Uk Prepares To Attack Syria & Iran

Originally posted by oilwar
Here is the link as requested:

"HMS Illustrious has helicopters and fighter bombers on board, which again could be used to aid any evacuation."

news.bbc.co.uk...

What do you expect an aircraft carrier to have on board? Cessna light aircraft?

Besides, as mentioned - it's in the wrong part of the world to attack Iran. And even Syria would be better targetted from Iraq ....

What do you expect an aircraft carrier to have on board? Cessna light aircraft?

Yeah an they will have small Nuke bombs attached to them just in case they need to attack syria eh Ha ha ha....

You are right, make no mistake. Syria and Iran could more easily be invaded from Iraq. That's one of the reasons why it was so important to maintain a huge military presence in Iraq long after the oil installations were siezed. Mechanised and armoured divisions are no doubt being lined up on Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran right now and Special Forces will already be well behind enemy lines.

The plan was to take down Iran, Iraq and Syria for the oil in Iran and Iraq and because they oppose Israel and desire a shift away from oil trading in US dollars. This shift could cause the US economy to collapse within weeks.

Afghanistan was invaded first, to enable the strategically critical building of the Centgas oil pipeline. Recently huge numbers of additional troops were sent there supposedly to fight the Taliban again but really to use Afghanistan's border with Iran to attack into Iran.

Iraq was softened for 10 years with bombs and sanctions and invaded second because it borders with both Syria and Iran with obvious benefits for the biggest operation of all - Iran. (Apart from being world oil country number two and having plans to stop using petrodollars.)

Syria will be next. It is partly just a formality but it borders Israel and hates Israel and has ports on the Mediteranean which can be used to bring in troops, arms and supplies. It is not expected to put up a lot of resistance but has Iran as an ally. To help invade Syria Lebanon is already being pounded into submission. They are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Iran is the world's most important producer of oil and plans to scrap the petrodollar threatening to destroy the US economy and US aid to Israel. Iran is going to be a big job. (As in World War III.) This is the ultimate prize. Its destruction relies on all the previous invasions in order to gain strategic locations and destroy its allies in the area. Thanks to the increasing numbers of troops pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan right now, the allied regimes are almost ready.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]

"The military began discussing plans to move an expeditionary strike group that includes 2,200 Marines to the Mediterranean Sea and hired a private cruise ship to take evacuees from Beirut to Cyprus"

www.washingtonpost.com...

Expeditionary strike group.
Expeditionary means they go out there. Strike means attack.

Hiring a private cruise ship to take people safely away from the bombs, artillery and missiles of America's ally, Israel, is understandable.

Sending an attacking force with thousands of Marines to add to Britain's Marines and fighter-bombers is completely unnecessary and clearly has nothing to do with the evacuation.

Who are they going to fight? Israel? That's who the evacuees are running away from, an ally, so why send a significant and heavily-armed attack force? Surely Israel won't blow up Americans in the same way as they blast innocent, uninvolved Lebanese civilian children into piles of broken toys, red pulp and stumps of bone and teeth?

(Nothing unusual about that, it's quite normal for Israel):

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...












(You like blood? You like Israel. Take a good long look at these, especially at the floor in the last photo. That was her home. She used to feel the way you feel about your home and loved ones. But don't worry it's just news. It's in another country happening to other people so who cares?)

If only these Israeli children were free of the propaganda and hate that has done this to them:



If only somebody would show the children the sort of photographs listed above and stop the deliberate campaign of hate and propaganda and brainwashing then perhaps there would be peace one day.


[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]

Sending an attacking force with thousands of Marines to add to Britain's Marines and fighter-bombers is completely unnecessary and clearly has nothing to do with the evacuation.

An attacking infantry force also makes a great defensive force when you may need to hold and protect ports and airports in order to facilitate and evacuation, its no more than most countries would do.

The fact that Israel is an ally of most of the countries that are having people evacuated is one of the reasons why they are being evacuated, they are in the line of attack from Hezzbolah and similar, it also makes ense to evacuate them just to keep them out of harms way and away from any furher military action by Israe or surrounding nations.

Have fun with your thread oil, you are misleading everyone on this thread. Trying to cause trouble between member on ATS no doubt, I for one is not gonna fall for it.

An attacking force is not a defensive force. Defense against what? Israel is our ally and only Israel is bombing Lebanon, forcing the evacuation of our people.

Nobody's stopping us using the ports and airports so you don't need troops to "hold" them. Israel is destroying the ports and airports, trapping these people. Israel is our ally and friend. So why not just ask Israel to stop? Why the troops? Who are they going to fight? Israel?

The evacuation is not because of Hezbola, they are only sending the occasional rocket into Israel, not Lebanon. You've been fooled by the media. It's Israel who is pouring ton upon ton of devastating explosives into densely-populated areas.

If you're going to "hold" ports and airports then you're attacking and invading. Lebanon has no plans to stop us using her ports. Only Israel is making it difficult.

So again, why the need for thousands of elite attack troops and fighter-bombers and warships etc. etc. etc??

[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]

Originally posted by oilwar
An attacking force is not a defensive force.

Oilwar - can the rhetoric and answer the question.

