The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

reply to post by TheRedneck
well done but I am still not sold on lets hit Syria, if this is the one of many reasons as to why , you and others have still have to do better, to sell me on lets go to Syria.

reply to post by bekod

You miss my point. I'm not trying to sell you on doing something I am not sold on. I am only trying to show what is happening and why it is happening, and what is likely to happen in the near future because of it. Maybe someone can somehow protect themselves form something because of it.

The die is cast on Syria and on Iran, and there's no reason to sell anyone anything. You'll have to look somewhere else for the sales pitch.

TheRedneck

reply to post by 727Sky


The Chinese Elite are smart they aren't a world superpower by luck they know what they are doing. All of this attention in Syria, leaves Taiwan and Africa up for grabs if the US were to get involved in Regional War in the mid east.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Could the coming terrorist attack be what Sec State Kerry Guaranteed if the US doesn't lob cruise missiles over Syria?


That dumb SOB couldn't even hold his cards close to his vest?

Either WE go along, or something worse is in the cards, to make us (US citizens) fall in line with the globalist plan?

reply to post by TheRedneck
the die is not cast , it will be if we go in , if we stay out then Syria will handle Syria's mess Iran will leave us alone as well, Obama might seem weak, seeking Congressional approval, but that is for show , if and when Iran does make a move it will be game on.
As to your selling no your not, I was just making a statement.
If the God almighty dollar should be worth nothing because of Syria Iran.. I say let it happen gold and silver will be the new currency as it should be if you look at the EUR vs dollar www.xe.com... from the link

1.00 USD = 0.758980 EUR
US Dollar ↔ Euro
1 USD = 0.758980 EUR 1 EUR = 1.31756 USD
◀Convert again EUR/USD thumbnailView Chart Mid-market rates: 2013-09-08 04:40 UTC

I would say the USD is almost ARSE wipe now

reply to post by JacKatMtn
well there you go giving them Kerry and Friends ie McCain, DF from CA Ideas, or did you get a glimpse of their play book??/

reply to post by bekod


www.washingtoninstitute.org...


CFR playbook... seems that others are running the show?

reply to post by JacKatMtn

It's amazing how much politicians actually say, even though they spin it to sound like something different.

Obama says he’s confident Americans will want military strike in Syria

TheRedneck

Originally posted by UnaChispa
reply to post by 727Sky

 

The Chinese Elite are smart they aren't a world superpower by luck they know what they are doing. All of this attention in Syria, leaves Taiwan and Africa up for grabs if the US were to get involved in Regional War in the mid east.

I agree o a certain extent yet believe me 'China has their own problems' like feeding their population and water to drink, pollution like the west has never seen and supplying gas and oil for all the newly rich with cars, boats, and trucks..

China obviously has a very large population so they could throw a few million lives away on a conventional war and their economy would not even miss the cannon fodder...Only the families who lost loved ones would care.

You are correct they are smart and I have to wonder if they figure they can get their long term goals (whatever they may be?) without ever firing a shot.

Also with all their military build-up and they being a big, big, resident of the area; in the next few years they will truly be a force to recon with...Yes a country could nuke them but thank god it has not got to that and the belief that a nuclear exchange is suicide for all parties involved is a growing consensus for most parts of the world...

reply to post by TheRedneck

The premise of the OP implicates the allied occupation of Afghanistan being pivotal also - it effectively partitions Iran from the East. Chinese interests in the region would also more than likely be compromised.

Were there to be a staged terrorist attack in the near future, I'd second guess that it would be against American interests abroad.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by JacKatMtn

It's amazing how much politicians actually say, even though they spin it to sound like something different.

Obama says he’s confident Americans will want military strike in Syria

TheRedneck

IMO.. Obama lost the will to do this, and I am no fan of him, this reeks of the CFR and the establishment ...

The REAL ENEMY to the people...... (choke on that caviar you cowards!!!)

No matter our differences, WE, (folks of the planet), outnumber the Elitist pukes who want to push our [chattle] buttons....

reply to post by TheRedneck


Compelling read my friend. Good job.

We know it is about petro-dollar.

US failed in Iraq in its primary objective - to keep oil under control of American companies. So while oil is being sold in USD, the asset itself is not in US control.

The issue is - if US failed in Iraq, what makes it certain that it will succeed in Iran?

