It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Just felt a need

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:05 PM
Just in case you doubt my theory above, and what it would mean toward garnering MORE troops for Afghanistan and Iraq.....

source for quotes below

'Spectacular attack' derailed by troops

This was an unusual attack. It would have been a spectacular attack and, yes, it would have been effective against coalition forces," said Major David Warnke, commanding officer of the counter-IED squadron in Kandahar.

During a search of the vehicle, three large explosive devices were discovered, including two 250-kilogram and one 100-kilogram Sovietera aircraft bombs.

Maj. Warnke said the explosives had the potential to kill everyone on foot within a 260-metre range, and to cause significant damage within a 1,500-metre range.

"The locals ... would have been killed likely in their vehicles, because their vehicles are soft-skinned, they are not protected with the armour of our vehicles. And it would have also likely killed the individuals who were dismounted sweeping for IEDs at the time," he said. Maj . Warnke said the bomber had rigged the explosives to detonate when he pushed a switch, similar to a light switch. Maj . Warnke said the Taliban has "a good idea" about the devices they are constructing.

because metrics suck - 260 meters =853.018 feet
1500 meters = 4921.26 feet

All this demonstrates is the "lack of security" and thus it will not be surprising when the "terrorists" launch a full out assault on the base.

Was merely a test.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:06 PM
- thought my post got stuck in internet void.
second line

[edit on 1/4/2009 by justgeneric]

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:38 AM
trouble sleeping...

Firstly...very disheartened to see a 5.6 in the gulf of Cali. I'd rather see none of this size anywhere near California in general.

This isn't a one off quake...there will be more...and I maintain that Northern California is going to feel some truly big quakes very soon.

Most of the action has been on the Pacific Plate...some very "pliable" areas are showing signs of some continental relief. Philippines and Japan and a few scattered quakes in some "odd" locations...not out of the norm but none too common - big one in Kush Afghanistan, one in the Indian Ocean (expected with movement elsewhere)

The subduction zones off our coast (west coast) hasn't really seen a lot of relief. The tension is building and it will be soon that it will give way.

The swarms should begin soon.

******* thinking while trying to sleep is a really BAD idea.

As for the whole terrorist attack on "our" troops...really the majority of troops there thus far are US and British. nominal NATO participation in the way of combat personnel.

Something I read today kept coming back to me and it REALLY bothered me.

one of the British commanders had said that he would like to see a more fair representation by coalition forces (meaning he wants more of "the other guys" fighting and not just US and UK... (I'll try to find that article may be in the links on page 3 last post). This got me a wondering???

What would be THE most likely reaction of coalition forces IF THEY experienced massive losses in say a "terrorist attack" on one of the massive bases like the one in oh I dunno....KANDAHAR????

makes me even more uncomfortable. Adds a twist to the reasons but makes sense.

it really is mostly US and British forces taking the heat...yes the US plans to increase this by some 70K ASAP but gee from their POV wouldn't it be great if the NATO forces were "spurred" into increasing their input?

Kind of brings a new meaning to "lighting a fire under their butts".

Well I know that all of this is to increase the forces, create a reason to continue the occupation of Iraq and eventually occupy Iran.

The all of the major oil producers will be inline with western it or no. backscratchers all.

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 08:27 PM
I am really not comfortable with how QUIET the west cost of N. Am has been. Papua is still seeing aftershocks of 5+ - Japan is seeing 4.5 and higher...

It's too quiet on our side of the plate.

The eastern cost of argentina has been getting some small quakes...they get them there so rarely and now there have been several.

Is it working it's way over to N. Am's west coast?

I have that "dread" feeling again...last time it was a bout a week and half before it lifted and just as it did there was the massive quake in Papua...

so within a week - less than two we should be seeing the swarms, lull and then a big release?

maybe it's all Israel's fault LOL I have a headache from all the anti this and anti that...A big whatever to that.

anyway, Alaska is even quieter than usual...the Aleutians usually swarm endlessly...

Wait and see and hope I am wrong. But if swarms start off San Fran coast (and around oregon - deep ocean) then suddenly stop...get outta there okay? high density population and it would be heartbreaking.

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 06:01 AM
Whew...Alaska has picked up a bit. major tension area and it's almost relieving to see it swarming again.

Another small 2 pointer in N. Cali...but until I see massive #'s over a short span I won't start really worrying.

When Papua calms to more "normal" sized quakes, I'll be watching the indian Ocean, Oregon Coast (deep water off shore) and SanFran areas.

There is also the area covering a large portion of the Pacific,,,about 5-6K+ KM east of Hawaii...not too many quakes there but I'm trying to work out a pattern that may coincide with a few new drawings I did...was a bit weird really.

