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.

 

Reports: IAF Landed at Saudi Base, US Troops near Iran Border

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeminiSky
Does anyone think there is a chance that Iran may attack Georgia? Im going there for 3 weeks towards the end of July, and that would really be a mood-killer


Who knows? Maybe Shaka-not-Zulu will attack Russia again?




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


It's not like they have vast reserves of easily accessible oil or anything of value.

Like Mecca and Jerusalem, Iran has one thing of value. History.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Don't believe the Azerbaijan stuff.

In the event of a real strike, the US would use bases in eastern Turkey in the west and in Turkmenistan to the northeast. They would make their runs and (probably) make their way to the 10th Fleet in the Persian Gulf.

The Azerbaijan stuff as interpreted by the source is wrong.

West Azerbaijan province primarily shares a border with Turkey. US troops are certainly stationed there and along the Northern Iraqi border.

If the target is Qom, the first attack wings will come out of Turkey.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Iago18]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Seriously, history has one plentifool value - yes, plenty-of-fools to promote it until the end of times.

And in Persia, ever since Alexander burned Persepolis in an attempt to "marry" two different cultures, history is of such great value.

I sincerely wish I could change present regime in Tehran for something better, but also in many other places, and thus end this "history's" terror once and for all.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I feel that covert diplomatic efforts might be underway between West and Iran. I don't think the news of military deployment in a specific region would have been leaked unless the western powers "wanted those news to be leaked". The governments could have easily imposed a media blackout but despite that the news has been leaked out. I think this is a tactic used by western nations to call the bluff on Iran during covert negotiations. The deployment might well be underway, but unlike Iraq 2003, there has been no media blitz krieg to sell the new conflict to war fatigued people. If the west intends to cross the Rubicon, then the people in those nations must approve or submit to the new war.

Since we have not seen any media promotion campaign that we have seen in 2003, I would agree with one of the posters who previously mentioned in the thread that there must be some sort of "event(or false flag?)" to start the conflict.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Well thats two members of ats who claim to having been deployed to Saudi Arabia in two days time and frankly I believe them,be safe guys.

Of interest any attacks will likely come during the new moon phase which best I can tell will next occur on July 11th and August 10th respectfully. So its deployment within the week and approx another week before favorable night attack conditions,time for pre-op briefs and organization of troops. Time will tell but one things for sure the US has alot of hardware in the middle east,Iran is surrounded and I dont see us sending any hardware home till the job is done. Axis of evil anyone remember that one? Iran was the target all along or should I say the entire caspian region.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Tell that to Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1939. Chamberlain was considered a nut for trusting Hitler. Had everyone just minded their "own business" this would be an entirely different and even darker world.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Of course, all the MSM is talking about today is Obama's firing of his top General in Afghanistan and continuing coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill.

At any other time, such a massive troop buildup would get plenty of attention from the press - the administration is likely using the massive amounts of media coverage on the oil spill as a distraction from what's really going on over on the other side of the world, hoping that no one will notice.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Yes, I hear myself. To use a worn-out phrase it appears that you "can't handle the truth". When anger blinds the mind it is hard to see the truth and error can appear to be logical.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Also, I read some time back on the internet that U.S and Israeli naval ships were cruising towards Red Sea.

www.israelnationalnews.com...

I mentioned in my previous post that since there is no media blitz krieg as it was in 2003 and since it is essential to sell the war to the people, some sort of "event" would trigger the conflict.Now here is a possibility. What if these 12 ships are being deployed for the "event" in the first place?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Of course, all the MSM is talking about today is Obama's firing of his top General in Afghanistan and continuing coverage of the Gulf Oil Spill.

At any other time, such a massive troop buildup would get plenty of attention from the press - the administration is likely using the massive amounts of media coverage on the oil spill as a distraction from what's really going on over on the other side of the world, hoping that no one will notice.


