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.

 

Jordan's King Says Israel-Hezbollah-Lebanon War May Be "Imminent"

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

By all the latest news from Lebanon - Hezbollah and government is united. Yesterday was their national 35th anniversary day and Lebanon seems to be very united in their PR, and political messages to their population.

By latest news in PressTV Lebanons foreign minister just said that to Hezbollah have been given national rights to secure occupied territories and fight against Israel.

Hezbollah is the people, and government is for the people - so its more official movement, not terrorist organisation by international law. Maybe its not their official army, but its at least official part of it.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Pity, but good luck.

IMHO it's Washington and Isreal that are the empidiments to world peace.

They're the ones with the guns mate, not me.

Just wishing they'd share in a bit of the freedom they keep exporting.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I see this as a curious warning.

The fact that the word comes from a head of state could make it's impact felt as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't know why we insist on killing one another over lines on maps, or because my grandparents hated your grandparents....

Once again, it seems to continue to propagate and reinforce the meme that Israel is an irritant (either by her existence, or actions.) Of course, those in the government's of either side of the conflict know how to exploit such situations well. Personally, I am getting tired of the 'fight' that everyone seems to KNOW is coming, while they wring their hands in faux-concern, because they really don't care about how many people get maimed or killed, as long as they 'win.'



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Yes because killing innocent people always makes things better.


No such thing as an "innocent".



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I don't know why we insist on killing one another over lines on maps, or because my grandparents hated your grandparents....


You might feel differently if your child has been shot or blown up by a group of people with certain beliefs.

It's human nature and I can understand to some degree why situations like the one I gave as an example can spiral out of control.

Also, I don't think it's about lines on a map, it’s about having the freedom to live the way you believe and not have someone else tell you that you can't live like that.

I think fighting for freedom surely is the only valid reason to go to war.

I'm sure my Grandparents would be turning in their graves if they knew that Britain signed up to the Lisbon treaty giving away Britain’s sovereignty when they both fought in the second world war to protect the very same.

Peace Out,

Korg.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by krunchy

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Yes because killing innocent people always makes things better.


No such thing as an "innocent".





posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque

Originally posted by krunchy

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by harryhaller
 


Yes because killing innocent people always makes things better.


No such thing as an "innocent".




Seconded!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Bah...

People are going to die. They always do in these situations. If a SCUD is fired Israel will retaliate.

Who wouldn't?

People hope Israel gets it's AZZ kicked? Yeah well that's like saying [Before Israel kills hundreds or thousands in retaliation I hope an Israeli soldier dies.]


Think about it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Syria about a year ago was putting troops into the Mountains in the are where there is border dispute with Lebanon.

However, after a brief squawk, Lebanon dropped the matter.

Interestingly, the area is very close to Israel.

Isn't that.....interesting.

[edit on 2010/4/15 by Aeons]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Bah...

People are going to die. They always do in these situations. If a SCUD is fired Israel will retaliate.

Who wouldn't?

People hope Israel gets it's AZZ kicked? Yeah well that's like saying [Before Israel kills hundreds or thousands in retaliation I hope an Israeli soldier dies.]


Think about it.


You sir get a star for that...
It's a bit like going to your local pub and kicking the man with muscles in the shin...

Then complaining to the police when he smashes your teeth in.



Peace out,

Korg.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Syria about a year ago was putting troops into the Mountains in the where there is border dispute with Lebanon.

However, after a brief squawk, Lebanon dropped the matter.

Interestingly, the area is very close to Israel.

Isn't that.....interesting.


Yes, that's extremely interesting. If they are still there, they would be positioned to swoop in to take advantage of any chaos caused by the SCUD attacks. That could be decisive.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpcrafter

Originally posted by Aeons
Syria about a year ago was putting troops into the Mountains in the where there is border dispute with Lebanon.

However, after a brief squawk, Lebanon dropped the matter.

Interestingly, the area is very close to Israel.

Isn't that.....interesting.


Yes, that's extremely interesting. If they are still there, they would be positioned to swoop in to take advantage of any chaos caused by the SCUD attacks. That could be decisive.


