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.

 

Now here's a prediction that's scary

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Could Iran's madman been hinting that he plans to initiate armageddon on Aug. 22?

One Muslim thinks so.....

www.drudgereport.com...


WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran's Ahmadinejad May Have 'Cataclysmic Events' In Mind For August 22
Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET

In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton's Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers."

"In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Developing...



*Use [ EX ] tags for external quotes*


[edit on 8-8-2006 by dbates]




posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Well, if Iran really wants to bring an Apocalypse down on themselves, all they need to do is start something up. They may have the ability to build an atomic bomb, but they still have to get it to where it needs to go. And those babies are heavy. If they have an old Soviet missile, they might be able to lob one as far as Tel Aviv. Chances are they wouldn't aim for Jerusalem. Maybe they could truck one into Baghdad, but I doubt it.

Anyway, it they actually did manage to pull off one successful nuclear attack, I'm sure the United States will be happy to help them in their suicide efforts by launching a counter-attack that would turn every city, village and goat farm in Iran into smoldering radioactive dust piles. Happy to oblige.




posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
in tom clancys splinter cell, the book, if any of you have read it, a mid eastern madman builds a nuclear bomb called the pheonix, that he launches and a fighter jet destroys. kinda random but coresponds to the reading you provided



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
They would surely need more nuclear weapons than they currently have for this to occur. What do they have, one or something. So they can nuke a city in Israel and then watch Iran burn as Israel uses it's extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons back against them. After that, it's over, Iran is destroyed but it's far from a world apocalypse.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry about Ahmadinejad. It's his ideals that are scary. I just watched
V for Vendetta so I'm gonna reference something that V said.
He talked about how you cannot kill ideals. I think he used the word ideals and he said
more elegantly than I could hope to. Surprisingly, it doesn't start with a 'V' , go figure.

So it's the ideal that we have to tackle. We all know what needs to be addressed to change that ideal, and we all know that that is impossible with current affairs the way they are.

Cause and effect.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
With that much hate and motivation I would not be surprised if he had a larger aresenal than we think.

I am so lost as how someone can claim to be a holyperson and so into all this and believe this is doing good? Why would you do a bad think to try to trigger god or whatever they believe will happen? I would think I would just live and wait if that was my credo.

What do I know as I am sure an infidel.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
it was just on fox news a man in silhouette talking about a huge disater to take place on this date.


would they do that....do you think they would actually give a date like this and then actually fulfill it?

[edit on 12-8-2006 by Shar]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
He's still upset we got our hostages back thanks to President Reagan. He must
think his vision of how Iran should rule the world over all us zionists who
live for democracy and human rights is one we should all accept.
It would easier to take out one man than a whole country, should have
given Mike Wallace a gun.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by u4itornot]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonite
With that much hate and motivation I would not be surprised if he had a larger aresenal than we think.

I am so lost as how someone can claim to be a holyperson and so into all this and believe this is doing good? Why would you do a bad think to try to trigger god or whatever they believe will happen? I would think I would just live and wait if that was my credo.



Even if he did a Nuclear attack, Israel probably couldn't destroy Iran anyway. And if they did attack Iran then the other Islamic countries that surround Israel would perhaps attack Israel, and It could be like the start of world war 1 again, where those countries sparked off something bigger.

Anyway, we saw when Iraq invaded Iran on the 1980s that Iran will just use waves of fanatics charging at Invaders anyway.


Originally posted by masonite
What do I know as I am sure an infidel.


Well to you Ahmadinejad is an Infidel, so whats it matter?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Has Bush had anything to say about this? Has any of the religious zealots commented on this?
I'd like to know what he (Bush) would have to say. I certainly hope its nothing like, "bring it on"....


It would not surprise me in the least.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
You bring up a good point. Bush has been particularly quiet in the religous department when discussing Iran, particularly their president and his views. Almost as if.. Bush himself (i keep accident typing Bish lol) is scared at the prospects of what Iran might be provoked into doing, however foolish that may be.

Iran would clearly lose 1 on 1 in a nuke toss against the USA. They'd probably even lose to Israel in a nuke toss, despite Israel's size, its nukes are mobile .. on submarines and warships, and could also be in other countries, not to mention deep bunkers under Israel. And if enough were fired to spell complete doom for Israel, theyd have enough reaction time to spell doom for Iran in the same manner.

It would be too stupid to attempt, even for a crazy radical, who was elected democraticly. There would have to be a numer 2 country involved.. on Iran's side, near the moment of crisis, that will suddenly come out in open support of Iran's defense. I'm sure we could all figure out who this country is .. Russia. Despite our current ties, things are getting rocky, Putin is moving further and further from democracy, and is usually against us in every other world issue. They don't have a fondness for Israel whatsoever, infact, they have better relations with the Muslim world BY FAR, probably as good as their European and Asian relations, if not better!

Russia is the missing piece to the puzzle. Iran wont move until they know they have the backing.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by u4itornot
He's still upset we got our hostages back thanks to President Reagan. He must
think his vision of how Iran should rule the world over all us zionists who
live for democracy and human rights is one we should all accept.
It would easier to take out one man than a whole country, should have
given Mike Wallace a gun.

