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.

 

RUSSIA: Attack on Tehran is an Attack on Moscow

page: 18
56
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


Religion is already at the root of this problem. I do not think religion is going to fix it.
Want world peace, abolish all religions.




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is in the Middle East - good point.

The problem is - Israel should not be in the Middle East.

Israel is the problem





Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





america and israel meddling in the middle east all the time?



Israel IS in the Middle East. Need a map?

en.wikipedia.org...


Well, if someone wanted to address the Rothschilds, I'm certainly up for that.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
In my opinion, this is probably why nothing "definitive" has been done against Iran. This is also why we have some type of "covert" war going on. I think that Russia is what has been holding Israel and the US back, as we already know China won't stand up to fight for Iran.

So what will happen now? Given what I know of covert diplomacy, I think that someone will try to bribe Russia, which I highly doubt will work, as they couldn't give anything to Russia to make up for what they get from Iran, at least in my view. Maybe I do not know all of the details though, and therefore I could be wrong.

We will see. I think what this comes down to is whether Israel is itching for war. If they were on their own, and their actions weren't affected by the opinions of the US, I think they would have launched an offensive already. So either Israel will finally get enough of the US telling them to stay away for now, and launch some type of military action, or they heed the warnings from Russia and back down altogether, which is what Russia probably wants.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Originally posted by nh_ee
We would not win a Nuclear exchange with the Russians.


No one wins in a nuclear war between superpowers...No one!

The Russians are all talk when it comes to Iran... It is strictly for the Iranian regime... Kind of like a "we got your back" ... The Russians made similar comments on Iraq before the Gulf War.

One thing the Russians should consider when it comes to their alliance with Iran, and that is that unless they plan to build thousands of Mosques, convert the entire nation to Shia Islam, and be ruled by Islamic law.. Then theirs is an alliance of convenience for Iran... Ultimately they too are Infidels, non-Muslims etc. and eventually must be dealt with accordingly.


If this all turns into a war, the Russians will make strong public condemnations etc, but they will stay out of it, and do their best to hide the true level of their covert involvement in Iranian weapons development programs...

IMO


Russia is in a tough situation here. They themselves do not want a nuclear Iran and nor does China. However, they also do not want US NATO stepping in and changing the regime and trying to make Iran a pro west nation.

I doubt Russia will step into a hot war on the Iranian side. But they sure will supply them with weapons, intelligence, even covert special forces and advisors as volunteers etc. A nation that will surely step in is Syria and Russians would like to do a lot more to help the Syrians given they buy lots of weapons and also host a port for the Russian navy. Things can become real 'rope walk' type risky here.

My assumption is US-NATO will get done with bombing the nuclear sites and not go for the regime change as that can result in lot of costs. Also, Iran might not react really heavy to nuclear sites attack to make sure there is no all out war on them.
edit on 16-1-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
After reading every single reply in this thread, I am again left wondering why some of you are so intent on having a confrontation between superpowers that WILL turn to nuclear, chemical and god forbid, biological.

If you had the slightest clue as to how messed up war is, you would know what I am talking about. And even if you do know those horrors, multiply that by an insane number and you've got yourself a pretty good idea of what a nuclear war looks like. What *bleep* would E.V.E.R cheer the prospect of hundreds of sentient lifeforms being vaporised and billions to die of radiation-poisoning, starvation, violence etc. WHY?!

I think I speak for the majority of this race when I say: Stop war mongering and break that bubble of arrogance and inhumanity around you and take a very close look at yourself!


IT--



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here is a post that I submitted a while back and I feel that this is the right place and time to repost it to provide some counter-balance to the warmongers:



A war between 2 nuclear superpowers like the USA and Russia could start with conventional weapons (Non WMD) but the ironic thing is that the result of that conventional war will most likely, not matter much. Although it is only speculated, it is my opinion that no matter who wins or loses the conventional war, the end result will be the same:
One of the parties involved will transform the war to thermonuclear which will effectively annihilate both sides.

Maybe it will be the "winner" of the conventional war who launches the first ICMB's, wanting to abolish its adversaries' nuclear abilities, knowing it won't take much for the "losing" side to start launching their nukes in desperation.
Or maybe it will be the "loser", launching its ICBM's in a desperate act of revenge.

Keep in mind that false-flag nuclear events are very likely to be carried out by both sides (Or perhaps a 3rd party) before those ICBM's are unleashed to assure a supportive "post-apocalyptic public opinion" (I know, right?) .

