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.

 

Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
GlobalSecurity.org has the carrier deployment and availability listing.

www.globalsecurity.org...

It may have already been posted but here is the current carrier deployement or availablity. Remember carriers deploy for normally 6 to 7 months but 9 is not uncommon and some cruises have been over a year.

Deployed North Arabian Sea

USS Stennis CVN74 as of 1/5/12. Deployed since August
USS Vinson CVN70 as of 1/9/12 Deployed since November.

Forward Deployed (homeport Yokosuke Japan)

CVN73 USS George Washington. as of 29 Dec in Port in Japan

Deployed Pacific

USS Lincoln 1/10/12 Left Thialand, Should releive Stennis in Arabian Sea, maintaining 2 carriers there, and temporarily providing 3.

Surge Ready:

USS Enterprise CVN 65 On exercises. Is due for one more surge or planned deployment, then Decommissions after 50+years of service.
USS Eisenhower CVN 69 In port???? No news listed on website.

The other 5 aircraft carriers have either just returned from cruise (USS GW Bush) or are in some stage of maintenence/rehaul and by looking at the site showing their status probably only one, maybe two could be made ready quickly (couple of weeks minimum).

To sum it up, we will have and maintain 2 carriers in the area. 3 if Stennis stays on for a few weeks when Lincoln arrives to replace her. The real interesting signs would be if the Washington leaves Japan, or Enterprise or Ike are "surged" other then for training (which is usually just off the coast and is usually just a few weeks at sea if that).




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Regrettably I can't view PDF's from this browser, could you please copy and paste a portion of the rule that they followed?

I'm not trying to be captain obvious but the incident I mentioned says Iranian boats were harassing US boats, meanwhile the US are the ones holding drills in Iran's backyard.

Those drills were a provocation no?

Where in the rules does it list the protocol if American ships are being attacked? They can easily say they were being attacked and that they blew up the Iranians out of self defense. You see my point yet?

BTW CNN took down that article discussing the "Iranian boat harassment".

Shame on you CNN!



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



13. Broadly speaking, during peacetime, the use of force is permitted in self-defence, in
the exercise of law enforcement authority, and to accomplish operations or missions
specifically authorised by a higher national authority or other governing body, such as the
U.N. Security Council.
a. It is universally recognised that individuals and units have a right to defend
themselves against attack or imminent attack.
Nevertheless, because national laws
and policies differ with respect to the application of self-defence to military
operations, Series 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Annex B provide specific ROE intended to
clarify the extent of the authorisations granted for the application of force in selfdefence. For example, some nations permit commanders to restrict the exercise of
the right of individual self-defence and/or unit self-defence, while others do not.
b. Where the use of force is not justified by self-defence, but is nonetheless
necessary for accomplishment of an assigned military mission, reasonable force may
be exercised within the constraints of the relevant national and international law.
Series 20 to 140 of Annex B provide measures for mission accomplishment.
c. Deadly force can be used against persons posing an imminent threat to life.
National views on other circumstances in which deadly force is permitted vary widely
among nations. The Handbook provides multiple ROE measures, the use of which
will depend upon national laws and policies.


In other words, a few dinky speed boats 500 yards out are NO threat whatsoever to a naval ship. Iran knows this, and the Navy knows this. Hence, yes, it would be considered harassment to approach our ships, but not a means to destroy them for self defense.
edit on 13-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The USS Cole was attacked by small craft in 2000.

The Navy is afraid of these things.


a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 40-by-40-foot gash in the ship's port side according to the memorial plate to those who lost their lives. According to former CIA intelligence officer Robert Finke, the blast appeared to be caused by explosives molded into a shaped charge against the hull of the boat.

Attack

Perfect for a FF.

Very little evidence, and maybe even no surviving "enemies".

Hard to really prove who did it.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


You're missing the whole point...

Iranian ships actually have a legitimate reason to be in those waters whereas the American navy don't have a valid reason to be anywhere near there other than lame excuses under the disguise of international security. And as Xuenchen said, those little boats are a major threat to larger boats.

If Iran were to do exercises just outside of American waters and have American boats approach them, would Iran have just cause to scream "harassment"?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by apodictic
 


You're missing the whole point...

Iranian ships actually have a legitimate reason to be in those waters whereas the American navy don't have a valid reason to be anywhere near there other than lame excuses under the disguise of international security. And as Xuenchen said, those little boats are a major threat to larger boats.