I really do think San Fran will experience a massive quake followed by a few more only slightly less than the original.

there's no real point to digging my teeth in though it's not as though I can or could do anything to stop it or to make people leave even if only for a day trip to North west Nevada (or any location at least 350 miles away from San Fran) They'll still feel it at that distance but at least survive it.

The only thing that may change this is IF Alaska or Japan give way to a massive quake...there's just too much pressure built up and it's going to give. i am almost 100% certain the Pacific plate has shifted in a bad way and tension has to be relieved at some point.

rather a less populated area than a major port city.

I'm watching.

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 03:19 PM
Seeing more in N. Cali...still patchy so I'm not alarmed yet.

highest so far was a three.

this is not a swarm... not THE swarm. But still my heart sinks when I see them pop up.

I'm looking for a minimum of 6-10 small quakes in N. Cali over a period of a few days (maybe a two day span). Then a sudden stop...a day or two??

Oregon coast may rumble during and after the swarm lull in N. Cali.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:25 PM
Okay, man it's been a stressful week. Daily life was turned on it's ear for some very good friends of mine and my immediate thoughts have been (and still are) with them.

However, the turmoil in the air still nags at me while I'm trying to rest.

Damn west coast - California...more in central Cali and a few smatterings in Northern cali. Not surprising, and not yet what I am expecting. hopefully it won't take the turn I feel it will.

Israel/Gaza was a diversion, whereas I felt that India and Pakistan would be more prevalent in the news, Israel provided the distraction instead.

No doubt there has been massive troop movement during this whole fiasco.

Inauguration day is less than 10 days away now and I keep feeling as though I have forgotten something.

So much activity in varying levels, it's hard to watch it all and figure out what is related. It's not ALL RV and "intuition" I am running on here...a good portion is logic and common sense.

The fears about an attack on US soil during the inauguration: not going to happen. A few whack jobs will attempt to crash the party but there will be no massive strike on US soil.

Common sense tells me this. It would undermine all of the current changes that have been made thus far in the US toward "protecting the people" of the USA. The US is attempting to avoid an egg on face scenario.

Now as for images I see and what I feel. If I take out my interpretations of what I see they are still very frightening and clearly not in North America.

The scale is rather large...enough to take out an entire city with a mere few bombs. Multiply this by several cities in the middle east (likely Afghanistan/Iraq) and the targets being primarily NATO and US have a massive terror strike and thousands of lives lost.

This image of an atypical explosion and the shock and surprise that goes with it, and the slow motion after effects of the explosion tell me this is not a conventional bombing. Hotter and far more devastating than any conventional bomb. The uniforms are ours - Nato and US.

During the inauguration thousands of troops will be collected in large areas watching the events.

Security will be even more lax than ever as most are of the mind that an attack will happen on US soil. They will be totally unprepared. Totally.

January 21st, 2009 and January 22 2009 will be horrendous days in the Middle East.

Expect a call for upwards of 200K troops...US NATO and other allies will jump on the bandwagon. Canada will get in there in a big way, as peacekeepers primarily rather than battle. The UK will finally be able to stop whining that the distribution of forces isn't "fair"....the NATO forces will increase ten fold.

They may be able to move on Iran sooner than expected as well, which is the main goal.

Pakistan isn't responsible for this tragedy (when it happens), and it isn't Iran either although they will NOT be terribly sympathetic to the losses. they will recognize this as being the "excuse" to bolster forces, negate the transfers of power back to the iraqi's and expand operations and occupation in the regions.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:36 AM
A portion of Bush's goodbye speech as shown on CNN,

Bush's farewell

As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.

Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created.

The military, the intelligence community and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists' movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.

Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school.

Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States. There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results.

America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe -- law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States armed forces. Our nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger.

I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. And America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight, there has been no higher honor than serving as your commander in chief.

The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder.

The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace. This is the belief that gave birth to our nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens.

When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.

So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic, born alone in liberty, is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.

The above represents more than HALF of Bush's farewell speech, and I am sitting here rolling my eyes.

See how safe the US is...and see our brave soldiers (sitting ducks) you still think an attack on US soil is imminent???

This was a farewell alright. Kind of like foreshadowing in a great novel...the troops, representing more than half of his speech (with so many other things he could have spoken of at length) - to get them firmly in the minds of Americans and you can bet it will be highlighted repeatedly until the inauguration. Then....a terrorist attack against them...not us here at home...because we are safe because we readily gave up freedoms to ensure it...they are not safe in Afghanistan and Iraq...clearly.

When it happens don't look for I told you so' 911 I'll be too busy sobbing to give a rat's ass about who predicted it.

