Israel will attack US and blame Iran ?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I am unsure how credible this source is, of course the 'prophecy' part rang a bell and I am aware this is just the opinion/prediction of one person I know and I had never heard of Texe Marrs before today but saw this topic posted in another forum I am a member of so I google'd him and this is what I found.

Imminent US attack on Iran?


(1) Israel's Air Force and Navy armed with missiles and munitions provided to them by the U.S.A., will attack and severely damage one of our U.S. carriers, killing many of our servicemen.

(2) The savage attack will be blamed on Iran and its Prime Minister Ahmadinejad.

(3) The U.S. will launch massive air counterstrikes and naval bombardments at Iran, targeting that nation's entire military-economic infrastructure.

(4) The U.S. and Israel will simultaneously execute a media propaganda blitz to persuade the U.S. populace and the world that Iran is an aggressor, that Ahmadinejad is another Hitler, and that the U.S. military actions were simply counter-retaliation for Iran's "Pearl Harbor-like" assault on a U.S.A. vessel.

(5) End Result: Many American servicemen slain and wounded, tens of thousands of Iranians dead, Iran's economy spoiled, and Israel on top, oil prices skyrocket once again.


Whether or not the man or site is a credible source I found what he had to say quite interesting.
Could this not be a feasible way for the US gov't to decieve the people into believing an attack on Iran is justified ?


If Bush plans on going into Iran, there must be a massive attack on the Fifth Fleet, or a nuke in an American city. The trouble is — Israel knows it too.


With or without the conspiracy angle on the Us govt's involvement, he is insinuating that Israel may just be the ones to incite this attack.


On Oct. 31, the two nuclear-powered carriers, the USS Eisenhower and USS Enterprise, arrived in Bahrain, accompanied by their carrier strike groups. On Nov 9th, the USS Iwo Jima, and the USS Boxer also arrived. The presence of these carriers, combined with Israel's talk of a Iranian strike, sort of makes a person wonder if Bush is up to something. Assault Carriers and Full carriers


I personally don't know which ships are currently in the region but will get a copy of the Navy newspaper this Friday. Is this information on the web ? It wasn't in the online version of the paper but I know it is in the paper version every week.

I found this site also had information in this regard on the US Navy ships deployment to the ME and the same possibility of an attack on Iran by US and allied forces.

Naval build up in Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean

Which provides more information on the vessels being deployed. Notably the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise as well as others.


The U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships and vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led “War on Terror” under “Operation Enduring Freedom.”



Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer U.S.S. McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser U.S.S. Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the “fast combat support ship” U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Supply will be a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship missile attacks.

The U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne Early Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event of a war with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings of danger to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the helicopter squadron specialized for combating submarines traveling with the strike group. “Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11” will be on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to be the home of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous submarine fleet in the region.

The Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also received orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led by the U.S.S. Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian coast.



If Bush plans on going into Iran, there must be a massive attack on the Fifth Fleet, or a nuke in an American city. The trouble is — Israel knows it too.


With or without the conspiracy angle on the US govt's involvement, he is insinuating that Israel may just be the ones to incite this attack here.

The US Navy's ships are something I'll be keeping an eye on though.

What do you think this means ?




[edit on 6-12-2006 by ImJaded]




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
That’s all fine, but…

The Enterprise (CVN 65) is home in Virgina.

The Ike is has been is operating according to a previously scheduled deployment working support of MSO in Afghanistan.

This summer’s Lebanon-Israeli activity has a major hand (naturally) in international troop and naval movements in the Eastern Med, especially at the time of one of the articles as posted.

The more likely scenario (if there is one) is that Israel will “go-it alone” and Iran will attempt to close the strait and retaliate against Israel.

Closing the strait in its’ own right will draw the US into the fray, no need for all this false flag stuff.

mg



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Well that would make more sense anyway wouldn't it ? The US can keep their hands clean so to speak and it's no secret Israel would love to go head to head with Iran. I doubt they would even need/wait for the US to give them the green flag to do so.

Thanks for your reply and info missed_gear



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Does this sound familiar?It seems like he just rehashed his ole Iraq speech with new references to Iran in it.





But for others around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush’s plan to dismantle Sadaam Hussein’s regime?

I do not mean to suggest that there are not legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq. Indeed, there are. But the question of whether removing Sadaam’s regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. Equally immaterial is the argument that America cannot oust Sadaam without prior approval of the international community.