Destroying nuclear reactor of Iran will not depose its government.

The nuclear threat from Iran may or may not exist, but even if its exists, US would know how to deal with it. US dealt with USSR's 10000+ nukes for decades.

Israel will not be completely destroyed by one nuke. Israel is small but not so small. And the neighbours (like Iran's ally Hizbullah) will also suffer the after-effects of nuke strike. So it is not as simple as it is made out to be.

This is a petro-dollar war. This is about USA and its desire to be 'sole' superpower. No doubts about that. Ordinary people are collateral damage in this war.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Good read. I understand how critical Petro Dollar is for US. But BRICS ( Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries have been thinking of abandoning dollar. How will that come into play ? All of them are G-20 members, and are behind Russia on Syrian issue.

Evan France is now back-tracking, and agree with Russia that they want to see UN Report before any action.

reply to post by JacKatMtn
well played out I might add play 5 of of the 3rd and goal from the link of your post

Like it or not, the question the Obama administration now faces is not whether to do more to help resolve the conflict but when, how, and at what cost. Las Vegas rules do not apply to Syria: what happens there will not stay there. The massive refugee crisis and the threat that dangerous weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists -- jihadists and Kurdish separatists alike -- directly threaten the security of Washington’s allies in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. The meltdown of the Syrian state is empowering terrorist groups and could ultimately give them the freedom to plan international attacks, as the chaos of Afghanistan in the 1990s did for al Qaeda. As complex as the Syrian crisis has become, one thing is clear: the longer it lasts, the greater the threat it poses and the harder it becomes for the United States to do anything about it.

To stop Syria’s meltdown and contain its mushrooming threats, the United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a partial military intervention aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table. The only way Washington can resolve the crisis is by working with the people “within Syria,” as the Obama administration refers to the domestic opposition, instead of without them, that is, at the UN Security Council.

and for the goal

If Assad nonetheless decided to up the ante, Washington should launch pinpoint air, missile, or, possibly, drone strikes to destroy or render useless his remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons and the missiles that could deliver them. (Of course, the U.S. military would have to take extra care to avoid harming civilians with nearby chemical explosions.) Should the U.S. military fail to locate or destroy Assad’s most dangerous weapons, or deem it too risky to try, it could instead hit Syrian command-and-control facilities.

Second, to protect Syrians in opposition-controlled territory from attacks by the regime’s Scud missiles and fixed-wing aircraft, the United States should establish 50- to 80-mile-deep safe areas within Syria along its borders with Jordan and Turkey. Critics of intervention often cast the idea of creating a no-fly zone in Syria as too risky for the U.S. pilots and planes that would be involved. But a limited approach focused on border regions would be less perilous, since the regime’s planes and missiles could be shot down using Patriot missile batteries based in Jordan and Turkey or by aircraft flying there.

touch down NAM 2.0 revisited

Third, Washington needs to work directly with opposition forces on the ground in Syria (as opposed to just those outside it) to push back the government’s forces, deliver humanitarian assistance, and, most important, check the growing influence of Islamic extremists. This should include the provision of arms to vetted armed groups on a trial-and-error basis, with Washington monitoring how the battalions use the intelligence, supplies, and arms they receive.

as if we have reruns of old plays.

None of this work would require American boots on the ground in an offensive capacity, but it could involve Americans wearing other types of footwear. The United States should immediately establish secure offices in southern Turkey and northern Jordan as centers devoted to working with the Syrian opposition, adding to the discussions that are currently taking place between Washington and some rebels via Skype and through periodic visits of U.S. officials to the border. As soon as their safety can be reasonably well assured, U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers should be sent into the safe areas that the United States has established in Syria, with protection, to meet directly with civilian and armed opposition members, activists, and relief workers.