Four days to go.

The images I trust at this point...the time line...well I don't get date stamped images sadly so I factored in the most likely date - the Inauguration.

There will be a major terrorist attack against our troops (US and NATO) and the reverberation will be global...I have been looking at the recent news stories for other countries with Forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq...and the "feel good", "show your support for the troops" stories have DOUBLED in the past three weeks. Seriously take a look yourself if you doubt.

So....all of the NATO countries and the US are showing concerted efforts to promote the soldiers...not their suffering but their "acts of humanitarianism and peacekeeping". We all know that is really not why they are there for the most part. humanitarianism is less than priority, yet the portrayals in the MSM globally have been centered on promoting the positives to such a degree as to almost postulate the efforts.

I have felt sick for the past two days over this to be honest. Though it may not occur on the day of inauguration it WILL happen very soon thereafter.

The bears have been poked and it HAS to erupt in order for the path to be laid.

The entire Middle East will soon be occupied territory, divided amongst the victors and their contractors. The Arab nations, Israel and Russia as well as the Turkish (who recently stepped up) have great stock invested in this coming to pass.

Do most people realize how much money there is to be made over there? Do they understand the politics of gas and oil?



Had a dream last night and woke up shaking and crying.

All I remembered was watching the TV at my friend's house (big screen and very addicting! - I was there cuz I dont own a TV). Anyway...I was yelling at the screen "Get out of there!!!!" The TV was on CNN or something and the scene was an massive earthquake in California (not sure if was LA or San Fran). The ground was cracked and risen, there was fire everywhere, sirens and lights flashing and people screaming and crying...

They kept saying "Oh my god..." and "...California...(sic) Hills...Greatest tragedy..."

When I woke up I was I've never felt before...I immediately checked the computer to see if anything happened and I was soooo relieved to see nothing as yet. I hope I NEVER see this. Never.

Just move out of LA and San Fran okay. Move today. Right now.

The Images I saw on the dream TV looked almost identical to the ones I RVd and "felt"...which doesn't mean much i suppose as I have had this image in my head for too long now. Over and over and now in nightmares.

I never have nightmares and this was out of the blue and brutal. Not sure what to think of it. Is it concidental...overactive dreaming/imagination??? I hope so. I really hope so.

massive catastrophe won't wait till 2012 it comes much sooner. this I would bet on.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:52 PM
Rangel's draft bill -

With Iraq and Afghanistan "quiet" is a draft required??

Well I am adding this in to further support my feelings and intuitions that a major terrorist attack on US and NATO forces is in the final stages. Choreographed and completely staged courtesy of the US and it's counterparts (Sadly Canada included).

They need the draft bill as much as they need the middle east torn open. Security of gas and oil production and exploration. A massive occupation will require massive boots on the ground.

Terrorist attack, justifies bolstering the numbers of NATO and US forces, a draft makes it possible to sustain the personnel requirements.

Good marriage.

Charlie Rangel:

Back in 2006 the draft was staunchly debated and refused by congress (Pelosi) as there was no real need for a draft. Security measures and wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq went off with out any real hitch.

Now however, the UK's minister for defense is whining that the input from NATO countries is not balanced...they need more boots on the ground but no one else wants to supply additional forces leaving it primarily to the US and UK.

They need this to change and change it will. Four days left on the West Coast before the Inauguration and all hell breaks loose over seas.

Rangel supposedly wants to hold off presenting the draft legislation again until the bail out bill is approved in congress. BS. He's waiting for a SURE THING to occur and get his bill passed without a bat of an eye.