This is a ruler who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. This is a dictator who has used these weapons of mass destruction against his subjects and his neighbors. And this is a tyrant who is feverishly tying to acquire nuclear weapons.

The dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Sadaam were understood by my country two decades ago, well before September 11. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Began dispatched the Israeli air force on a predawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Though at the time Israel was condemned by all the world’s governments, even by our closest friend, history has rendered a far kinder judgment on that act of unquestionable foresight and courage.

History’s judgment should inform our own judgment today. Did Israel launch that preemptive strike because Saddam had committed a specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with the international community? Did we condition that operation on the approval of the United Nations?

No, Israel acted because we understood that a nuclear-armed Sadaam would place our very survival at risk. Today, the United States must destroy that same regime because a nuclear-armed Sadaam will place the security of our entire world at risk.

Make no mistake about it. Once Sadaam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used.

Source




Though I am today a private citizen, I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a preemptive strike against Sadaam’s regime. We support this preemptive American action even though we stand on the frontlines, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines. But we know that their sense of comfort is an illusion. For if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril.


I do believe men like this would not hesitate and have the wherewithall to pull of such an attack as long as they felt that it would achieve something they felt had a higher purpose. The attack on the USS Liberty was such an operation that had a higher purpose, had it succeeded. You can also bet your sweet bippy that those people would have no qualms about maintaining silence. They know any leak would be the end of their homeland.

Secy. of Defense Gates has already stated that there would be grave repurcussions if we were to attack Iran and the only way Iran is going to get attacked would be is if Israel decides to go it alone or if something were to happen on american soil again that would implicate Iran.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Does this sound familiar? It seems like he just rehashed his ole Iraq speech with new references to Iran in it.


I don’t believe one can easily overlay the Iraqi scenario atop an Iranian scenario. Comparing the two is an oversimplification.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Secy. of Defense Gates has already stated that there would be grave repurcussions if we were to attack Iran and the only way Iran is going to get attacked would be is if Israel decides to go it alone or if something were to happen on american soil again that would implicate Iran.


I recall during the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination Gates was asked whether he believed Iran was indeed seeking nuclear weapons. He said “yes”. Gates was also asked if Iran was lying about its’ nuclear ambitions, he said “yes”.

I only recall during the hearing Gates making the opinioned statement along the lines that he was unsure if Iran would actually attack Israel and that he could not assure Israel Iran would not attack her with nuclear weapons; but he added the risks for Iran in contemplating or making such and attack is extremely high.

Gates did say he favored dialogue with Iran and he would support an attack only as a last resort. But as far as “grave repercussions” I can’t find where he said that about Iran.

However, given the large student protests in Iran over the past few days and the Majlis seeking to hold the presidential elections early (February 2008 instead of June 2009) in an attempt to balance the power may be a clear sign of a weakening of Ahmadinejad’s policy support (among other things).


mg



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

I only recall during the hearing Gates making the opinioned statement along the lines that he was unsure if Iran would actually attack Israel and that he could not assure Israel Iran would not attack her with nuclear weapons; but he added the risks for Iran in contemplating or making such and attack is extremely high.

Gates did say he favored dialogue with Iran and he would support an attack only as a last resort. But as far as “grave repercussions” I can’t find where he said that about Iran.

However, given the large student protests in Iran over the past few days and the Majlis seeking to hold the presidential elections early (February 2008 instead of June 2009) in an attempt to balance the power may be a clear sign of a weakening of Ahmadinejad’s policy support (among other things).


mg


MG
Gates went further and admitted that Israel had nukes and went on further to say that its part of the reason why Iran is looking for nukes, because Israel has them,Pakistan has them as well as India.



Incoming U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told a Senate committee on Thursday that Israel has nuclear weapons, and that this partially explains Iran's motiviation to acquire nuclear weapons.

"They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons - Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," he told the Senate committee during his confirmation hearing.

Though Israel is widely assumed to have a nuclear weapons arsenal, it has stuck to its policy of ambiguity on the subject, insisting against all the evidence that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. A retired Israeli general said Thursday Israel is no longer trying to convince anyone that it has no nuclear arsenal.


Source

Edit to add



Transcript:

BYRD: Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

And, Dr. Gates, our relationship goes back over a number of years.

