Israel, U.S. Exacting Date Of Attack On Iran, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 6-8-2008 @ 08:56 PM by MegaCurious

Israel, U.S. Exacting Date Of Attack On Iran


www.huliq.com
According to the sources, preparations for the attack were coordinated during recent frequent visits by senior Israeli officials to the U.S., and that Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has got a green light from President Bush to carry out an extensive air and ground attack against Hezbollah. The sources added that this attack, which could be in late September or early October, would be a prelude to an expected attack on Iran in November or December.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:06 PM by 2fas4u
I agree< the timing seems to be coordinated


reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:14 PM by Vitchilo
Ron Paul have heard from congress that it's basically a done deal. So it's not a great surprise.

The new thing for Israel is that it will be easier to fight Hezbollah this time because the lebanese government approved Hezbollah in their actions and legitimised them by law, giving them full support, the right to keep their arms and the goal of liberating the ``occupied lands``... so they can invade and when they defeat the capital, they will occupy lebanon once again.

So if Israel strikes first, they can strike the Lebanese government as a legitimate target. Of course Israel will be seen as the agressor, which they are, they might do a false-flag, but a little one...

I remember early in the war against Hizbullah, I saw reports that the troops captured by Hizbullah that started the whole war were in Lebanon when they were captured doing covered actions.

Anyway, to go into Iran after, they will have to defeat Hizbullah, which is no easy task, because of Hizbullah 40.000+ missiles arsenal. IMO it will last more than 30 days this time and there will be much more casualties on both sides.

Bush will not stay in power IMO, Obama is a too good puppet and have too much charisma for the NWO to risk all the operation with Bush, the guy who everyone hate. But Bush have his own ``NWO team`` and they are the most crazy.

An attack on Iran also signifies the collapse of the US economy, the US dollar and probably riots and police-citizens fights. And of course hundreds of US troops dead in Iraq.

Russia will be pissed. While the others NWO countries in the security counsel are going for sanctions, Russia want more diplomacy. And of course the whole Iran thing isn't just a strike against the nuclear program, they aim for a regime change... which will piss off Russia even more.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Vitchilo]


reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 11:30 PM by dooper
reply to post by MegaCurious


I don't know what all the timing is about. Quit fooling around and loan the Israeli's three or four of our B-2's fully outfitted with nukes. We could call it the Lend Lease program, just like we did with Britain and Russia in WWII. The best part? Once we lease or lend something out, whatever happens is not our fault. Let's then see Hizballah procure funding.

And done quickly and by blanketing the country of Iran, the only way Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz would be if they could throw rocks that far.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:30 AM by itguysrule
I'm starting to think that all of this talk about the US "throwing Israel under the bus" is just part of the plan. Here is my view of what is really happening:

Since it is an election year President Bush can't just go off and attack Iran even if he wants to or has a good reason to do so. The US can't be seen as the one who starts the next war.

Enter Israel. The Israelis believe they are facing an existential threat so they are going to do whatever it takes to preserve their country. Since everybody hates Israel no matter what they do, they can be the bad guys and the US can "come to their rescue" once the hostilities have started. In other words, Bush can't start the war with Iran, but I am sure he will finish it.

I'm guessing that Bush had this exact discussion with the Israeli leadership. He said he has to distance himself from them and appear to be looking for a diplomatic solution. Israel agrees to play along and act all upset that the US is distancing itself from Israel and trying to work with Iran and avoid war. Israel also agrees that at a certain point, maybe it is a date or maybe it is an event, they will attack Iran with everything they have. The US agrees that once the fighting really starts, we will come in with massive firepower and destroy not only the Iranian nuclear program and military, but the regime as well. That way President Bush can always say he tried to avoid war but could not let our ally Israel be destroyed.

Once the fighting starts and thousands of missiles start to fall on our ally Israel, even our most pacifist democratic congresscritters will fall in line and vote to defend Israel. That action will, in turn, validate the President's actions and make the war with Iran "legal."

This is just my opinion and I hope I am wrong, but this sure looks like a setup to me.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 03:17 AM by pluckynoonez
reply to post by princeofpeace


which one? The one that says diplomacy/gathering threat or some on and so much? I read it. So?


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 07:07 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by dooper


I don't know what all the timing is about. Quit fooling around and loan the Israeli's three or four of our B-2's fully outfitted with nukes. We could call it the Lend Lease program, just like we did with Britain and Russia in WWII. The best part? Once we lease or lend something out, whatever happens is not our fault. Let's then see Hizballah procure funding.