source: draft resistance

In October 2004, the House of Representatives voted down a bill introduced by Rep. Rangel to immediately reinstate the draft. He reintroduced the same bill in 2007, although that time it didn't make it to a vote in the House. But just because Congress isn't voting for a general draft -- yet -- doesn't mean that both Republicans and Democrats won't vote for it (or at least for a special-purpose draft of health care workers) if and when their war policies lead them to a situation where they can't figure out any other way to get enough soldiers with specific skills. Tellingly, neither Republican nor Democratic leaders, including House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, have yet tried to combine the vote against reinstatement of the draft the draft with any move to abolish the Selective Service System -- which is what they would do if they really were ruling out any future draft. H.R. 424, a bill to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, was introduced in the House of representatives on 10 January 2007. But no action was taken to hold hearings on this bill, debate it in committee, or bring it to a floor vote. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama avoided taking any public position on Selective Service and the draft, or on how the national "service" he advocated could be "universal" without being compulsory. The day after his election, Obama's "" Web site announced an agenda explicitly including compulsory national service for all high school and college students. That language was modified slightly a few days later, but Obama's first appointment, staff director Rahm Emanuel, has explicitly advocated mandatory Israeli-style universal (i.e. compulsory) national service incluidng what he calls "basic training" for all young people in the USA. [More from my blog on Obama, McCain, and draft registration ("Selective Service").] Although "Plan A" for Congress, the Pentagon, and probably the President is the poverty draft, "Plan B" for all of them remains conscription. For example, Rep. John Murtha, chair of the Subcommitte on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriapriations, said in late 2008 that "I voted against the all-volunteer army because I didn't think we could sustain a deployment in wartime without a draft.... We'll never be able to fight a conventional war where you have two fronts without a draft. You can't do it.... In a wartime, everybody ought to serve." It's unclear how long they'll be able to rely on "volunteers". Enlistments and re-enlistments are falling short of the military's goals. Morale in the military is down. More and more soldiers are failing to report for active duty when called up, deserting, going AWOL, or requesting reassignment or discharge as conscientious objectors. "Stop-loss" measures to extend soldiers' terms are increasingly unpopular, and undercut recruiting. It's one thing to sign up for the National Guard or the reserves as a "weekend soldier", and something very different to sign up for 2 years in combat. Only outsourcing and privatizing war-making to mercenaries and contractors (partly by using private "guards" and "security contractors" in combat roles, and partly by outsorcing non-combat support work to civilians, freeing a higher percentage of soldiers for combat) has enabled the military to continue the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this long, on this scale, without a draft.

The draft will go through and I have to wonder if any other countries will follow suit???


Not happy am I that there was even a micro quake outside of Portland. I am waiting for the deep water ones off the coast of Oregon...california is still within "normal" as far as I am concerned, nothing triggering any dread just yet.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:28 AM
Not ONE single story can be found on the net as to how the troops are going to be watching and/or celebrating the inauguration. Not ONE.

There are however more articles on increasing the numbers of NATO forces. As one british minister has stated:

It isn't good enough to always look to the U.S. for political, financial and military cover. . . . Freeloading on the back of U.S. military security is not an option if we wish to be equal partners in this trans-Atlantic alliance."

Not clear on the wording??? FREELOADING.

yah really think that February is close enough and they'll just hold off till then for an influx of an additional 3500 NATO troops?

Think they'll just hang tight and wait till April to get the 20K US troops they've requested to be reassigned from Iraq to Afghanistan?

The Obama team hopes to complete work on the new strategy by the NATO summit in early April. European and Pentagon officials suggested yesterday that alliance members may be waiting to consider new commitments until they hear what he has to say. The NATO force in Afghanistan has long been divided between those who conduct the bulk of combat operations -- including Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, in addition to the United States -- and those such as Germany whose operations are restricted and whose zones of operations are centered in more peaceful areas. Germany has argued that it has kept the peace in its area, centered in northern Afghanistan, and that it has made major contributions to the overall effort, including police training and other tasks. Last fall, the German government agreed to add 1,000 troops, bringing its total to 4,500.

Germany under fire for assuming a role that was once Canada's stance. Peacekeeping as opposed to battle. Humanitarian and objective.

Well...we'll see if they still feel that way in a week or so huh?

Officials are also worried about other issues: the upcoming Afghan presidential election and the revived hostility between Pakistan and India caused by a deadly terrorist rampage in Mumbai in November, could inject unpredictable tensions and competing priorities into the region just as a new administration in Washington tries to focus afresh on the anti-terrorist struggle here.

Unlike the troop "surge" in Iraq, the doubling of the U.S. military presence on the ground in Afghanistan is not temporary, military officials said. Rather, troops will maintain a protracted presence focused on securing and holding villages currently dominated by the Taliban.

One conundrum, U.S. military officials say, is that the expanded forces will have to come in with heavy firepower and aggressive military tactics -- likely to create more civilian casualties and public animosity -- in order to secure rural districts so they can bring in services, aid and governance aimed at winning over the local populace.

The plan is to gain the trust????? BUAHAHAHAHA

yeah okay.

Obama has pledged to withdraw American troops from Iraq and deploy more to Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida linked militants have made a comeback in recent years.

U.S. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who toured the region earlier this month, said that "things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they're going to get better."

Insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased in 2008 over the previous year and some 6,400 people — mostly militants — died last year as a result of the insurgency.

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan has forced the U.S. to plan to rush as many as 30,000 more troops to the central Asian country this year.

They will be joining some 32,000 U.S. troops already there who serve alongside 32,000 other NATO-led and coalition troops — the highest number since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban from power in 2001.