As I stated earlier about Illustrious

Illustrious carries the following usual aircraft compliment - 3 AEW Sea Kings, 9 ASW Sea Kings and 8 or 9 Sea Harriers. Do you honestly think that is enough to knock over the Iranian and Syrian Airforce?

ATS is about denying ignorance and providing FACTS. You are indulging in your own self gratifying war fantasy instead.

Stop the scaremongering.

Having troops to potentially hold ports/airports is a precautionary measure, its a perfectly normal response to the current sitiuation - lets not forget that Hezzbolah is anti Israel and anti-Israel allies.

I'd rather have armed troops available to assist than leave people in a situation where they where competely un-protected.

The RM's being sent are assigned to HMS Bulwark anyway and would accompany the ship on operations , whether military or humanitarian , humanitarian support using marines is quite common if they are available to help.

The main thing that people need to do is step back and realsie that everytime a ship sails sonewhere or troops are dployed somewhere, it doesn't mean that an invasion is imminent.

You clearly have not read the posts above.

This is not just about the small force set to attack Lebanon so that Lebanon can be used as a base from which to help attack Syria, then Iran. This is part of a campaign that has been taking place since before the first Gulf war.

Iraq has already been taken over. There is still a huge military presence there even though the war was declared ended long ago. That's because Iraq has borders with both Iran and Syria.

Afghanistan has already been taken over. More troops are STILL pouring in even though the war supposedly ended long ago. Thats because Afghanistan has a border with Iran.

"The FIRST wave of additional UK troops in Afghanistan arrive in the country."
news.bbc.co.uk...
13 July 2006

Slightly off the original topic, but, Nothing to do with the fact that the taliban are in the middle of a major offensive aginst the troops there ?
www.wsws.org...

This is presently only an evacuation, no actual invasion is currently going ahead .

Like I said above along with other posters, which you obviously didnt read, armed troops are there in order to ensure a safe evacuation - not to invade Lebanon.

A maximum of around 500 marines are carried on Bulwark, the MEU sending troops to support the evacuation has around 2200 troops available, that gives just under 3000 troops.

Certainly not enough troops to invade Lebanon as an offensive move and 9/10 sea harriers aren't going to manage much - chances are most of them will dis-embark when its safe in order to allow more evacuees to be carried if needed.

But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one and wait and see what happens.

Originally posted by oilwar
You clearly have not read the posts above.

This is not just about the small force set to attack Lebanon so that Lebanon can be used as a base from which to help attack Syria, then Iran. This is part of a campaign that has been taking place since before the first Gulf war.

Iraq has already been taken over. There is still a huge military presence there even though the war was declared ended long ago. That's because Iraq has borders with both Iran and Syria.

Afghanistan has already been taken over. More troops are STILL pouring in even though the war supposedly ended long ago. Thats because Afghanistan has a border with Iran.

"The FIRST wave of additional UK troops in Afghanistan arrive in the country."
news.bbc.co.uk...
13 July 2006

erm, more troops have been sent to Afghanistan, because British commanders on the ground requested them, after suffering a rise in casualties, along with the associated rise in contacts with taleban fighters.

Rest assured that I've read every post with care.

Armed troops are not required for a safe evacuation. The evacuation is only needed because of bombs from our ally Israel. And the only danger to evacuees is from our ally Israel. So no need for this small but heavily armed attack force.

3,000 Marines plus fighter-bombers - plus Israel's considerable and growing numbers of artillery, air support and ground forces near the border - will prove more than adequate to dispose of Lebanese resistance and pave the way to Syria, then Iran. So far Lebanon has done absolutely nothing to retaliate. It is a one-sided fight. An attack. An assault. A mugging. A crime. Goliath against David.

And Israel's massive assault against Lebanon is not really about the insurgents. Yes, they are in Lebanon. The July 7th bombers were from Luton and no doubt there are terrorists still there but it would hardly have been reasonable to bomb South East England would it?

Afghanistan was conquered several years ago and the Taleban government deposed and replaced. Of course the real reason was to secure the land for the Centgas oil pipeline so once that was buildable the Taleban were forgotten.

www.thedebate.org...

Indeed, we shall all see what happens next but sadly, once again history will begin afresh and the truth will be forgotten by almost everybody.


[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]

Oilwar, you do know that Hezbollah has two minister within the cabinet of Lebanon. This isn't simply a few seats in a parliament or assembley, its direct influence within the executive of the nation.

The Lebanese troops have failed to uproot the Hezbollah fighters, and perhaps this is why.

I do think the war is disproportionate. Yes, History didn't start wehn Israel says it does, but you fail to realise that all of the tensions in the area were created by a coalition of arab states INVADING Israel. And subsequently loosing men, equipment, infrastructure and terriotory in the process.

Iran and Syria have the blood of the Lebanese people on their hands. They are cowards, fighting a proxy war against 'satan's right hand man' through a bunch of islamo-facist terrorists that hide behind civilians, and fight without the limitations of international law and conventions.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

Originally posted by oilwar
An attacking force is not a defensive force. Defense against what? Israel is our ally and only Israel is bombing Lebanon, forcing the evacuation of our people.