For those of you romanticizing nuclear war and for those of you who really want this to happen, consider these facts:

*Russia and the USA, both have enough nukes to vaporise billions of human beings WITH EASE if motivated to maximize collateral damage.

*Basically 99.99% of the surface of our planet is vulnerable to nuclear attacks.

*An ICBM, traveling in space at around Mach 22+ (7-8km/sec - 4.8 miles per second) will reach its target well within one hour after launch. This speed makes them EXTREMELY difficult to defeat. Even If you go by the most optimistic research results done in this area and include that 60% of all ICBM's targeting critical areas are intercepted and destroyed before entering their critical re-entry stage, the remaining 40% will still deploy their warheads and strike hundreds of targets with relative precision (Military Installation and big cities). Lets say Russia fires ALL ICBM's and SLBM's and by some miracle, only 40% gets through- That's still around 1600 warheads going "poof" in the USA.

*You are not safe from a nuclear strike, no matter how deep that bunker in your back-yard is. If one nuke hits close to you, you will be dead. Even NORAD can barely withstand the impact of ONE Russian built "SS-18 Satan" (Mod 3) ICBM and that place is built inside/under a friggin' MOUNTAIN.

*A SLBM or ICBM can deliver up to 12 separate nuclear warheads (MIRV) to different targets and each of these warheads make the nukes used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers by comparison (Look at this picture for comparison.)

*Don't rely too much on any missile shields and don't feel too comfortable thinking "My government will protect me". Both sides have silent and hard to detect nuclear powered Submarines that can carry carrying dozens of SLBM's. These missiles are basically the same as ICBM's and can also carry big warheads (Now mostly MIRV) but have a shorter range. Why a shorter range? Because longer range = bigger missile size. So if range doesn't matter if your sub can position itself 100-200 miles off the coast of your opponent and launch away, then why not make the missiles smaller which translates to = MORE missiles = MORE successful hits = MORE destruction.

*Most electronics will fry world-wide in the event of nuclear war. This means that even IF you by some miracle survive, there wont be anything to look forward to. Total anarchy will ensue and human beings will be forced to do some very unpleasant things to survive.

To give you a better understanding of how two possible nuclear strategies can look like:
Step 1: Nuclear subs are used to destroy the opponents' Anti-Air/Anti-ICBM capabilities.
Step 2: After the nuclear subs and their SLBM's have done their job, hundreds of ICBM's will be launched at multiple targets.
Step 3: If needed, nuclear armed fighters and bombers do the rest in relative "safety" now that the opponent has lost the ability to defend its airspace.
or:
90% if not ALL ICBM's and SLBM's will be launched at all targets to create an extremely over-saturated airspace which will be too much for the opponents' missile shield to track and defend against.

To those who are still playing the "My dad can beat up your dad" game, please take my words seriously and think. This is a very real scenario with extremely unfavorable consequences for our entire planet. Forget about how "romantic" the idea of nukes going off sounds and think very long and very hard about the result of nuclear war.


IT--



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


You are better off with such suggestions and efforts towards the US Neocon government.

US Gov. needs to hear from its civilians that they do not want another war and attack on other nation.

Nobody wants war here, mostly we are discussing 'possible war' scenarios.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkest4

This is one of the most brainwashed propaganda pieces I've ever read. Sad really.


Nice assessment, and I could argue the same against what you posted. But it is a wast of time, and ultimately words posted here make no difference, it changes nothing, and I respect your opinion.



Iran is dangerous?


Absolutely, and apparently far too many people are determined to learn this themselves the most explicit and undeniable ways imaginable.

So, lets all go along together, with the "wait and see" hands off approach to this, if nothing bad happens it's all good right?

Actually, there really isn't much that can be done about it now, one way or the other... So there is no point in being the aggressor here, the west has all of the time in the world to work with sanctions and diplomacy, and Iran will eventually comply... And of course pigs will fly on that day to.


If it is war that Iran wants, let them leave the world no other option before it happens... And then?






*back into the propaganda brainwashing machine*



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7

US Gov. needs to hear from its civilians that they do not want another war and attack on other nation.

Lets hear from the Gov , then shall we.

