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.

 

Trump says US to strike 52 Iranian sites 'VERY FAST and VERY HARD’

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

The majority of the world backed the plan. Israel being it's most vocal critic.




posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: trollz
Full title: Trump says US to strike 52 Iranian sites 'VERY FAST and VERY HARD’ if Tehran moves to avenge general's death
Source
From Trump's twitter:

As of the time of this posting, there's no other news in the source article. I haven't checked other outlets. This seems like a very specific statement from Trump. 52 sites seems like a lot.
This is definitely something to keep an eye on, especially considering the recent rocket attacks.


A deck of cards is 52, excluding Jokers ( read Biden's)

Who is the Ace of Spades in Trump's deck?

Already got the King and (LOL) Queen SoleImani...

Thinking cryptically.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


I just assumed it was the normal modus for an "air strike".

It used to be; we use drones now.

So how was she supposed to launch an air strike without rockets?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
I follow that guy for updates from that region as well. He seems to be a rational a d reasonable fellow.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
"WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD." Rods from God.🤔

DJT warned them long ago...


twitter.com...

What a night in Iraq...
twitter.com...


HOLY COW
I'm scared


I guess you didn't see tweets directed to NK



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

the 52 targets of opportunity fits well in the ongoing Iran+USA situation

RE: the 52 hostages held for 444 days
see:

Iran celebrates 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover, 444-day ...
www.upi.com...

Nov 04, 2019 · Nov. 4 (UPI) --Rallies and events were staged across Iran Monday to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the start of what would last for 444 days and be known as the Iran hostage..



Trump is kind of poetic in his dealings, huh



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Black_Fox

The US is the largest producer of crude oil on the planet. That petrodollar thing is like bigfoot for people with little sense of wonder or imagination.


Gasbuddy says price is dropping.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: autopat51

buckle and gas up
I doubt either is bluffing
gun and toilet paper time.


I'm just now reading this thread but I thought it was funny, I just happened to have ordered TP from Amazon - 80 rolls.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

It was a crap plan that allowed Iran to do whatever they wanted and gave them money to do it. It helped Iran only and solved literally nothing.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: Phoenix

The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

The majority of the world backed the plan. Israel being it's most vocal critic.


But..........never was ratified as a treaty per U.S. Constitution right???



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Like she did with the Christchurch gunman and then actually implemented some law to prevent it happening again?

Would Trump have the courage to something like that, even if the death toll was 10 times what it was here? Oh wait, it is. And what has Trump done to prevent any of the frequent mass shootings?


If you think it can't happen again just because a new law was put in place there, you're delusional. Criminals don't follow laws. And you can't compare the US with NZ or any EU country as is so commonly done, because we have 330 million people in an area of over 3.5 million square miles compared to your 4.8 million people in 208 thousand square miles. Believe it or not, there is a massive difference.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Several u.s. citizens got kickback $$$.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Can't wait till those names are named and dealt with accordingly.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
There was no $150 billion payout from the U.S. treasury. The money he refers to represents Iranian assets held abroad that were frozen until the deal was reached and Tehran was allowed to access its funds.

The payout of about $1.8 billion is a separate matter. That dates to the 1970s, when Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured.


I just looked this up earlier tonight. The $150 billion came from an estimated amount that the article I read said was actually closer to $50 billion, which were funds that were frozen during sanctions against Iran. Several countries lifted their sanctions during the so-called nuclear deal that Obama got in on and that's why they got that money. The $400 million were later identified by Obama as partially to convince Iran to release hostages of ours, which they did.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LiquesenceIt is. There is a reason why past administration did not take him out: it would cause greater instability and threats. It also helps to have someone in charge in the US who is reasonable and actually listens to intel and advisers.

Nothing good comes from this brazen escalation and infantile show of force.


Infantile? So the torching of our embassy was just sandbox play? No pun intended.

Come on, this was a terrorist attack and the terrorist was taken out. End of story.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

You do realize that we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Jimmy Carter? This Iran situation started with a Democrat President, and continued through 3 Republican and two more Democrat Presidents.

We, the United States of America, instituted the original Reza Shah to protect our oil interests in Iran, executing a coup of the Iranian Parliamentary government to do so. After his death, His son Mohammad Reza Shah took over. He was a tyrant and was finally overthrown in January 1979. He fled to the United States to escape prosecution. The Iranian people demanded him back, and we refused.

In response, on November 4, 1979, a group of Iranians stormed our embassy and took 52 Americans hostage. Carter tried a military rescue attempt, during which one of our helicopters hit an air transport and killed 8 Americans. I remember watching the Iranians dancing among the remains in joy on TV. The hostages were finally released January 20, 1981 after Ronald Reagan became President, in large part because of Carter's ineffectiveness. They were held 444 days.

Incidentally, Carter also interfered with Iraq about that time, establishing Saddam Hussein as leader.

The Iranians have not trusted us ever since. The CIA cannot even get good intel about Iran because they hate us so much. They have good reason to hate us, too, but that doesn't mean I support rolling over and begging them for forgiveness. That won't work; there is no bottom to the pit of hatred they hold for us now. We've been trying to covertly cause an uprising in Iran ever since, with little to no success.

Trump is the first President to not want to interfere with Iran. He inherited this mess, and he's dealing with it. the only reason previous administrations wouldn't stand up to Iran is because they wanted Iran intact, with the oil and infrastructure, under our control. Trump doesn't want to control Iran, but he damn sure intends for them to not control us either.

Had the past administrations taken a similar stance and held it, we wouldn't be in this mess. If you want to blame someone, try Carter, Reagan (he could have done a lot more to fix the root cause), Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. They started and kept this show running, all because they wouldn't use our own resources to get the oil we need and be satisfied with that. They wanted to control all the world's oil so the dollar would always be the International Reserve Currency and they could enrich themselves off of future generations.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TzarChasm

He was taken out while fleeing the scene of a terror attack.

Feel free to sue the DoD for not allowing due process. Based on the thousands we have droned in the past id suspect you won't get far.


Do you mind sharing a link to the source of "fleeing the scene of a terror attack." I've been googling it and all I can find is this:



In brief remarks at his Mar-a-Lago resort in south Florida, Trump said Soleimani, who commanded Iran's Quds Force, had been caught "in the act" planning "imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."

"We caught him in the act and terminated him," Trump said in a brief address. "His reign of terror is over."


My thoughts on all this...Americans don't seem concerned of our allie countries having retaliation terror attacks, because all Americans worry about is attack on our land. Do you think we will be attacked on American soil? Probably not, but will there be attacks in other parts of the world? Probably so...This is all very scary...



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: KKLOCO

You have my blessing on this one...



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man

Your link speaks to what i said. Caught in the act....and we blew him up as he headed to the airport.

If we would headshot one of our own in a church you can imagine it wouldnt go well for foreign nationals trying to attack us on American soil. Their best bet is to attck urban areas....in the country we are exceptionally well armed.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man


Americans don't seem concerned of our allie countries having retaliation terror attacks, because all Americans worry about is attack on our land.

Well, think about it. Trump just took steps to protect direct US interests, and he is being attacked seven ways form Sunday over it. What would happen if he risked American lives over an ally?

Maybe after January 2020 the Democrats will be completely out of power and we can start assisting our allies as well.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join