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.

 

another US attack ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   


‘ironjello’, you work there, was/wasn't there an event there last weekend?


Not that i am aware of I Work By Boeing now and they are striking now other than the six who crossed the line. Plus I noticed all of this monday, it was not there on friday or saturday



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Hookay, jello, you are post banned until you fix the black on black mini-profile.

Bad boy!



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
IMO, the only way to fix this mess we have is another attack. I am sure the powers that be are frantically working 24/7 on this.

you know, something that will make us get up singing God Bless America....

This has become too predictable with this administration.. Since people seem to be wising up and being able to tell the "real sources" i would say this would be a very bad move...UNLESS we have a police state...then there's not much anyone can do.
The other shoe WILL drop.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
HalfofOne I must admit that I was alarmed when I read your post about Cheney directing STRATCOM to draft a contingency plan that would retaliate against Iran with tactical nukes regardless of whether Iran had attacked the US first. It sounded like some people's version of 9/11 all over again.

They even gave it a name: Guns of August.

But Cheney doesn't have the authority to wage his own little war without Bush's approval.

I think the final straws were these:
1. The statement was then widely distributed over the internet.

Do you know what this sounds like? Calling Iran's bluff is what it is. Otherwise why come up with a plan and then post it for everyone to see?

It's a game, there was no plan, Iran was just being pre-warned to behave.

2. The second and final thing that makes me brush this off is the fact that the article's author, Greg Szymanski, admits that the most compelling evidence for the existence of this plan is eyewitness accounts of Cheney's state of mind.


Sorry, not good enough.


[edit on 25-11-2005 by jsobecky]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   


But Cheney doesn't have the authority to wage his own little war without Bush's approval.

Who said that he doesn't/wouldn't, You think GW wouldn't aprove?

1.Huh? posted everywhere?? um it was written in a Conservativemagazine, I'd agree with you if I saw it on CNN and/or FOX. but No one really knows about this exept the "alternative media" crowd.
your agrument doesn't fly.
, I guess you need something to justify your position eh?

2. Well the origional artical was writen by Philip Giraldi.


Philip Giraldi is a former military intelligence and CIA counter-terrorism official. He is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, the co-publisher of Intelligence Brief and writes Deep Backround for the American Conservative.

source

A good interview with the man about his artical can be heard at the link above.



[edit on 25-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Everyones thinking large scale attack here.
And your correct when you say chenney doesnt have the authority to just hit someone, because bush is ultimately where the chain of command ends.

MY prediction?

Car bombs...
there the falvour of the season for terrorists..

And i do believe the next attack will come from WITHIN the US administration.
So imagine this,

3-4 medium - large scale car bombs.

2 at residential apartment blocks
1 to a govermental building
1 on the route that the president just happens to be driving down.

If all three bombs do what they are designed, your in a situation
where

1. Your leader is dead.
2. Your citizens have just been murdered
3. Your government has just been attacked.

What is stopping WHOM ever planned this attack from then brainwashing the public with 24/7 coverage, TELLING you the responsible parties, TELLING you what to believe.

That is a very dangerous stituation, especially since now the Vice President has power, and the nation is on its highest alert with already planned retaliation attacks thought out.. and possible prepared.

Sounds to easy doesnt it ?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
While I could see why, perhaps given what a lot of people believe about the 9-1-1 scenario and who was truly to blame, it would seem that the current administration may have something to gain by affecting another US soil attack I dont think that the American public would be duped yet AGAIN (if in fact they were duped the first go round) and instead would not see the after effects as the GW Bush and Co. as coming to the rescue, but as yet another in the series of failures of the current administration to keep the public safe. My opinion is that if it were to happen a vast majorities mindset would be "How could he let yet something ELSE happen like this".

Just to say one thing to Rasputin who I believe it was that asked one question in particular though that caught my attention and im sorry if im paraphrasing, but, the question was "Why would they (bush and co.) beef up security? Well, honestly, I could see that move...beef up security but make the attack a large enough scale to ensure that even with the counter-measures it wouldnt make a difference, thusly ensuring that the administration couldnt be accused of not being prepared.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by alphabetaone]

PS.. In the New York area there seems to be no additional security beef ups or activity out of the ordinary anyway

[edit on 25-11-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I know that hear say isnt much to go on here, but I over heard a couple military guys, back in October talk about how they had taken out bridges in Iran, and how the 101st was going to take it from there. Obviously it cant be proven, but after that, I looked it up and found several places where there were bridges and other things being bombed in Iran and Iran was blaming it on some group that they said is supported by our military. I will see if I can find that link.


NR

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
I know that hear say isnt much to go on here, but I over heard a couple military guys, back in October talk about how they had taken out bridges in Iran, and how the 101st was going to take it from there. Obviously it cant be proven, but after that, I looked it up and found several places where there were bridges and other things being bombed in Iran and Iran was blaming it on some group that they said is supported by our military. I will see if I can find that link.


Oh so your basiclly saying a couple of US troops walked right in and bombed some bridges? *whoopi doo* oooo wow thats going to hurt us badley
if you don't post down the link than it just prooves your a lyer and did this just to earn your little post. Please show all of us the pictures or the things you saw through the net i'm sure we all be interested....


[edit on 25-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Turkish Press Article on Bombings

[edit on 25-11-2005 by alphabetaone]

I believe this may be what mrsdudara is referring to although this suggests British involvement by the Iranian Government, not US involvement

[edit on 25-11-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone


But Cheney doesn't have the authority to wage his own little war without Bush's approval.