No offence but you need your head checked.

Advocating a Nuclear first strike on a nation which has yet to be CONCLUSIVELY linked to any nefarious activities.

It's been a year since the Nuclear programme accusations started and what have we gotten from the US, Israel and the IAEA?

Nothing. Not a damn thing. The same limp-wristed maybes used to justify Iraq. "Iran might do this..." "Iran might have these...".

They've got nothing concrete and they know it which is why America is not going to take the initiative here. They don't want another Iraq and Bush has already made all the necessary preparations to completely clear his name and himself of any wrongdoing relating to Iraq or Afghanistan before he leaves office.
He wants to get out scott-free, I seriously doubt he's going to attempt military action just 3 months before his end of term.

I believe the Israelis are going to go at this one alone, Shaul Mofaz, a popular running candidate for the next Israeli election has already blurted out:

"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it".

english.aljazeera.net...

If he comes to power I have no doubts Israel will try to pull some stunt in the Middle East.
And with all the mounting pressure on Olmert to resign it looks very likely.

This could easily happen before November and that'll give Mofaz plenty of time to coordinate with the Americans on his course of action.

reply to post by theblunttruth


Remember Kosovo 1999? A US F-117 Nighthawk was shot down by an ancient Serbian SA-3.
That could be a good precedent.

The S-300 is easily one of the world's most potent anti-aircraft defence systems, it can engage 12 targets simultaneously and has the ability to counter Mach 8 ballistic missiles.

It's a close call either way because while the S-300 is a powerful system, I think it lacks the necessary high band radars to actually be able to lock onto the B-2's radar signature which is minute.

Either way I seriously doubt America is going to lease it's B-2's even to Israel, that's some seriously advanced, top-secret technology which they wouldn't want to get out into the open.

Not to mention with a unit cost of $5 billion, loosing a B-2 is not an affordable scenario.

Whoever said the US would loan them to Israel is dreaming.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:00 AM by mirador
Ok, this might not make me popular, but time for me to play devil's advocate:

Why should Iran not be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Ok, I admit that their leaders are not the best in the world... but that can be said of other countries with nuclear weapons, North-Korea, right from the axis of evil. Why are we not complaining about N-K anymore?

Contrary to what many people believe, Iran is not some kind of huge sand dune. Ever seen what Teheran looks like?

TEHERAN - Mega Capital of IRAN - photos of Tehran on Worldisround
www.worldisround.com...
(warning: broadband only, huge page!)

How many people here do know that in Iran there are more women attending university than men?

How many here know that about 70% of the population is under 30? All you people who are fairly progressive and looking forward for the older religious influences to pass away so that they can take over?

How many know that most Iranians actually _love_ America for it's freedom, opportunity, etc?!?

And plenty of people want to nuke them and turn them into a 'large sheet of glass?'

INSANE!

Look, I know that they've made bold statements about Israel into the see and so forth.

But let's be honest, Israel isn't exactly the most friendliest nation in the world either..

Would Iran if it acquired nuclear weapons use them?

I do not believe so: the Iranian leaders might be somewhat crazy, but they're not suicidal.

In my humble opinion, the only reason that Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons is to have that big card in its hands that says: "everyone will think 10 times before invading you now!"

This, even if one would start selling oil in Euros.. undermining the petro-dollar.

I'd suggest taking a very good look at our own administration first, because they have plenty of odd ideas themselves, being seemingly h***-bent on starting that war with Iran using almost any means possible.

Why? I'm not sure.. do they want to give the final blow to the U.S. economy? personal gains? (oil, Haliburton and co.)

h***-ben you say? YES

Let us not forget:

"There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected. "

thinkprogress.org...


You know.. this is really starting to look like Germany 1920-1945 ALL OVER AGAIN.

9/11 : Reichstag

Economy : Weimar Republic

Cheney war idea : this is the same as the Gleiwitz Incident that Hitler used in 1939 to provoke war with Poland.

Prison Camps? "Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants." Americans are certain to be among them". www.alternet.org...

Trains to the camps? Fear the coming train: www.rense.com...


Bringing democracy? HAH! Let's look at and fix our own country first instead of dragging the ENTIRE WORLD INTO ONE DARK ABYSS.

YOU THINK THAT OIL ISN'T ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH, HUH?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies