag attack in Syria, possibly geared toward Israel, would fill the bill. It could be spun to be an attack by Assad, whether or not it really is. That would possibly get the Russians off our back to some degree, and if it brought enough public outrage, it might be enough to allow us to intervene without an attack on US soil.

Now think about this: if we manage to avoid a chemical weapons attack on US soil, we have Vladimir Putin to thank for it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I don't quite see it that way, Redneck.

Putin effectively and publicly 'ham-stringed' Obama with his intercession regarding the whole Syria dealio. Rumsfeld I mean 'Kerry', has shown himself as the bumbling idiot he is throughout, IMHO.

At this point, again IMHO, all bets are on/off the table, with regards to how this whole shebang plays out in the end.

Syria has been a clear 'target' [read: domino] for quite some time. Yet, this aint 'cow-tipping' we're talking about, it's an overall Regime Change that's in the works...... and has been for quite some time.

I certainly have to agree with you, in that the US has a history of 'setting 'em up' so we can 'take 'em out later' .... on a near Global -basis.

'Spreading and Preaching 'Democracy', yet all the while having been shown to have supported/uprooted many a 'democratically-elected leader' in virtually Every realm, nation represented on this Earth.

????

We [ meaning The U.S. Gov't ] have 'raised' [ read: bought, fought and paid for] many a 'democratically-elected' leader [read: red-headed stepchild], but ..... always & ONLY up until the point where they 'went from' a 'friend' to an 'opponent'.

Very much akin to raising a child to always question/oppose authority, but when they 'come of age' and 'call the olde man out'..... we take 'em down like the 'domino' they were from the beginning.

makes me sick and frustrates the hell outta me at the same time ..... all the while preaching 'spreading democracy'
???

build 'em up. Only to knock 'em down .... after they've served 'their purpose' in the grand scheme of things.

day after day.

year after year.

TIME AFTER TIME.

..... and 'we' STILL fall for it.


WTH!?

UGH.... some folks need a good rap upside the head...

THE U.S. has had it's 'head' up the backsides of virtually every country on the face of this planet for FAR TOO long .... if Only that there's always the chance they could extract some info, gain or exploit an economic asset.

Yet most folks are completely unaware of that actuality, and prefer to grab hold to that which they're 'given' on the 6 o'clock sNewZe, instead.

sad. that.

love my country and It's People....

but .... as a nation .... I'd have to say we're the biggest hypocrites on the planet, IMHO.

do as we say.

not as we do.

my apologies for any off-topic banter

Syria was a trap by design, just for Obama and his administration. Destroyed in nearly every way.

The next major problem will be Iran, and it is likely that it will not be confronted until the next presidency.

As of now the USA is without credibility, without real leadership and will not be taken seriously. Something our enemies will not fail to exploit.

Good luck.

12m8keall2c
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

I don't quite see it that way, Redneck.

Putin effectively and publicly 'ham-stringed' Obama with his intercession regarding the whole Syria dealio. Rumsfeld I mean 'Kerry', has shown himself as the bumbling idiot he is throughout...

Putin gave Obama a way out, and Obama jumped on it. It really is that simple.

It's a good thing too.

Just in the nick of time.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

I don't quite see it that way, Redneck.

Unless I am misreading your reply, I believe we are actually in agreement.

Putin did indeed pull a fast end-run on Obama... with the deal there in the open for all to see, Obama had two choices: accept the deal and tick off the rebels in the process, also endangering the plan to upset the balance of power by allowing Assad to remain in power, or refuse the deal and have public opinion cemented even more solidly against him. He took the only move he could without blowing the whole plan and accepted the deal. Now he has to try and do an end-run around it as well.

The result is that the US-based false flag attack I predicted is not a guarantee now to turn public opinion. It still may happen, but it will have to be much more carefully conceived, and will now have to happen before UN inspectors can verify that all chemical weapons have been removed. If Assad is smart (and I think he is), he will try to speed up UN verification by shuttling chemical weapons to the UN as fast as he can, before Obama has a chance to get a counter move set up.

In any case, Putin has at least bought time for the US population, and perhaps has prevented an attack on them.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sorry Redneck, Putin bought the enemies more time, and in the process motivated even more extremists to launch attacks on the west and USA.

Bought time indeed, but not for Obama alone.