Who said that he doesn't/wouldn't, You think GW wouldn't aprove?

1.Huh? posted everywhere?? um it was written in a Conservativemagazine, I'd agree with you if I saw it on CNN and/or FOX. but No one really knows about this exept the "alternative media" crowd.
your agrument doesn't fly.
, I guess you need something to justify your position eh?

Justify?
You're a riot, kid!

Only the "alternative media" watches the internet?
Tell that to ATS.

Clue: Soon the internet will be the number 1 source of info for most people. I'm actually surprised you still rely on the boob tube. And CNN?


And as far as "posted everywhere", that's a given. Posted doesn't mean published. But as soon as it's on the internet, it has a million eyes on it.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that none of this could have actually happened. I just disagree that there was a serious threat to nuke Iran. It was saber-rattling, more or less.





posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
NR I can hear the mods coming... why do you have to resort to calling her a "lyer"? It's very childish, and more of that will get the thread shut down.

Go to your room.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Ummm... I don't rely on CNN, American network news makes me sick.

What I'm saying is that IF it was intended to "rattle sabers" then it would have been covered more in the MSM. Don't put word into people's mouths, I'm not saying that the alt media is the only one "watching the net" I belive I said, The alt media is really the only one reporting on this issue. If this was a bluff I think it would be a lot bigger, what's the point in rattling sabers in one magazine article? Are you saying that Philip Giraldi is spreading dis-info for the Neo-cons. Did you listen to the interview with him in the link provided?

What that is isn't a bluff, it's a crazy reaction to the falling poll numbers, I think that they think that a large scale attack on America will actualy do what it did after 9/11. It won't, but that doesn't mean that they won't try it.

You want some propaganda?
how about Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany



The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who suggested Tehran could be planning for a pre-emptive nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack on America that would turn a third or more of the country "back to a 19th century level of development."



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
NR I can hear the mods coming... why do you have to resort to calling her a "lyer"? It's very childish, and more of that will get the thread shut down.

Go to your room.


Not to mention calling her a liar isnt appropos, she stated 2 things, one of them being that she acknowledged hearsay isnt much to go on, basically saying that she understood that what she was saying may not be fact; 2 being that she didnt recall the link, unless you recall every link youve ever visited, i dont find it surprising that she didnt remember it at the time.
Im with jsobecky on this one.


Anyway NR, with respect to this:

Originally posted by NR
Oh so your basiclly saying a couple of US troops walked right in and bombed some bridges? *whoopi doo* oooo wow thats going to hurt us badley


Youre right about that, it wont hurt you badly or even slightly. Iran seems to be positioning itself to be isolationist which has very little use of bridges right?

[edit on 25-11-2005 by alphabetaone]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Ummm... I don't rely on CNN, American network news makes me sick.

What I'm saying is that IF it was intended to "rattle sabers" then it would have been covered more in the MSM.

We don't need to go any farther. There's no reason that the MSM needs to be involved at all. That's the hole in your bucket right there.


August has come and gone, so much for the Guns of August. So has October.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
First of all thank you everyone for sticking up for me.

Here is a quote out of one of the websites


GENEVA 7 May (The Asia Times) At the end of its military operation in April, the US military reached a ceasefire agreement with an Iraqi-based Iranian group, the Mojahedeen Khalq Organisation (MKO), a group declared by the US and British members of the "coalition of the willing" as terrorist. While the Americans described the agreement as a step toward the MKO's surrender, the group's backing by many members of the US Congress and its own claim of a rapprochement suggested a deal between the two sides.

Until the April agreement, designating a terrorist status to the MKO was the only common view of Tehran and the United States. In its efforts to normalise estranged US-Iranian ties, the Bill Clinton administration added the MKO to its list of terrorist organisations in the late 1990s. It also conducted an inquiry into the group's fundraising activities in the US. Notwithstanding these developments, the MKO, also operating under the name of the National Council of Resistance, has enjoyed the backing of many members of Congress. Viewing the MKO as an acceptable alternative to the current Iranian regime, on many occasions they have demanded the US government's support of the group to overthrow the Iranian regime.


Back when I was reading up on it it didnt talk about the UK just the US, but it does not surprise me that they are in on it too. We are on the same side. We dont sneeze without the UK saying "bless you" and vise versa.

I do not know if this website is credible. However I do know that there are thousands of sites saying the same thing. The MKO, aka MEK, aka NCR are terrorists who are for a democratic Iran. Right now, they basicly want the same things Washington wants right now. Right now they are a pretty dog gone good buddy for them to have. The US and UK, can supply them with what ever they need, and they can do what ever it is the US and UK want them to do inside Iran with out the US or UK ever actually going into their country.

It will make everything a bit easier when Iran pisses off the US and UK for the last time. That way we dont go in unprepared. So basicly, the war has already started. Just with out the reporters this time. Which is probably why most people dont think anything of it. " no, were not at war, its not on tv yet".

EDIT: I am not saying that this IS going on. What I do know is that we lost all the wargames with Iran, they have proved they are a threat, and we have a cowboy with shortman's syndrome running the show. So what I am saying is....if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, then maybe...even though you have not heard it quack yet.....its a duck.



[edit on 28-11-2005 by mrsdudara]

[edit on 28-11-2005 by mrsdudara]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join