Cheney, is told 2/3 of American's are against the Iraq war.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


If the government so much hell bent like in Iraq 2003, the US civilians need to make some extra efforts to really make their sentiments known. Nothing destructive but there are many ways of peacefully coming out and getting the message through.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


I believe Josef Stalin was an atheist. And I also believe he was one of the, if not the* biggest mass murderer, in the history of humanity. Religion isnt the problem, beliefs arent the problem. Human nature is the problem.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by The time lord
 


Religion is already at the root of this problem. I do not think religion is going to fix it.
Want world peace, abolish all religions.


I agree to a certain extent but no where in History has man not had a relgion somewhere not at least a world where many nations follow one, so we never know that is going to be the full answer to the problems because it has never been tested to this scale before.

Not saying religion will fix it by it self, God might help in ways you would not think about because people over look the patterns of victory, these patterns are repeated over and over again in the Bible and proof in modern times it sides with those Christian or Jewish nations even when they could have been wiped out, the victor has always benefited them spiritually.

Religion even says it is a route of the problem because anti-religion also exists to counter it so it will always have its own battles.

I am not sure how the non religious world will convince the Hindus, Musims, Christians, Buddhists and Jews to stop their beliefs, but in trying to stop them you could end up being the very Beast in which many of these religions have been warned about in their scriptures, its a tough call.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by yourmaker
 


News flash
The US does not want Russian territory. Who needs a vast cold desolate landscape when we have California and Flirida???? H mmmm ???


the US would have many obvious interests in Russia.
for one, to eliminate them as a competitor to insure future American dominance.
two, strategic purposes, I wonder why Napolean and Hitler were so adament in taking Moscow? I wonder...
and third, that cold and desolate landscape happens to be the biggest country on the planet with enough resources for everyone 3x over.

edit on 16-1-2012 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Okay Dingleberry,

Start admitting you are wrong.

Here is the little Zionists and general handmaiden of the devil herself repeating the Zionist propaganda that her Zionist propaganda masters who are ruining the USA and the world told her to repeat.



No more wars for Israel




Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel has killed 2,000 Arab Children since the year 2000.

Love to see the proof on this. Have it?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
The Kennedy Administration was very much against Israel getting the atom bomb.

Should we have nuked Israel in 1962?

Who is it in the Israeli or American governments that advocated "nuking" the Iranians?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is like the kid that has broken the window and is point at the innocent kid and saying the innocent kid swore.

Blatant lies. Iran, Hamas, Hezzbollah Syria and more have blood on their hands too.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is the little liar and cheater. We need to focus on the real rogue state and that is Israel not Iran.

I do not like taking sides in this conflict, but if i must, id gladly take Israel over Iran.
edit on 16-1-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The only reason we are talking about a Russian response to American or Israel action against Iran is because Israel is the problem and is sucking the US into another conflict that has no benefit for us.

Thy Israeli peace group B'Tselem provided the figures that add up to 2,000 Arab children killed by Israel since the year 2000.

Just because you don't like people reminding the whole world that the Israeli government kills children does not mean it is not a fact.

Thanks for giving me a chance to say it and to post s video by B'Tselem that shows they offical racist attitude of your friends in the Israeli military and so-called security forces.

B'Tselem has given cameras to the Palestinian people so the Palestinians can document the daily Zionist war crimes and application of Apartheid officially sanctined by Israel.



Israel is the problem




Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel has killed 2,000 Arab Children since the year 2000.

Love to see the proof on this. Have it?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
The Kennedy Administration was very much against Israel getting the atom bomb.

Should we have nuked Israel in 1962?

Who is it in the Israeli or American governments that advocated "nuking" the Iranians?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is like the kid that has broken the window and is point at the innocent kid and saying the innocent kid swore.

Blatant lies. Iran, Hamas, Hezzbollah Syria and more have blood on their hands too.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is the little liar and cheater. We need to focus on the real rogue state and that is Israel not Iran.

I do not like taking sides in this conflict, but if i must, id gladly take Israel over Iran.
edit on 16-1-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2012 by BRAVO949 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Okay Dingleberry,

Start admitting you are wrong.

Here is the little Zionists and general handmaiden of the devil herself repeating the Zionist propaganda that her Zionist propaganda masters who are ruining the USA and the world told her to repeat.



No more wars for Israel




Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel has killed 2,000 Arab Children since the year 2000.

Love to see the proof on this. Have it?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
The Kennedy Administration was very much against Israel getting the atom bomb.

Should we have nuked Israel in 1962?

Who is it in the Israeli or American governments that advocated "nuking" the Iranians?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is like the kid that has broken the window and is point at the innocent kid and saying the innocent kid swore.