Do you support — now, we hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria due to its support of terrorism.

Do you support an attack on Iran?

GATES: Senator Byrd, I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us.

I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic.

And therefore, I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt our vital interests were threatened.

[snip]

BYRD: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties?

GATES: Yes, sir, I think that’s very likely.

BYRD: Your answer is yes on both questions?

GATES: Yes, sir, very likely.


Source

[edit on 8-12-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Gates went further and admitted that Israel had nukes and went on further to say that its part of the reason why Iran is looking for nukes, because Israel has them,Pakistan has them as well as India.


Thanks for the source.

Yeah, he slipped-up a bit by referring to Israel as a “nuclear power” by lumping them together with the Russians and the Pakis. Perhaps (and I hope) there is some pressure building from the US to get Israel to openly admit to their nuclear weapons program and nuclear arsenal….hell, everyone knows they have nukes. If Israel opened-up to the IAEA completely and disclosed the appropriate portion of their program to the IAEA and moved foreword from there, Iran would have very little argument left.

Robert Byrd did ask some direct questions during the confirmation hearing of Gates; but also seized the opportunity to make some claims of his own. Most of Gates’ answers during the process could be expected or anticipated as obvious and opaque.

I am still of the opinion Israel will strike Iran on its’ own and fairly soon. There are pretty strong and reliable indications that have been publicly surfacing for some time now that Israel is of the belief that mid 2007 is the ‘point of no return’ with Iran. Add to that Israel’s formation of the new “ministry for strategic affairs” (publicly announced priority one is the Iran threat) and placed the hawkish, ultra-nationalist and Yisrael Beytenu party member Avigdor Lieberman at the helm…Israel won’t tolerate Iran crossing the nuclear line.

Iran of course would immediately blame the United States for any attack by the Israeli’s and threaten to (or actually) close the strait and quite possibly retaliate directly in Iraq…any of which would drag the US into a direct armed conflict with Iran. My thinking is that this is a much easier scenario sell to the populace and for people to digest anyway...epspecially if the US’s ultimate intentions truly are to engage Iran militarily.

mg



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
Thanks for the source.

Yeah, he slipped-up a bit by referring to Israel as a “nuclear power” by lumping them together with the Russians and the Pakis. Perhaps (and I hope) there is some pressure building from the US to get Israel to openly admit to their nuclear weapons program and nuclear arsenal….hell, everyone knows they have nukes. If Israel opened-up to the IAEA completely and disclosed the appropriate portion of their program to the IAEA and moved foreword from there, Iran would have very little argument left.


How can israel join the IAEA if they have nuclear weapons? I don't think that would be possible. It would have to be that they renounce WMD's and only used it for nuclear power and if I'm wrong please correct me.
Not that this would be a bad thing. I think that the topic of ME nuclear disarmament has come up many times and Israel disagreed to any such talks. They won't even agree to an inspection team of their facilities or even release info as to their waste disposal process.




I am still of the opinion Israel will strike Iran on its’ own and fairly soon. There are pretty strong and reliable indications that have been publicly surfacing for some time now that Israel is of the belief that mid 2007 is the ‘point of no return’ with Iran. Add to that Israel’s formation of the new “ministry for strategic affairs” (publicly announced priority one is the Iran threat) and placed the hawkish, ultra-nationalist and Yisrael Beytenu party member Avigdor Lieberman at the helm…Israel won’t tolerate Iran crossing the nuclear line.

BTW Its "Ministry of Strategic Threats"

MG I think this would be a mistake on Israel's part. It would be an act of folly. I think they would be condemning their citizens to death. Israel could never launch a long range attack against Iran unless they were using long range missiles and submarines. The use of Jets will be very unlikely. It would never be enough to punch a hole through their facilities, and if that were to happen , a rain of missiles would fall down upon Israel and basically wipe the place out. Unless Israel uses WMD's they will not be successful in their foolish endeavor. If they did such a thing, it would surely mark Israel for death soon afterwards.
As a matter of fact I would probably say not only would Israel be marked but any follower of Judaism would also probably be a target of violence following such an act by the use of nuclear weapons on the muslim state. If Israel were to attack Mecca and Medina in retaliation as many believe this "Sampson Option" to include , then it would surely be their end.