[edit on 12-8-2006 by u4itornot]


Well said.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang


It would be too stupid to attempt, even for a crazy radical, who was elected democraticly. There would have to be a numer 2 country involved.. on Iran's side, near the moment of crisis, that will suddenly come out in open support of Iran's defense. I'm sure we could all figure out who this country is .. Russia. Despite our current ties, things are getting rocky, Putin is moving further and further from democracy, and is usually against us in every other world issue. They don't have a fondness for Israel whatsoever, infact, they have better relations with the Muslim world BY FAR, probably as good as their European and Asian relations, if not better!

Russia is the missing piece to the puzzle. Iran wont move until they know they have the backing.


You forget that if they die while fighting or killing there enemy they will get into heaven with all the virgins, and they think it is there duty to usher in the end times.

So they only need 1 nuke to drop on Israel to spark a war like this.

You are right about Russia being the missing piece to the puzzel. It could get very ugly.

God help us all.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
One aspect people are missing is that Iran can't lob a nuke missle over to Israel without ALOT of advance warning first. I mean, our people would detect Iran fueling some missile hours, if not days, before the country would be capable of launching.

Remember North Korea? We knew about those pending missile tests, what, two weeks before they were launched?

So, if Ahmadinejad truely is planning something "over the skies of Jerusalem," and it's, as we are predicting, nuclear in nature, then it will be guised as a terrorist attack (suitcase nuke, maybe).

Or maybe not a nuke at all. We're making assumptions here because of their race for nuclear achievement. Maybe an EMP blast is up his sleeve -- which, while saving lives, would create sufficient chaos in Israel.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I think alot of people are getting carried away with their nuke theories even if Iran did blow up Israel somehow? with some nuclear arsenal(where is the intelligience coming from?, there is no way they would be able to hit America?, their only chance perhaps would be through terrorism activity?)

I believe that countries in the aftermath of such an event wouldnt be 2 keen to just nuking the perpetrator...(in theorised cases many believe to be Iran)...I believe that the WORLD learned how inhumane these weapons could be and the lasting effect on generations afterwards POST-HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI.

In the aftermath of such an atrocity the UN would surely be involved and the "purpose" of the UN is to keep relative peace, So I believe that it would be more likely that Iran would be invaded the crazy guy that is in charge would be ommitted and if they resisted they would become subject to bloody end.

My point is that IF Iran did launch a nuke at Israel(most likely, perhaps America could possibly become subject to an attack on home soil through an Iranian sleeper cell.) then the leaders of the world would surely know that to just
NUKE the $#!t out of Iran wouldnt be very smart, think of the Iranian people the UN isnt going to allow millions of innocent people be murdered on an unprecidented scale



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
...or they could just start lobbing artillery over the border from their mountain range border region to Iraq's east, at all of our bases and positions and stuff. Same for the Persian Gulf, they could initiate land to sea missle attacks from there, maybe other tactics. they could full well invade Iraq, bringing the Shia majority in uprising against us, getting America's puny 120,000 and whomever else is in the coalition over there beat down and eventually shipped out back home.

That is what Iran would be after.. thats where they have so much to gain, and its where they could beat our overwhelming force due to the overall size of the regions of conflict and the fact that they are facing America's forces on the other side of the globe than their home country, at Iran's doorstep.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex


Anyway, we saw when Iraq invaded Iran on the 1980s that Iran will just use waves of fanatics charging at Invaders anyway.



Well to you Ahmadinejad is an Infidel, so whats it matter?
\




hey my grandfather was a general of the Iranian Army, when the shah was in power but when the mulahs came in power they threatened to execute him if he didnt leave the army in which the shah had power over, so he left. and dont think that Iran doesnt have a good army he has told me stories of how it was like, and its not all fanatics charging invaders away, they actaully make plans. its the Super religious poeople in Iraq, that are like that, not to offend anyone.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
One aspect people are missing is that Iran can't lob a nuke missle over to Israel without ALOT of advance warning first. I mean, our people would detect Iran fueling some missile hours, if not days, before the country would be capable of launching.

Remember North Korea? We knew about those pending missile tests, what, two weeks before they were launched?


We detected North Korea fueling its missles because there launch site was above ground. If Iran has an underground missle silo we would not know anything till the silo was opened prior to launch.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeH PwNeR

Originally posted by apex
Anyway, we saw when Iraq invaded Iran on the 1980s that Iran will just use waves of fanatics charging at Invaders anyway.
Well to you Ahmadinejad is an Infidel, so whats it matter?
\




hey my grandfather was a general of the Iranian Army, when the shah was in power but when the mulahs came in power they threatened to execute him if he didnt leave the army in which the shah had power over, so he left. and dont think that Iran doesnt have a good army he has told me stories of how it was like, and its not all fanatics charging invaders away, they actaully make plans. its the Super religious poeople in Iraq, that are like that, not to offend anyone.


I know that Iran has a normal army as well, its just that if they get desperate they will probably use fanatics as there will probably be plenty of them who are willing to fight.

I watched a program about the Iran-Iraq war, and it said that fanatics were used on some areas of the Iraqi attacks. Nowadays there are probably even more fanatics.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   


We detected North Korea fueling its missles because there launch site was above ground. If Iran has an underground missle silo we would not know anything till the silo was opened prior to launch


What makes you think that Iranian based missiles are going to reach America piilleeaaasssseee!... they would probably be able to attack its neighbouring countries any further and it would be shot down



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join