Blatant lies. Iran, Hamas, Hezzbollah Syria and more have blood on their hands too.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is the little liar and cheater. We need to focus on the real rogue state and that is Israel not Iran.

I do not like taking sides in this conflict, but if i must, id gladly take Israel over Iran.
edit on 16-1-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)


...and who are the real monsters again? Wow. That blew me away. I am so happy she will never be president.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
So if God/Christ and the Messiah is turing up at Zion in their religion should the world all join in to stop it?
The Jesus/Isa of Islam will turn up first in Damascus Syria so that is not even in Israel of today.
So should people start defecting to try and stop Zion and Israel like the world has done for the past 4,000 years.
Lucky the Bible is correct when it says that people will defect in endtime Israel but Zion will be used as stone they can not turn only to injure them selves.

Psalm 14:7
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!

Psalm 102:16
For the LORD will rebuild Zion and appear in his glory.

Joel 2:32
And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

Micah 4:13
“Rise and thresh, Daughter Zion, for I will give you horns of iron; I will give you hooves of bronze, and you will break to pieces many nations.” You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

Zechariah 9:9
[ The Coming of Zion’s King ] Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew 21:5
“Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

Romans 9:33
As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Revelation 14:1
[ The Lamb and the 144,000 ] Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.

So how many people hate Bob Marley?


edit on 16-1-2012 by The time lord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Exactly!

The really sad part of it is that Hillary probably does not even believe the whole Zionist propaganda dung hill.

How could anyone who has access to information on the level that she had even as the president's wife not know that Israel is the problem and has started all the wars except the 1973 war and caused all the trouble.

Hillary is just following orders because she knows that a small group of Zionists who don't give a damn about ordinary Jews in Israel or the US run the US government by funding pro-Israel candidates and making sure the ones they don't like, like Ron Paul are sandbagged by the media.

At this point Iran can not win by giving in to the unreasonable requests. Saddam did and they attacked him anyway. That was a stupid things to do on the part of the US. Make conditions then when they are met, attack anyway. Who could trust the US now and maybe that is why Iran, Russia and China are saying it might as well be now than later.

Israel is the problem




Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Okay Dingleberry,

Start admitting you are wrong.

Here is the little Zionists and general handmaiden of the devil herself repeating the Zionist propaganda that her Zionist propaganda masters who are ruining the USA and the world told her to repeat.



No more wars for Israel




Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel has killed 2,000 Arab Children since the year 2000.

Love to see the proof on this. Have it?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
The Kennedy Administration was very much against Israel getting the atom bomb.

Should we have nuked Israel in 1962?

Who is it in the Israeli or American governments that advocated "nuking" the Iranians?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is like the kid that has broken the window and is point at the innocent kid and saying the innocent kid swore.

Blatant lies. Iran, Hamas, Hezzbollah Syria and more have blood on their hands too.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Israel is the little liar and cheater. We need to focus on the real rogue state and that is Israel not Iran.

I do not like taking sides in this conflict, but if i must, id gladly take Israel over Iran.
edit on 16-1-2012 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)


...and who are the real monsters again? Wow. That blew me away. I am so happy she will never be president.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by blackmirage0311
 
Only a brainwashed military grunt would be so arrogant as to think the U.S. would easily defeat the likes of Iran, Russia, Syria and perhaps China. A common U.S. soldier only knows what he needs to know, and that's not much. They feed you a bunch of BS to keep you confident and your moral high. If you think it would be such a cake walk for the U.S. to take out Iran and Russia at the same time, why did the U.S. have such a tough time in Iraq and Afghanistan??

The U.S. forces are spread too thin and couldn't adequately fight on the number of fronts a war like that would require. The U.S. would sustain very heavy casualties and public support would be non-existent. Ultimately the U.S. would have to withdraw. HA!






posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkmask
 


Battlefield war fighting is totally a different game than holding a fort or base against the guerrilla warriors and insurgents. Conventionally US can handle Iran and Syria easily but it will not end there. Infact, I doubt these countries will put any conventional fights they might have their military assets melt away and wage a guerrilla war for some time in the future.

Btw, the day a cheap technology is developed where by the glorious USAF is kept at a distance, the days of total air dominence are over and this would also mean US will take fewer chances in doing what it has been doing since Desert Storm 1991. Long dragged wars would result in more causalities and much costs of all other sorts. Russians have some techs available to keep USAF in a box, more development on the way before it becomes a global tool to bring peace and protection to smaller countries also.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join