This is precisely the reason why I feel the TPTB would require an "event" to sell any war to their citizens. If morning headlines read "Iranian nuclear sites bombed, government installations in Tehran also attacked", without any precursor trigger, then I don't think that citizens in an already struggling economy would readily accept such conflict. Also, any story put up by MSM spin doctors to justify the war after the attack has commenced would also not be accepted by sheeple. In the event of a precursor trigger however, vision of the sheeple would be clouded with anger and that would prime them for the war.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
So, 11 American warships, including "Truman" carrier, are going to check one red crescent Iranian ship, with 70 suicide women on it, for nukelar weapons. And in case this Iranian ship has a nukelar weapon there, it will activate it and destroy American fleet worth trillion dollars...

Interesting scenario.

Looking forward



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dovdov
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


When anger blinds the mind it is hard to see the truth and error can appear to be logical.


This is an essential prerequisite to sell the conflict to the people. If collective anger is present(or is stirred up) in a nation, concerns about the economy would take a back seat and an eye for an eye would become the priority for most people.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by order in chaos

Originally posted by dovdov
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


When anger blinds the mind it is hard to see the truth and error can appear to be logical.


This is an essential prerequisite to sell the conflict to the people. If collective anger is present(or is stirred up) in a nation, concerns about the economy would take a back seat and an eye for an eye would become the priority for most people.


Simple emotional conditioning. Call it "frustration" if you want, or "justified anger".

What precedes it is an orchestrated howl of supporters of the "axis of good".

Like we have seen it here on ATS many times - ATS seems to be a preferred training ground for agitators, although it is against the site rules.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
So, 11 American warships, including "Truman" carrier, are going to check one red crescent Iranian ship, with 70 suicide women on it, for nukelar weapons. And in case this Iranian ship has a nukelar weapon there, it will activate it and destroy American fleet worth trillion dollars...

Interesting scenario.

Looking forward


I will take the scenario forward.

MSM would start reading the predefined script and indulge in Iran bashing. Then the MSM would report the exclusive news about links between Iranian revolutionary guards and the above attack. White House would come up with a statement implicating Iranian leadership and would then warn Iran and Syria about imminent consequences. Emotional speeches about how justice would be delivered to the culprits would be addressed to the nation. Public anger would have reached to stratosphere by now. Before the anger subsides, to quote Rahm E: "before letting a serious crisis to go to waste" action must be taken. Assets would have been in place by then. And the rest will become history.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
how many wars can the u.s fight at a time??? how many fronts can you fight on??? how many ignorant rednecks and ghetto thugs do you have over there to fill up your f'n armies??? it would be better for the world if america was a smoking crater.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Which would result in the total annihlation of Iran. There finished your little fantasy for you.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nickoli
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Which would result in the total annihlation of Iran. There finished your little fantasy for you.


Justified retaliation, eh?

Lets go for it!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I thought it was pretty abrupt that the Gen. Mcchrystal was relieved of duty and Petraus was put in charge. He was fired over some comments in rolling stone magazine?. That seem strange. Had to be for some other reason. He was bush's guy during the iraq war, maybe Mcchrystal didn't think invading iran was a good idea. I think this is a bigger precursor to war than the ship movements or troop build up.

To effectively do anything you need the top guy on board.

"McChrystal was reportedly known for saying and thinking what other military leaders are afraid to, one of the reasons cited for his appointment to lead all forces in Afghanistan, a post he held from June 15, 2009, to June 23, 2010."

source

From what he has said before there is no way he would spread out the troops. He's the one how originally ask for the surge. He is also a special forces black op commander. He knows what will happen if we do this. Just a possibility any comments would be welcomed



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ufomechanic
 


I can see what your saying. I don't know if I would say that it is fueled unconsciously, but maybe more of a "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that most Americans take that allows the higher ups to do as they please with little complaint from us. If we had a war on our home turf we would not stand for it and the people would rise against the war. Since its on foreign soil we do not pay much attention. A few of us protest in our own ways but not collectively as a country.

As far as the 2012 angle, I think there are many who have accepted the thought of a disaster in the near future. This is not the majority though. Most people I know are simply caught up in their daily rat race to give a damn. Work, soccer practice and American Idol consume them, leaving no desire to learn about their worldly surroundings. They are oblivious! If the asteroid, WW3 hit tomorrow they would be dead without a blink, while the rest of us new it was coming and could really do nothing about it.

Maybe its best just to be joyfully oblivious......hmmmm



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join