Israel should calm down and sit down to the table and come to an agreement. Israel should cease trying to damage Iran with baseless claims as it has been for the past 10+ years and go back to being a trade partner with Iran as it once was before and clear up any debts owed to Iran for its petroleum debts during the Shahs period of reign. I sometimes wonder if this isn't all related in an effort to wipe out these old multi-hundreds of millions dollar debts. Israel is not in the habit of paying back loans in full.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
How can israel join the IAEA if they have nuclear weapons? I don't think that would be possible. It would have to be that they renounce WMD's and only used it for nuclear power and if I'm wrong please correct me.

Israel, Pakistan and India have all been asked on several occasions to enter the NPT regime by the IAEA.

I can’t find a precise diagram for the mechanics of how this would work. From reported questions asked of Elbaradei, UN diplomats and a few articles, I know a NP agreement of substance comes first coupled with full and open inspections of all reactors etc. with the exception of existing weapon stockpiles as the first steps. Exactly, how these countries ascend completely to the NPT and the weapons are dealt with is, I presume, still guess-work as the first steps haven’t been taken and it is new territory.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
They won't even agree to an inspection team of their facilities or even release info as to their waste disposal process.


Israel has made a number of strides such as openly supporting the NSG, she ratified the CPPNM and has enter into the CTBTO with interim measures (but not entered in force in its’ entirety), however she also has allowed sensors and seismic stations to be placed on her soil. She also implemented and supports the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources by the IAEA….an a few others, but far more than other states not party to the NPT such as Pakistan, India and N. Korea.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
BTW Its "Ministry of Strategic Threats"

Lol…You’ve been reading too much from Ha’aretz, even AJP got it right.



mg



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
Israel, Pakistan and India have all been asked on several occasions to enter the NPT regime by the IAEA.


I think that none of these countries should have access to any WMD's whatsoever N.K. included. I think its a double standard to knowingly allow them access to these weapons without any type of punishment and then to look at Iran as though they are doing something wrong merely because one of the above countries makes a complaint about it




Israel has made a number of strides such as openly supporting the NSG, she ratified the CPPNM and has enter into the CTBTO with interim measures (but not entered in force in its’ entirety), however she also has allowed sensors and seismic stations to be placed on her soil. She also implemented and supports the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources by the IAEA….an a few others, but far more than other states not party to the NPT such as Pakistan, India and N. Korea.


I'm sorry MG but the old Hemophelia commercial went "So close but yet so far". To adopt it but not ratify it sounds like a hemophelia commercial.
Seismic detectors for what? They won't test the bombs on their own soil...they already did that off the coast of South Africa quite some time ago. If they didn't test it then on their own soil, then why would they do such a thing now? All these things are all almosts and nothing in the range of for sure 100%. No IAEA inspections , no monitoring , no watchdogs , nada. If Chernobyl caused so much damage then what happens when or if a reactor in Israel goes wrong? Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine,Syria will all be affected due to the small area that Israel occupies. I think more needs to be done. Israel is not the sole occupier on that continent.


Pie



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
How can israel join the IAEA if they have nuclear weapons? I don't think that would be possible. It would have to be that they renounce WMD's and only used it for nuclear power and if I'm wrong please correct me.

Israel, Pakistan and India have all been asked on several occasions to enter the NPT regime by the IAEA.

I can’t find a precise diagram for the mechanics of how this ascension would work. From reported questions asked of Elbaradei, UN diplomats and contents of a few articles, I understand a NP agreement of substance comes first coupled with full and open inspections of all reactors etc. with the exception of existing weapon stockpiles as the first steps. Exactly, how these countries ascend completely to the NPT and the weapons are dealt with is, I presume, still guess-work as the first steps haven’t been taken and this hasn’t occurred since the conception of the NNPT.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
They won't even agree to an inspection team of their facilities or even release info as to their waste disposal process.


Israel has made a number of forward strides towards openly supporting the NSG, she ratified the CPPNM and has enter into the CTBTO with interim measures (but not entered in force in its’ entirety), however she also has allowed sensors and seismic stations to be placed on her soil. She also implemented and supports the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources by the IAEA….and a few others, but still far more than other states not party to the NPT such as Pakistan, India and N. Korea.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
BTW Its "Ministry of Strategic Threats"

Lol…You’ve been reading too much from Ha’aretz, c’mon even AJP got it right.



mg



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
old thread,

but just searched for my recent thread and found this old one with the same theory.

what "prophecy", though??






new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join