If Iran were to do exercises just outside of American waters and have American boats approach them, would Iran have just cause to scream "harassment"?


International waters. We don't need a "legitimate" reason.

They are not a threat if you have a visual on them and they are 500 yards out.

You are so brainwashed by the conspiracy mindset that you try to find an ulterior motive behind every action taken, and now even NON ACTION taken. Understand that the warmongers are the ones who send people off to wars, not commanders of ships.

There is a reality besides the thoughts that go through your head.
edit on 13-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Were the Iranian boats within 500 yards of the American boats?

You didn't answer my other question either...

If Iran were to do exercises just outside of American waters and have American boats approach them, would Iran have just cause to scream "harassment"?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


According to that article they were 500 yards out. Obviously I can't quote it now, though.

And yes, if the US were threatening to close a vital international oil export waterway. I am not a hypocrite, as you are attempting to point out. Iran is very obviously harassing. The ocean is not a small place. To come within 500 yards is harassment, although not a direct threat.

If they were making a run for our ships, that would be a different story.
edit on 13-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
They knew about the Pearl Harbor attack.


Proof of foreknowledge of the Attack on Pearl Harbor! This is the front page of the Hilo Tribune Herald (Hawaii's Newspaper) from Sunday, November 30, 1941... 1 week BEFORE the attack on pearl harbor! Sadly, Japan struck Pearl Harbor the following weekend... JUST as the newspaper said! If that's not enough, it also appeared on the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser on the SAME day! This was obtained from the records of the Hilo Public Library, 300 Waianuenue Ave, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. And is in fact 100% genuine. If you don't believe me, call them & you can get your own copy for $1.25.

Newspaper

Somebody knew !



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


You're presenting your opinion as fact. I've heard all about these groups and their ties to Iran. Hamas is a democratically elected group who has taken up peace ..........................


Whos presenting Opinion as fact?




"Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him. "The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah. "Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world. "The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth.(Sermon delivered by 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011, translation by MEMRI)


Um OK...................




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


First off wth are you talking about?

Second can I at least have a link?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by sonnny1
 


First off wth are you talking about?



Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Hamas is a democratically elected group who has taken up peace ..........................




Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Second can I at least have a link?



Sigh........

LINK



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The most important point in this situation is one that no one has mentioned on this thread.

The people of the US have nothing to benefit at all in having US Navy ships anywhere near Iran let alone firing a shot or being fired at.

The members "serving" in the US military are doing one thing and one thing only.

They are making the world safe for US investment.

Sorry, sorry, I amd wrong. Two things.

Also making the world safe for Zionist expansion, forgot that.

Congress and the presidency is under the control of a few parties none of them give a flying F about the average American. In addition to the obvious Zionist there is, oil, financial, general manufacturing, military rip-off contractors, pharma / medical, Christian rightists. Maybe that is it or there are a couple more.

In this case I don't think big oil wants ships, planes, guns, missiles blowing the crap out of oil infrastructure nor does the insurance industry or Wall Street.

Military contractors, Christian loons and the Zionist lobby want US Navy ships there and they have the power to put them there and "sell" the propaganda that convinces Americans that it is a moral neccessity, which it certainly is not. But, they may not and God I hope they do not have the votes among the other controler groups to pull the trigger.

Needless to say those groups do not care if 10 or 10,000 Americans die in service to the cause.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


You're presenting your opinion as fact. I've heard all about these groups and their ties to Iran. Hamas is a democratically elected group who has taken up peace and Hezbollah is primarily a defensive force. Once Israel or the U.S. attack, Hezbollah will help Iran retaliate. Hezbollah has been rather quiet lately, but that may change since the West keeps sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

I don't see Hezbollah invading countries with airplanes and dropping bombs on whole cities. It looks like the West are bigger terrorists than Hezbollah now that you mention it.


Hamas peaceful? LMAO. This so called peaceful Hamas' hobby includes firing rockets from Gaza school s into Israel and then grabbing human shields so they don't get killed while running away. Hamas and Hezbollah are nothing but cowards that cannot even fight like men. They run away like little girls because theyre afraid to die for this "Allah" they claim to love so much. If Allah likes martyrs so much why do these cowards grab human shields to protect their own lives?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Hamas peaceful? LMAO.


As "peaceful" as any national armed corps in occupation times.


Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
This so called peaceful Hamas' hobby includes firing rockets from Gaza schools


The proof of that is a story in Jerusalem Times?


Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
and then grabbing human shields so they don't get killed while running away.


The proof of that is also a story in Jerusalem Times?

Man you can do better than blindly parroting your corporate/zionist government's propaganda, can you?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Hamas isn't really the topic of this thread but since you and another member brought them up I will say that they have been much more peaceful than Israel for quite some time. Hamas adopts diplomatic measures while Israel continues stealing land and performing airstrikes on civilian areas.

You're probably going to blame the fact that Israel drops bombs on innocent civilians on Hamas because you think they hide among women and children. I have news for you, Gaza isn't that big and it's pretty densely populated.

As for Iran (the topic of the thread) they have been behaving themselves while making the West look like bloodthirsty war mongers who are driven by greed. Iran is one messed up country so it's a pretty twisted world we live in if the leadership of the Iranian regime has more credibility than all the Western leaders combined.

The claims in OP article are making more and more sense as the day goes on, especially since the mention of that "iranian speed boat" incident from earlier today. This incident happened quite some time ago but today is the day they decide to release it, some nourishment for over the weekend for those who still suck the teet of the MSM.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed


As for Iran (the topic of the thread) they have been behaving themselves while making the West look like bloodthirsty war mongers who are driven by greed. Iran is one messed up country so it's a pretty twisted world we live in if the leadership of the Iranian regime has more credibility than all the Western leaders combined.


I can say "The Day of Rage" was not so distant,in the Iranian Public's eyes.As to the Bloodthirsty war mongers,you might have a point. Obama's NeoCon's colors shine brightly,as we come closer to elections,here in America.

BTW, I dont agree with half the things you say,that doesnt mean I dont value your opinions.


S&F

Thanks for keeping this thread interesting.......



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brasov


Man you can do better than blindly parroting your corporate/zionist government's propaganda, can you?


I really dont want to derail OP'S thread,but you want proof of Hamas,and its followers,here you go.

I suppose the Jerusalem Times "made" him say these things...........





Deny Ignorance.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Or....Gulf of Tonkin

From New York Times
Historians said the transcripts, which are filled with venting by the senators about the Johnson administration and frustrations over their own ineffectiveness, added little new to the historical record. Even at the time, there was widespread skepticism about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the North Vietnamese were said to have attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, two days after an earlier clash.

President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the attacks to persuade Congress to authorize broad military action in Vietnam, but historians in recent years have concluded that the Aug. 4 attack never happened.

Still, the transcripts show the outrage the senators were expressing behind closed doors. “In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,” Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968.

We must remember all the government/media lies, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, etc, etc, etc.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
my my my how quickly we forgitz


Lets not forget the Fake Iranian boat attack…
November 21, 2011
It was reported on the 8th January 2008 that US naval commanders were about to fire on a group of Iranian attack boats after being challenged at the ‘mouth of the Gulf’, the Pentagon disclosed, - whereas the Iranians claim it was inside their territory. They alleged that three US navy ships were targeted by ‘Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Navy’ as they entered the strait just after dawn. It said that five Iranian patrol boats came within 200 yards of the US vessel’s, issued threats over the radio and dropped mysterious objects into the water...

Iran accused the US of faking its video of the incident, and on Iranian state-run TV broadcast a separate video of the stand-off, in which there is no sign of threatening behaviour by the Iranian patrols, thought to belong to the Revolutionary Guards, though the four-minute clip doesn’t appear to show the whole incident. The US military said video and audio that it released confirmed its allegation that Iranian speedboats harassed US warships and threatened to blow them up in a radio communication.

However, The New York Times noted and reported on the 9th January 2008, that the US-released audio includes no ambient background noise of the kind that might be expected if the broadcast had come from on one of the speedboats. Pentagon officials said the voice heard in the video clip is not directly traceable to the Iranian military, but could still have come from a high quality radio on one of the small boats, the paper reported [2].

Fake Iranian Patrol Boats – Then in August 2008 Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker, spoke at the Campus Progress journalism conference and revealed that there was a meeting in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office on how to start a ‘false flag’ war with Iran. Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz in January that same year, was that; “If you get the right incident, the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “

trappedinamasonicworld.wordpress.com...


oh, and to whats his name up thread who is justifying killing all the jews in iran by destroying the place because they support Hamas:

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

www.globalresearch.ca...

edit
f course Sonnyboy just made it plain why Israel would want to create and then quote them

sandf
CE

edit on 13-1-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join