Exactly. Israelis bombing our people. So we have to evacuate them.

Our people are being bombed by Israel.....

I know I'd want some decent air and ground support if I was arranging a mass evacuation!

There's also the problem that many of our people are unable to reach the coasts and are trapped in places like the Beka Valley - we may need assault teams to go in an get them out. Sure as hell the Israelis won't let 'em leave .....

And given the Israeli's past history with terrorist attacks against the British (Ariel Sharon was one of their leaders), who says they're our ally? I certainly wouldn't trust them

I admit that Israel was founded on violence. What country hasn't been? Revolutions, civil wars, overthrows, coups etc etc

Thats like saying Germany isn't our ally NOW, because of what it did in the past???

Israel would rarther there weren't Brits in Lebanon. There are also Sweeds, Swiss etc etc. Just as there were foreign nationals in Iraq and Serbia, when NATO bombed it. So we were attacking our own people?

Why will the Israeli's not let people leave? There's hundreds of people being evacuated safely as I type. Britain, France and other nations have made it quite clear that there are arrangments and agreements being made with the Israeli government for the safe passage of the foreign nationals.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

I know I'd want some decent air and ground support if I was arranging a mass evacuation!

exactly, but too many people assume that everyone follows Americas lead of invading every country in order to increase the sales of McDonalds and Coke.

Why will the Israeli's not let people leave? There's hundreds of people being evacuated safely as I type. Britain, France and other nations have made it quite clear that there are arrangments and agreements being made with the Israeli government for the safe passage of the foreign nationals.

There's not just Israel involved though, the other parties involved Hezbollah etc, may be only too keen to take a crack at 'Israel's Allies' in order to get political gain, imah=gine what pressure would be put on Israel if a few European/American hostages where spread around Beirut ?? (Not for the 1st time)

[edit on 18-7-2006 by CIS001]

Wrong!

In a sense the Zionists started it before Israel even existed in real life, when the global Zionist movement flooded the area known as Israel with Jewish immigrants because they believed God promised it to them thousands of years ago - even though God had supposedly since abandoned them.

The Arab/Israeli crisis began in 1897 when the First Zionist Congress met in Basle, Switzerland, to discuss the ideas set out in Theodor Herzl's 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). Herzl, a Jewish journalist and writer living in Vienna, wanted Jews to have their own state.

The Congress issued the Basle Programme to establish a "home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law" and set up the World Zionist Organisation to work for that end.

A few Zionist immigrants had already started arriving in the area before 1897. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, mostly from Eastern Europe. They lived alongside about half a million Arab residents in what was then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914.

In 1917, the British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour committed Britain to work towards "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", in a letter to leading Zionist Lord Rothschild. It became known as the Balfour Declaration.

The Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s saw hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to British Mandate Palestine, provoking unrest in the Arab community.

In 1922, a British census showed the Jewish population had risen to about 11% of Palestine's 750,000 inhabitants. More than 300,000 immigrants arrived in the next 15 years.

Zionist-Arab antagonism boiled over into violent clashes in August 1929. 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police.

But that's just the background! The Zionists effectively started the problems that linger today when the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi began orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of "liberating" Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force. This was the start of a serious campaign by the Zionist's movement to violently steal and take over Palestine and Jordan. This is the reason many Arabs hate Israel and America's support for Israel is the reason many Arabs hate America.

Arab discontent again exploded into widespread civil disobedience during a general strike in 1936.

To make matters even worse, in July 1937, Britain, in a Royal Commission headed by former Secretary of State for India, Lord Peel, recommended partitioning the land into a Jewish state (about a third of British Mandate Palestine, including Galilee and the coastal plain) and an Arab one.

Palestinian and Arab representatives rejected their homeland being divided up and gifted to the Zionist invaders and demanded an end to immigration and the safeguarding of a single unified state with protection of minority rights. Violent opposition continued until 1938 when it was crushed with reinforcements from the UK.

(Now the British puppet regime is again set to step in to beat up Israel's victims and opponents for her. Surprise surprise.)

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]

do you disagree with the rights of jews to having their own state?

so the Zionists wanted the establishment of the state, and sent over Jews. And the Arab Muslims didn't want it, and started attacking them..hmm.

The British gave them their state, and a year or two later: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia invade Israel....

I'm sorry, but how did the evil babyeating, banking, criminal zionist start the fight? It has more to do with the facist nature of fundemental Islam

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Peyres]

The Jewish claim to the land comes from their religion. The brutal Israeli regime actually began long before the rise of Zionist power if you believe Jewish/Christian scripture:

Numbers 21:
2 Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.

3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities

24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon

25And Israel took all these cities: and Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all the villages thereof

30We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba.

31Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites.

32And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there.

34... I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites...

35 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.

Sound familiar? Welcome to Zionism! The irony is that nobody has suffered more than the Jewish people as a result of Zionism. It's a terrible paradox.

There is nothing fascist or fundamentalist about feeling angry and resisting when a massive group of outsiders arrives, kills your friends, steals your land and continues to bulldoze homes full of families in order to build new settlements right up to the present day. How would you feel?


[edit on 18-7-2006 by oilwar]