I haven't read anywhere any other person who seems to feel that a "terrorist strike" is imminent against the troops. not just a truck bomb but a full on offensive, a major loss of life.

I've searched for as many keywords as possible, and I am kinda thinking that that I should be expecting a knock on the door LOL.

I must be the only person who is seeing this unfold. IMPOSSIBLE.

It's more likely and far more feasible than another attack on US soil logistically, practically, economically and strategically.

not a single blog, not a single hint, not a single other posted view similar to what I am saying here. Not one.


Seriously, why? Too hard to grasp the context of the political and economic winnings that are there?

Clearly I am the only nutjob who is seeing this.


Seriously I'm either full of shyte entirely, a damn genius, or totally insane. Take yer pick

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:34 PM
California earthquake swarms will start getting into the 3.5's and higher...up to 5.4 and more frequent. Closer and closer to San fran area

Leading up to larger magnitude(s) and the largest very soon being called at about 7.9 or 7.8. less than three months time.

The whole pacific plate has shifted (still looking for confirmation from scientists if you come accross a link please fwrd via U2)

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:02 PM
revisited Colin Powell's slip of the tongue.

"...there's going be a crisis coming about on the 21st or the 22nd of January that we don't even know about yet..."

there's a 12.5 difference. Or UTC +4:30 for Afghanistan and Iraq. From Vancouver - 9.5 from DC.

12 noon on January 20th, 2009 is the expected time of Obama's swearing in. It will be 9:30 PM January 20th in Afghanistan and 8PM January 20th in Iraq.

Most troops not on active patrol will be close to the barracks, sleeping, or watching the Inauguration via satellite feed.
Afghanistan first and then Iraq (almost as if an after thought).

Missiles. Direct hits and massive casualties.

I believe their goal is to ensure that coalition (NATO) troops sustain substantial losses naturally many US and British troops will become statistics of this event as well.

Afghanistan has the largest population of troops. Pakistan has already come under scrutiny and logistically it "could" be responsible without much persuasion (or proof).

As I expected more and more "thanks" have been sent out to the troops in the past few weeks by Bush, Rice, and Obama and members of his team. Why now? They've been there for a LONG damn time and only now the media and the politicians are holding them up for praise?

it stinks. it would seem to obvious that the Gov and MSM is trying to get the troops into our thoughts and minds (where they should be daily anyway juss saying) so that when they are attacked we will be duly shocked, angered and motivated to "protect".

Like 911 but with a twist.

I say a massive strike first in Afghanistan. Air force will be damaged, ground troops and vehicles disabled absolute chaos in the ranks and communications errors will compound the situation.

If Iran isn't nervous yet they damn well should be.

BBC will have the reports first out of Afghanistan.

I had thought it would be Iraq first and it still may be. Iranian airspace either way will be shamelessly invaded. This might be the goal...enticing them to fire upon Coalition and US troops.

Either way - troops are the sitting ducks and weather they first attack Iraq or Afghanistan it matters for not as the effect will be the same.
Pakistan has missiles with up to a 1200KM range (ballistic) and have tested missiles with ranges up to and including 3000KM. Enough distance to blame Pakistan for a strike as far away as Baghdad.

Who's to say that a "terrorist" group hasn't gotten their paws on a Jericho-3 or two? Range of up to 6000KM+-??? Solid fuel and very mobile.

Russia and China have been selling arms all over the middle east along with the US and the UK as well as the Israeli's and these aren't some crappy little skuds with a 300KM range... these are intermediate range missiles with hefty payloads and frightening range.

All eyes on DC this week and Israel providing one hell of a diversion for a lot of traffic to move in Afghanistan and Iraq without anyone really paying any mind.

Focus on the gallant and brave efforts of our troops while pimping the idea of increased domestic stinks I tell yah.

2 days to go.

*****watching california and the SanFrancisco area...seems the micro quakes are everywhere but SanFran and THAT makes me nervous! There will be some small ones in that area next week and then I'll be really nervous.

Edited to add: the images I see could be virtually any city/town in the middle east...all I know is that it involves uniformed troops of US and Coalition...and a few T-Shirted individuals that could be enlisted not in uniform. Because of teh sight of uniformed troops I say it is an attack on the troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Had the RV images first then started researching and made the connections with a possible terror strike...put this together with another image I had of Obama's inauguration being interrupted by Breaking News about the terror strike....

Going back to the start of the war in Afghanistan a pattern is there...and I believe the images I have had and the intuitions go together with the movements over there and lead us up to this even pretty clearly if you research it.

Even without "visions" or intuition the pattern is fairly clear, this has all been choreographed...even Israel's Gaza war which conveniently stopped (cease fire) 2 days before the inauguration.