Indeed, Lebanon has been uncharacteristically friendly about the whole thing. The occassional necessary indignation when necessary, and otherwise not being overly unpleasant about it. And they've turned down the UN about helping with that border. Lebanon was going to check for all arms themselves.

Hizbollah has local and governmental support. They aren't operating as a "terrorist" organization. They are operating as a para-military organization without government sanction, but a wink and a nod. They are "plausible deniability."

Somethings up in Babylonia.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
www.jpost.com...


according to the Wall Street Journal, the IDF came very close recently to attacking a convoy carrying weapons from Syria to Lebanon, but at the last moment decided against it.

According to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Israel sent warnings to Syria through Turkey and Qatar that it would “bomb Lebanese and Syrian targets in case the missiles crossed the border and reached Hizbullah.”

In related news, Col. Ronen Cohen, former head of the Northern Front in Military Intelligence and the current chief intelligence officer for the IDF’s Central Command, said in a research paper that an Israeli bombing of Lebanese national infrastructure would likely unite the Lebanese people behind Hizbullah and its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Bah...

People are going to die. They always do in these situations. If a SCUD is fired Israel will retaliate.

Who wouldn't?


There is no plausible explanation to support your claim that Hezbollah would instigate a war against Israel. However, it is very understandable that they are arming to the tooth with relatively advanced weapons that could jeopardize Israeli air-power.

In 2006 they used a small opportunity (the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah) to deal with Hezbollah once and for all as well as to justify a retaliation that killed more than a thousands Lebanese people. The attempt to destroy Hezbollah failed greatly. On the contrary, Hezbollah is growing stronger and its arsenal of rockets and missiles is suspected to have grown from 20,000 to a staggering 50,000 - 80,000 rockets and missiles. In contrast to 2006, they are believed to have enhanced their ballistic capability significantly, SCUDS being part of this more advanced arsenal.

This is the reason that the chance of Israel starting a preemptive war against a growing threat is much bigger than Hezbollah firing SCUDS into Israel out of the blue.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Right. The Arab nations and their people are known for their wait-and-see, bunnies and light approach to all matters.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 

Both sides can start firing in light of recent news, to get advantage of first strike for them selfs. We naturally expect that Israel will do it, because they have done it so many times before - but why in the earth Hezbollah or Syria would give that opportunity for them again, when all facts seems to give a clear picture - that war is imminent and there is nothing to stop that?

I would not surprise if strikes comes first against Israel...

"Who shot the first shot?"

I think when situation has already slip so badly - at this moment that answer doesnt matter anymore. Only winners have right to write history about that.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


There are tons of Labor parties. I didn't specify the UK's Labour party, I could of been talking about Israel's Labor Party or Australia's.

Regardless, resistance to Israeli aggression doesn't need SCUDs.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
We naturally expect that Israel will do it, because they have done it so many times before - but why in the earth Hezbollah or Syria would give that opportunity for them again, when all facts seems to give a clear picture - that war is imminent and there is nothing to stop that?


And wouldn't it look better for Netanyahu and Obama if they attacked first? I doubt Netanyahu actually cares about losing a few of his own citizens for PR.

If the Arab side attacks first Israel can say it's acting in self defence. They can run a week of 24/7 news coverage with dying Jews to get support for the war.

People will be all like "Oh noes Israel we must do something!" problem reaction solution.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 

Sides in this conflict are already decided - anything what happen can not change this geopolitical fact:

EU/USA/ISRAEL vs ARABS/IRAN/SCO

No matter how it goes, both sides will find many excuses to their actions. Public relations are at time of war ruled by just recent and latest actions - and start of war will be soon get vanished to rain of latest news.

Israel can just say Lebanon fired them first as their "false flag" - and scream that in over all western media - but who will hear then Lebanese statements that they didnt, or it wasnt their operation... Fog of war will soon forget earlier news.

Was it ever asked from Muslims before judged - did they do 911?

I dont think it really doesnt matter who will fire the first shot. Problem is pre-emptive strategies witch has take place after 2001. Both sides can veto to this strategy, and that is why its very destructive policy in all sides.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
If you tell me that you are going to punch me. Then you put on the boxing gloves, and you call your friends over to watch, drop into boxing stance......

If I then kick you in the balls, it isn't really "pre-emptive."




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join