Uk Prepares To Attack Syria & Iran

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Thanks.

Indeed this is the problem with high level conspiracies in which the conspirators are surrounded by experts in secrecy and counter-intelligence as well as having a significant degree of control over sections of the media.

They usually able to conceal their real motives behind spin and propaganda (such as "Iraq has WMD and they may nuke the United States, so we have to go in there. It's nothing to do with oil or Israel!"

However where their operations involve something that is impossible to conceal, such as large-scale troop movements or large numbers of people (particularly in foreign regions where their grip on the media is much looser) then it becomes much harder to conceal their operations. And occasionally they slip up as well. And they don't have infinite control over the media.

They then need to rely on propaganda and spin to make it look as though they are doing what they are doing for different reasons:

We sent the largest fleet in history close to Afghanistan just for training - just before 9/11. This fleet then invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11 - not the Centgas oil Pipeline or the Islamist threat to israel. (Saif Sareea II in Oman just before 9/11 – the Afghanistan invasion force were conveniently already in place thanks to the largest military deployment of all time - which they claimed was just an exercise!
www.army.mod.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...(R06)
www.sundayherald.com...
www.sundayherald.com...

We invaded Iraq because they had WMD ready to use against the United States - not because they are the world's second largest source of oil with a few conventional missiles aimed at Israel.

We needed to send troops to Lebanon to rescue our citizens being bombed by Israel. Not because we are gearing up to assist with the destruction of Lebanon and then invade Syria and from there Iran.

When you appreciate their real motives it's possible to expose them using their unconcealable operations as compelling circumstantial evidence.

For example:

ISRAEL ADMITS CIVILIANS ARE ITS REAL TARGET:
www.theinsider.org...

ISRAEL ATTACKS PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TOO:
www.theinsider.org...

"Britain is sending two ships, including an aircraft carrier, to the Middle East... ministry of defence said no "specific tasking" had yet been allotted to HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark."
news.bbc.co.uk...
(I think they may have changed the text to make it sound more innocent since I copied and pasted this quote.)

"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...

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

The Lebanese army has been ordered not to respond to the Israeli attacks. But Lebanese soldiers have now died in several strikes, including one on the port of Abdeh on Monday in which nine died.

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 20-7-2006 by oilwar]




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by oilwar
ISRAEL ADMITS CIVILIANS ARE ITS REAL TARGET:
www.theinsider.org...

ISRAEL ATTACKS PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TOO:
www.theinsider.org...



sorry, where in those articles does an Israeli official admit they are openely targetting civilians?

civilian INFRASTRUCTURE is what they are targetting, along with Hezbollah targets. Again you are taking an article and are twisting everythin that is being said to try and show something, you WANT TO HEAR.

civilian infrastructure becomes valid targets in war. Particularly if Hezbollah uses the communications network to conduct their operations.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
There seems to be no way out of this PNAC muck and mire. When I called my senator's office today, her legislative assistant had never heard of any of this, did not KNOW what "Project for a New American Century" is. No discussions in that office.


According to General Wesley Clark--the Pentagon, by late 2001, was Planning to Attack Lebanon -- "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:

www.legitgov.org...


"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

"...He said it with reproach--with disbelief, almost--at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. ...I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."


Of course, this wholly consistent with the US Neocons' master plan, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in August 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

And, as PNAC's website ( www.newamericancentury.org... ) notes, that the lead author of that plan, Thomas Donnelly, was a top official of Lockheed Martin--a company well acquainted with war and its profit potential.

It's no surprise that Republicans are starting to talk about withdrawing troops from Iraq; the troops will be needed in Lebanon. And maybe Sudan and Syria?



[edit on 24-7-2006 by joshai2334]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres

sorry, where in those articles does an Israeli official admit they are openely targetting civilians?



In the footsteps of his predeccesor "the butcher" Ariel Sharon, The war criminal Halutz has said that No place is safe in lebanon, and that he was going to punish Lebanon.



The Israeli chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said the airstrikes would continue until the Israeli soldiers were returned and the Lebanese government took responsibility for Hezbollah's actions. Israel also wanted to deliver, he said, "a clear message to both greater Beirut and Lebanon that they've swallowed a cancer and have to vomit it up, because if they don't their country will pay a very high price. " Asked about possible Syrian intervention, Halutz said: "There's no reason for the Syrians to jump into a pool they might drown in. "


Source

Maybe the Turks will now use this new precedence when the Kurds attack them. Lets see what happens when Turkey begins to bomb Iraqi infrastructure and civilians.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
So is the UK still planning to attack Iran and Syria?



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Was just reading this article about Bush/Blair convo where he got a sweater.. This guy
believes it was a 'code'.



When President Bush thanked Prime Minister Blair for the gift of a "sweater" yesterday, it was code. Bush was expressing appreciation for London's help in planning imminent secret operations to overthrow Bashar Assad in Syria, and eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program.