Bet says most troops will be base bound on the eve of teh 20th in Iraq and Afghanistan...very few rounds will be made outside the bases. Perhaps even "special" inaugural events" scheduled at bases in Afghanistan and Iraq to keep the troops close.

I feel sick.

[edit on 1/18/2009 by justgeneric]

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:58 AM
If anyone is actually reading this boring little thread of mine...I am genuinely concerned now regarding California. Closer to SanFrancisco they seem to be crawling north. A few in Nevada threw me but my theory of a pattern focuses on three points mainly.

I expect a larger 5.4 or 5.5 in the Alaskan region - Aleutians area or more East of it, but not by far really.

Still awaiting the off shore quakes of Oregon.

Within 300-400 miles of San fran...likely not a direct hit to the region but close enough to be devastating none the less. Wish I could even guestimate but I think once the swarm stops the really nasty quake(s) aren't far behind.

******************had an amusing little "image"...hell I dunno what it was but it was a flash of a single person being fiercely thrown to the ground by guys in heavy black jackets (long black and thick coats) wearing shades and with squiggly ear wires LOL. From this person's point of view too and it happened so minute looking over a sea of heads in hats, the next being thrown to teh wet ground and seeing the breath escape as the wind was knocked out of Me/him..about six sun glassed faces staring down and a LOT of pressure on my back and my face is held to the side by a knee or elbow.

I am betting this is the only "terror attack" to happen around noonish January 20th. The guy is wearing a puffy blue coat, has thinning brown hair and wears glasses (they fly off as his/my head hit the ground), about 37-40 years old?? maybe older. No facial hair and he's wearing big beige workboots. caucasian guy...dunno if he was armed or if he just seemed suspicious or what but they took him down damn fast.

It was pretty weird actually and it happened so fast it was a blurr. people stayed pretty calm around the scene too. The guy is taken out so fast held down out of site on teh ground and then whisked away.

No bio terror or mass attack. It should be an amazing day until the event overseas begins.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:01 PM
Inauguration went smoothly as expected.

Iraq's politics are strained at best and a vehicle curfew is in place during the next few days...too bad it's not a vehicle attack they need to worry about.

Jan31 is when Iraqi's vote and all hell will break loose before that.

Only days away and security isn't squared away yet for the voting.

Only lends credence to my "theory"...the vote won't matter once the terror attack occurs. Welcome the occupation.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:36 AM
so far so good. No breaking news during teh inaguration. I love being wrong

I do still see this "terror attack" happening though the date has been pushed back it seems...I am certain it ties in with the swearing in of Obama...a starting a starter's pistol going off.

More interesting bits being let out...

whoops of joy

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution analyst writing in The Wall Street Journal, said there were already encouraging political signs. "NATO and Afghan leaders are ... learning how to cooperate with tribal structures more effectively, and even to reconcile with some former insurgents when possible," he added. Vendrell said that if a military "surge" is deployed, it must be part of a broader strategy that encompasses Pakistan, India and Iran, which he says has "legitimate national interests" in Afghanistan.

This scares me. Combine it with all of the Pro troops stuff hitting teh's a matter of time...and days is all I figure it will take.

Supposedly Israel has comleted it's withdrawal from Gaza...perfect timing.

Pakistan and Iran now in the news for "harboring terrorists".

Nearly 3 million people packed DC...I hadn't considered the ramifications of breaking news about a strike overseas...uprising for sure...and too many powerful people all in one place.

The original image was of Bush and Obama together...and a flash of a breaking news headline...more than likely I read too much into that as I tend to do.

I saw them together in front of a large crowd then breaking news Ticker and a full red screen announcing it...

In simple terms it could have been nothing more than that..however it was followed by teh other images. This is where I tend to make assumptions about what I am sensing.

Perhaps teh inauguration was only a starting point of reference for what has been NOW set in motion.

There have been events leading up to the current strife in Afghanistan and Iraq,,,perhaps the inauguration is significant in this image I had and still have because it marks a beginning. A measure.

Violence will erupt in Afghanistan/Pakistan later in the day. There has been cross border activity I am certain and I doubt it has been innocent movement of goods and vehicles.

Israel agreeing so easily to leaving Gaza is incredibly significant and heralds that something is happening.

same source as above

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border has been wracked by violence since hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban and Al-Qaeda rebels have set up base there over the last few years.

edited to add:

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lawson, also from the 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team from Illinois, said he was "ecstatic" with the arrival in office of a man be believed could help the difficult task in Afghanistan. "If we do a surge and have more eyes on Afghanistan than Iraq, then we can turn Afghanistan around," Lawson said. "He is the type of person that can get people behind him and do good things." Huber, commander of the brigade that is chiefly involved in training the Afghans security forces, said that while no major changes were expected to the military effort in Afghanistan, the troop boost would help. "There is still a lot of work to do and with additional forces we will be able to do it better," he said. "It is part of an exit strategy: once they can stand up and secure their country, we can go home."