and we have 7-o in the first quarter

Establishing close relationships with players in Syria would free the United States from having to work through Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which have in the past directed assistance into the wrong hands; Saudi-purchased Croatian arms, for example, were seen earlier this year in the possession of Jabhat al-Nusra. A more direct approach would, admittedly, put some American lives at risk, so every possible security precaution would need to be taken to avoid an attack along the lines of the 2012 assault in Benghazi that killed Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

oh oh flag flag on play

Still, establishing a presence on the ground would be worth the risks, allowing the United States to work directly with Syrian armed groups to contain the Assad regime and ultimately influence the character of the opposition. One way to exert such influence would be to condition assistance on the opposition groups’ political orientations and their respect for civilian leadership and human rights. The United States should also try to influence Syrian politics on the local level to prevent the total collapse of governance in rebel-held territories. Once the opposition fully liberates an area, Washington should require elections to select a civilian leadership. This process would help avoid chaos as the regime crumbles and expose local attitudes and sympathies, allowing U.S. officials to assess the influence of various extremist groups.

here come the refs to review the replay, After careful review Interception ,(Combination Penalty 10 Yards and Loss of Down www.abovetopsecret.com... Oh big loss for DC war hogs.

This may sound like a stupid question, but why doesn't Russia and China skip all of the bs and develop a kick butt electric car. They would foil an evil plan over 100 years in the making by just opting out of this outdated fossil fuel ponzi scheme. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification, but you have to start somewhere.

TheRedNeck, your work on the Fukushima disaster, following the tsunami in Japan was without equal.

And now, I think, in a different, prophetic vein, you may very well surpass yourself.

I finished the entire post; I must say it left me wanting even more.

And yet, without a doubt, as you lay out in almost irrefutable logic, we may very well be staring at our greatest challenge as a civilization.

The die is cast, and I don't know whether to say to whomever it may be appropriate, "Bravo, well played, I concede", or just to stare in absolute monkey-brain terror and scream for all my life is worth.


Reading your dissertation, and the posts that followed, I was taken by a sickening thought:

Yes, it is quite possible that we may be subjected to another horrible terrorist attack, real or "engineered" to persuade a currently reluctant public into at least tacit support for an attack on Syria.

But having lived through 9/11, and perhaps jaded to anything but a more spectacular event, what form could such an event take?

I doubt that a nuclear detonation is in the cards, anywhere (though coincidentally, I just heard what must have been a electrical transformer explode, talk about omens!). The international consequences would be far to difficult to control.

And "American interests" abroad don't pack a great "punch" when attacked, unless (obviously) hyped by the media; which would take too long to fit the "attack Syria" timetable now in play.


But it occurs to me that the NFL football season is fast approaching.


A poison gas attack inside a major football stadium, possibly utilizing Sarin gas (the innuendo being that the attack was orchestrated, obviously, by Syrian agents), televised across the country, would have virtually every red-blooded American literally screaming for Assad's head on a bloody pike.

reply to post by TheRedneck


I don't think that china will be that "next" superpower... I make no great claims to being a "chinahand", 'cause I'm not...

But they're looking at severe problems in the western regions with largely Muslim populations demanding more autonomy, and that sort of thing is contagious. News has leaked slowly, which in China means the problem is greater than we know, in all likelihood.

Like any govt. they're using outside events to turn peoples attention from their internal issues to ones of "great importance" on the outside. Africa. the Middle East.

But these chickens aren't going to go away. Not to mention the growing disconnect between the young highly educated professionals, and the remaining old guard, and the Army. Don't forget that most of the country's industry is controlled at least in part by the Peoples Liberation Army...

I would suggest that India would be a better bet in the very long run.

reply to post by seagull


China has become more ambitious due to US decline.

Chinese are essentially opportunists. They keep quite for decades and then strike suddenly when an opportunity presents itself.

China should not be under-estimated. It is likely to be more militarized than the West estimates.

reply to post by GargIndia


After the last sixty years or so, it's hard to underestimate them...They've been involved in many, many problems all over the globe. Including providing illegal arms to gangs here in the States, which if looked at in a hawkish point of view, is a casus belli.

I agree with you, but there are very large internal problems looming there. Economic. Political. Religious. All nicely intertwined.

Underestimate them at your own risk, but I just see too many issues looming that are, or maybe could is the better word, going to cause them issues in their drive towards global superpowerdom.

The War Powers Act of 1973 dictates that American cannot attack another nation state (or one supposed to be harbouring belligerents) unless directly attacked itself or credibly threaten by such a enemy. As such, 'false flags' (such as terrorist attacks) are de rigueur in order to facilitate military action against those the war hawks decide to make a target.

Therefore, prophecies to this effect, deductive or otherwise, are hardly revelatory.