Their conversation didn't make these operations explicit, but other intelligence indicates that the U.S. and Britain have long been cooperating militarily. Given Israel's clever diversion in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, the timing may be just right for a double strike.

Source



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So is the UK still planning to attack Iran and Syria?


yes the ships are all on their way back, but we're still planning to take on Syria and Iran, on our own, with an overstrecth, underfunded, and underequipped, small (although well trained army) no naval support, and a hand full of ground attack bombers based in Cyprus


Maybe a Trident Sub somewhere.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Cool info thanks for keeping me inform.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
What I seem to infer is that the UK is backing out of further support.

Probably a good idea, for them--disastrous for Bush.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
My statement was said purely in jest of this ridiculous thread.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

On Meet the Press, Tim Russert points out a stunning press release from the White House Communications Office. The release, titled Setting The Record Straight, endorses an LA Times Op-Ed that calls for Israel to attack Syria:

"It's time to let the Israelis take off the gloves…. Israel needs to hit the [Syrian] Assad regime. Hard."

It's difficult to not interpret this as the White Communications Office officially endorsing an Israeli attack on Syria.

Source


It may not be the UK, but the US seems to be cheering Israel to expand this war as much as they can... What are they thinking?...



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Its odd how Oilwar, who started this thread, has not returned to explain the reason for the riduculous scaremongerng of hi/her earlier posts, or to explain how the UK was going to knock over Syria and Iran with 9 Harriers and some ASW helicopters backing 500 Royal Marines. I mean, I know that us British are tough, but hell, that would have taken some doing.

As for the ludicrously silly "you don't send an aircraft carrier to evacuate civilians" comment - well, excactly where is the best place to land helicopters that have gone in to pick people up off the ground - in the sea maybe?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
So is the UK still planning to attack Iran and Syria?


No, but maybe we should be thinking of attacking Israel in retaliation for their (allegedly) deliberate attack on UN observers - which resulted in 4 deaths



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
The UK is in no position to attack Syria or Iran. We will probably be dragged into it as part of another coalition of the corrupt by Tony Blair, backing up US forces and providing air support. Hell, all they gotta do to sway public opinion is have another staged terrorist attack in London leading back to the hoards of Iranian suicide squads ready to kill us all (they are all mad Muslims after all...aren't they?)



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
SYRIA & IRAN INVASION FORCE FORMING

"An international force must be quickly despatched to Lebanon, US President George W Bush has said. After talks in Washington with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair..."
(The word "force is a clue to the real plan - to force into Lebanon, then Syria, then Iran using Lebanon, Israel and Iraq as staging bases. This Bush-Blair summit is the equivalent of the one at Bush's ranch in which they made the final plans to attack Iraq. Is this going to be part of the invasion force? Will Israel stage an attack on this force by Hizbola, paving the way for the international force to step in?)
news.bbc.co.uk...

Israel is massing troops for the initial Lebanon invasion - ready to move into Syria:
"Israel has massed soldiers and tanks on the border with Lebanon and called up thousands of reserve troops, in a possible prelude to a ground offensive."
news.bbc.co.uk...

The US is massing troops in Iraq, which borders with both Syria and Iran:
"The Pentagon's decision to increase U.S. forces in Iraq will push troop levels there to roughly 135,000"
www.chron.com...

We are seeing the invasion force forming. It will follow a blitz of bombs, missiles and shells to soften up its targets just as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Syria and Iran are wise they will not retaliate when they are provoked. But they will prepare to defend themselves against total destruction.


Meanwhile in Lebanon the slaughter increases:
"families had been sheltering in the basement of the site, which was demolished. Rescuers said many of the casualties were children. Reporters spoke of people screaming in grief and anger amid the wreckage."
news.bbc.co.uk...

"Israel enjoys an indulgence from Washington far beyond anything previous, essentially giving it a free hand."
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Whilst I think you will turn out to be correct.

5000 extra troopa in Baghdad does not constitute an invasion force.

Even from your own source

The decision came in response to the escalating violence in Baghdad, and the new troop levels could remain for much of the next year


Yes tactically it is wise to put these extra troops(and armoured ones) in a position to flank '' the enemy'' but the reason given is legitimate and supported by a source I have in Baghdad...

Name will not be submitted publicly to respect his privacy but will be provided to Mods if required before anyone accuses me of hoax(bs),but he is part of the humanitarian/security efforts there

Having said that I think it is just a matter of time now



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
blahhh balls to syria and iran...we should do a suprise attack and nuke russia


bring back the empire, its only been 60 years - theres some life in the old dog yet.

RULE BRITANNIA


Ps:- i'm joking btw






[edit on 30-7-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Oilwar

Found this little blurb in jpost.



The IDF is also anticipating a possible Syrian attack on Israel in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It is also known that Syria has increased its forces along the border out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack Syria.

Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the United States that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.


Source





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant