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.

 

House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Well, here we go.
This certainly explains the anti Muslim rhetoric lately, and the other political/ false flag distractions.
The same people who brought you the Iraq war, remember no WMDs, are bringing you this no Nuclear weapons program since 2003 event.
No nuclear weapons according to all the relevant US intelligence agencies anyway.



The US Congress
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.

Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.

The introduction of the measure coincides with a pattern of renewed calls for military strikes that have escalated since President Obama signed Congressional Iran sanctions into law.

Neoconservatives who were instrumental in orchestrating the Iraq War, such as Bill Kristol and Reuel Marc Gerecht, have led the stepped up calls for military action.

Hawkish former Bush administration official John Bolton recently laid out the game plan to prod Israel into attacking Iran, arguing that outsiders can "create broad support" for a strike by framing it as an issue of Israel's right to self-defense.

Supporters for military strikes, Bolton says, should "defend the specific tactic of pre-emptive attacks" against Iran.

www.presstv.com...




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

The headline provided by the news source seems to be inaccurate (I know you're obliged to use it). The resolution has only been introduced, not OK'd. And not introduced by the Democrats.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Thanks for pointing that out I am not so familliar with US politics and how it works.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Even here on the boards we are being prepped for more war with the anti Muslim sentiment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The Huffington Post also is carrying this and the resolution has been introduced, not passed. That's Press for you. Take it with a grain of salt.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The whole thing is put up on a pedestal at this point, do you really believe there is still going to be a war with Iran vs Israel at this moment in time? I have this belief that most of the world will not go with this regardless...

In fact, I feel like this will be a very very unpopular war with everyone.

I believe a critical mass of people here in the US believe most of this is all farce, and will not allow this war to come to fruition simply out of the ridiculous nature of any rationale for war these days... sure Iran are the bad guys here, but the public also recognize the gov't as the bad guy nowadays... there is no going back now after the oil spill... this has weakened our gov'ts ability to declare future wars with these countries (we the people will eat these govt people alive if they F more S up)... that is just me and my uneducated opinion and faith in the matter...

As for Israel, I am not gonna touch those politics with a 20 foot pole...



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
For what it's worth the web bots have called this coming event
the "Israeli mistake".
Only thing about that is:
they warned that would be the description of the event
where Israel went into Lebanon.
Which is what turned out to be the case.

I don't think an attack on Iran will be very popular with Joe Average either

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
I don't think an attack on Iran will be very popular with Joe Average either

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Danbones]


No, I'd wager the average Joe/sephine would rather have the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan home. Not open another front. Iran is pretty much surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan though.


That said, this is confusing me, how can Congress say to another sovereign nation, "It's OK if you attack another sovereign nation"? By just saying that don't you make enemies?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Wasn't the Israeli mistake the whole flotilla thing?

I mean, I feel like Israel is tip-toeing these days after the big PR blowback from that whole deal... given; investigations in to the issue did yeild info that Israel was in the right on that...

Web bot is wrong more often then not, but I still recognize why people still take a look at the info... All with a grain of salt my ATS friend



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


The Average Joe never wanted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , did that matter??

Also, although this has not passed its still appauling that they even think to put this forward.
Its bad enough that the US attacks defencless nations but now they are giving the green light to one nation to attack another???

Who gave the US the power to be world Judge & Jury??



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Terces_Pot_Evoba
 


Originally the web bots referred to the invasion of Lebanon prior to its taking place. Though you may be right about them referring to the flotilla this time, the web bots treat it like an ongoing series of events, and they predict more events.
Right or wrong, the flotilla event was a public relations nightmare for Israel.

And you are correct - the web bots are vague and not exactly a reference.
I mention them because they have laid a PR ground work that is already unfavorable to war on IRAN.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
Who gave the US the power to be world Judge & Jury??


That would be the Soviet Union. Once they fell the UN became useless because there isn't a whip that you can balance America with. China and India are up and coming though.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


True but I think the Soviet Union is still a lot more powerfull than most people realise.

The UN always has and always will be a lame duck.
The ridiculous Veto Powers make sure of that.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
True but I think the Soviet Union is still a lot more powerfull than most people realise.


That would be the Russian Federation now and they are doing much better because of THEIR oil reserves.


The UN always has and always will be a lame duck.


No, the UN saved mankinds bacon from the 40's until the 80's. Like I said, once there wasn't another member that could stand up against the US, THEN the UN became useless. Without the UN none of us would be here now. It was an international venue, a nexus for the world. No matter what side of the Cold War you were on. When would have the bombs been released? Cuban Missile Crisis? Bay of Pigs? Viet Nam? The UN was an outlet because there were people there that could balance each other off. Sort of the way the US political system USED to be. Check and balances.



The ridiculous Veto Powers make sure of that.


I couldn't agree more.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
That would be the Soviet Union. Once they fell the UN became useless because there isn't a whip that you can balance America with. China and India are up and coming though.


The UN is controlled by the same banksters as control the USA and use uncle sam to bully anyone that can not be bribed by the banks.

False flags don't seem to be working quite as well as they once did but i think we will see more yet.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Yes I was more thinking recent history of the UN...20-30yrs

Now it seems like the UN is just there to serve the powerfull nations...

Force their demands on lesser nations while letting more powerfull interests ignore their resolutions....




top topics



 
4

log in

join