[edit on 1/21/2009 by justgeneric]

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:26 AM
New Embassy opens in Baghdad

The new U.S. Embassy covers 104 acres and is the largest in the world, housing 1,200 U.S. diplomats, soldiers, and government staff from 14 federal agencies, according to a U.S. State Department news release.

Largest in the world huh? makes for a great target me thinks.

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:36 PM
WHEW! so far so good! Sometimes I really enjoy being wrong.

Not writing this off yet though there are still many factors and it's a complex problem over there.

US warned of attack

Pakistan is being lauded the terrorist's cubby hole.

And did you hear that Serbia wants in on the Iraqi action????? Good lord what next? Serbia is a hotbed of hotheads...a newly "appointed" leader and still attempting to sever ties to Russia...but they want to help Iraq????? I have to wonder "how" they plan to help anyone when they haven't even helped themselves out of the starting gate?

A little blurb from the article:

Afghan president Hamid Karzai said, “I hope the new regime in United States, the new government will continue to assist Afghanistan, will continue to bring right pressure in the region to fight terrorism and fight it effectively and I hope that we all are strong enough in defeating terrorism and extremism.”

In Islamabad, the US offer of many billion dollars in aid tied to results in the war on terror has not gone down well.

Add to that a high level commission, now briefing Congressmen in Washington, has warned of an attack on the US from Pakistan's tribal areas.

The attack will involve weapons of mass destruction and could take place in four years time.

Four years time??? Uh huh. I firmly believe that is going to happen in the next month or so. We're already at the last week of January...and something MUST happen before March.

Simply put this fabricated "attack" is the ticket to getting mass amounts of troops back into Iraq and Afghanistan...

Canada intends to pull out by 2012 completely. The UK has been belly aching about "fair numbers" of coalition troops. Germany is fed up and wanting to pursue humanitarian ventures there with their forces and/or security detail only. The two countries military and civil forces are sustaining the largest number of casualties and clearly cannot manage the insurgents. the New Gov in Iraq is on the verge of tearing each other part, and Afghanistan's new Gov in the making is already squabbling and more than likely corrupted. essense the whole region either side of Iran has been undermined (thought the press and Miltary/Gov PR people will have you believe it's all going quite well)...

I say Israel timed their offensive perfectly, and allowed a great amount of movement to go unnoticed by the MSM, certainly unreported.

I don;t get time stamps on images but the images haven't changed one iota. they still play out as originally posted. So I wait and watch. not like I could do anything but.

All sides of Iran are destabalized or destabalizing. Attempts have been made to draw Iran out...that would eliminate the need for a farse of a terror attack but would result in the same damn action...more troops, longer deployments and more death.

It's all about money and control of a "global asset". Obama for all his talent and vision can't change that was designed before he was even weened.

he is the front man to an organization that is out of control and out of sight of the general population. He looks damn good to many and talks a great talk...he won;t be walking the great walk to back it up though as there are too many unforeseen obstacles in his way and he'll, in the end, be seen much the same as Bush has been (though more eloquent and I dare say intelligent).

Were you also aware that the US has verbally waged a "war" of sorts against Canada??? yes it's true. Regarding our most Northern Region/territory...natural Gas, fresh water, and oil...and the US unabashedly wants it.

Our PM is a joke, minority rule yet he manages to undermine what most Canadians would refer to as Patriotism (Canada has a funny exists but it's hard to see sometimes)...

Anyway....the "terror attack" WILL happen. I bet my life on it. It's a matter of a weeks not years and it won;'t be on north American soil.

It will involve unconventional WMD and will cost a few thousand lives. A mere drop in the assets bucket for those that stand to make billions and garner control of some hot property and drilling and transport rights.

If you're not worried about a major quake coming soon to California you should be. I wish I could give a damn I said I get an image or two, some intuition and then I research like crazy to see if the image has already happened or has yet to happen.

My guesstimate is relative to the West Coast of NA. The pacific plate has shifted and the quakes in the New Guinea area (I was right about hello!) are a testament to that. The west coast has again started getting swarms...not as I expected though they have traveled up and down the coast, so I'm taking another look at my own little theory and charts. Definitely not a completely scientific approach I am taking but seeing as I'm not a scientist it looks good to me

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:35 PM
Hopefully more people than just myself are really starting to see this come to a head.


The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan. Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as it takes the fight to its enemies in the region. The Obama administration is to double the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 60,000 and when asked in a television interview if the US public should expect more American casualties, Biden said: "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick."

Uptick my arse, try a few thousand wiped out in a matter of an hour or two of shelling and missiles.

So much is happening right now in Afghanistan and Iraq...the political scene is extremely tense and very fragile...both countries newly appointed/voted in presidents and their cabinets are scrapping from within...many still have ties to "terrorist" organizations and fractions of the like.

Pakistan is being prepped for their unwitting role.

News articles GALORE about the strife over in Afghanistan and Iraq...they want a pull out of forces but they do not want a pull out of forces. It will destabilize it won't one knows what the hell is going on except for the US and UK. Canada is adamant it will pull out by 2012...I doubt it. Canada has a large number of active troops stationed in Cairo and without a doubt they will end up in Iraq/Afghanistan.

There have been "foiled terror attacks" against bases and personnel as recently as yesterday, and whereas the other ones didn't make more than a tiny ripple in the water these ones seem to be getting more press.

The trick is to get the troops into the hearts and minds of the people so that when they are attacked people will actually notice and be duly enraged and will more readily support the call for more service personnel in the forces and from coalition countries.

There is no real interest in removing troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan. They will use pakistan and Iran as examples and whatever occurs there will be either or both countries faults.

Toss in the 'stans as well...China and Russia both have vested interests there...however sending mass troops is not a viable option for them for a wide variety of logistical and economical/political reasons. So they invest wisely instead with weapons and funding.

Once Iran is effectively "surrounded" the fun will begin with Russia and China.

I'm not going to try to give dates anymore as I simply can't. I get images with meaning of course but no time/date stamp on them...I cannot even be sure they are chronological when I see them.

If you start researching the events of the last 6 years in Afghanistan and Iraq you can start to see the clear patterns and understand the intended little images only alerted me to this and gave me a grim picture of what it will be like.

Iraq is the #2 oil producer, Saudi Arabia is #1. Iran comes in a fourth or fifth if I recall (will have to check it)...Canada is the #3 country with the largest proven oil war required with us and realistically we are relatively easy to deal with.

The Middle East is so fractionated that a singular purpose and force must be in place to ensure that oil continues to flow uninterrupted. Occupation is apparently the way it will be done.

I'll be posting more articles as we go along and I am already working on a larger picture of the last six years in the regions. It should be clear in the end "who" is actually respponsible when the troops are attacked and I have said repeatedly...Its not Pakistan though they will look mighty guilty.

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:29 AM
Things have definitely changed yet somehow stayed the same...the events that will occurred are the same, but the lead up to it has altered.

Iraq will never be free of coalition troops. Nor will Afghanistan. Iran is truly in danger of being attacked at this point.

the images couldn't be less specific and it's maddening. Still the same and no changes...massive explosion(s) involving US troops and coalition troops. Still see the images as they first appeared.

I still foresee an massive attack on our troops and major life loss. iraq is supposedly "quiet" after the first bit of elections. The US prez Obama is saying a year and we're out.

This will never happen.

Volcanoes! Not one but three and I still expect a volcanoe in deep water to be discovered around Papua New Guinea.

San fran is still on my mind. Less clear were the images but they still remain. Perhaps the Volcanic activity released some pressure or perhaps what I saw is yet to be.

I say the later. The quakes have been sporadic and spread out from north to south.

Into Iran by default. It popped into my head yesterday while I was tearing my mini blinds apart to repair and wash them. Out of the blue and stopped me dead.

I spent some time today reading articles from the past 6 years collected on my HD...nothing terribly specific so I am guessing it is Israel that opens war dialogue and /or allows a stray rocket to "accidentally" target an Iranian border city...The Jericho's have a hell of a range but I doubt they'd waste one of those in instigation tactics. they have a veritable smorgasbord of missiles to choose from that would do the job nicely.

Iran by default. This really makes me wonder. Why would that pop into my head I wasn't even thinking about anything but blinds and how I'd like to kill whom ever tied the blinds cords into a million gazillion knots.

Knots and Iran how are they related??? LMAO.

*** having some great fun on the boards
being terribly unabashedly wrong has become a new found hobby and it's surprisingly fun.***

going to draw for a bit...sinus infection yet again compounded by allergies...if I don't return to this thread my head has exploded.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 01:37 AM
see 4.3 off the coast of Oregon and a 3.2 in San Fran earlier. Sorry but it will be bad.

Right about volcanoes too if you back up and look at the dates.

and I did say it would be a 4+ off the coast of Oregon as well.

In the next few weeks make plans for a large quake. In San Fran

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in