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.

 

Iran says could hit U.S. if it came under attack: paper

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 


"Mother of all wars", ring any bells?




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
If a war starts, it might not be a bad idea to take a vacation in the country for a few weeks.
Just in case.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Someone should tell Mahmoud Imanutjob that if you hit someone, they might hit back.

Didn't you read the article? It says IF CAME UNDER ATTACK. Do you expect them to just let you attack them?
edit on 3/4/2012 by GLaDOS because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
Americans really don't get scared from attacks we get angry,because you can't hit us all at once.


I agree with you on this point, however, if you are already hitting Iran, what on earth is there to loose? It wouldn't matter then, because the whole 'we will get angry and retaliate' means nothing when you are already attacking a country.

Iran wont hit first, but there is that 'blaze of glory' to contend with.



"Call me young gun"



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Iran does not want to fight America , Israel is pushing this and America is "easing" it in there.

Bend over people , we`re about to get f##### by the NWO.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
So this means nothing? TPTB know exaclty what they are doing. Wait until about Oct. then the war will start. Iran will do exactly as they are saying. The sheeple in the US will demand the borders are closed by the military and demand anyone with a Muslim background be rounded up. First they came for the Muslims, and I said nothing. Then they came for the Catholics, and I said nothing. Then they... fill in the blank. The time table has been set. They actions are in motion. It will happen. What are you going to do?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Obama isn't going to go to war until the election is over. Hes not going to risk his re election over another war. Most people realize that if we begin another war Obama is not going to be re elected. Honestly I hope he doesn't get re elected.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
reply to post by caf1550
 


"Mother of all wars", ring any bells?


I believe its not there yet even if war started, but the signs is showing, damn, I hate living at the end of the world.
It is still blurry to me if this the war the prophecy talking about, but the actors is all there.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Obama isn't going to go to war until the election is over. Hes not going to risk his re election over another war. Most people realize that if we begin another war Obama is not going to be re elected. Honestly I hope he doesn't get re elected.


So, does this mean I need to base my hopes on if I do not want Obama re-elected, that I must hope for war?
That is messed up....Usually that is how Presidents get re-elected. But if he does not get re-elected regardless, he cannot start a war anyway.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
As long as they only hit Washington DC. Other then that, good for them...U.S. Government shouldn't be provoking anyone anyways...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


No it means no matter if Obama gets elected or the republicans win they aren't going to go to war. Obama espcially because hes not going to risk loosing the election over another war.

There not going to risk loosing support over another war. I could honestly careless though im probably going to be over seens in the next 9 months anyways.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by RockLobster
 


Obama isn't going to go to war until the election is over. Hes not going to risk his re election over another war. Most people realize that if we begin another war Obama is not going to be re elected. Honestly I hope he doesn't get re elected.


Its not about Obama starting a war, its the only thing that has a chance at getting him re-elected. If he is going to hold onto power, then there would have to be another 'terrorist attack' on US soil, thus ensuring that people will vote for the most war mongering person on the ballot, which Obama will prove to be.... it is how Bush got re-elected wasn't it? He was dedicated to "protecting the people" and used the World Trade Center tragedy shamelessly www.nytimes.com...

Many things scream that if the powers that be decide Obama needs to stay in office for a second term then you will see a 'terror attack' on US soil once more. If they decide it is time for him to move on, then you wont.

But the stage and lies are set for another 'attack' so it would not surprise me in the least, the hezbollah agents in the united states, the al qaeda poster being shown by every major media group, and other, almost unrelated, events such as Orlando international airport becoming private security and the intensified political posturing of US and Israel against Iran...I am not saying they have not said similar things before, but it is becoming all too concentrated at current.

Added to that the need to convince the public to attack Iran and you have your next 'terror attack', it is only a matter of when they will consider it in their best interest to start it all off imho.

I am only hoping I will be able to judge when so that I wont be here for any of it. I do not think they want Obama for a second term, I think he did what they wanted him to do therefore his time is up. I believe they will settle Syria before moving on to Iran, and are setting the Iranian war stage far enough in advance to make it seem plausible.

But if I am wrong, then there is not much time left, because elections are soon.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
will it be the mother of all attacks ?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
will it be the mother of all attacks ?


The only thing that seems logical due to the people's unwillingness for war currently. After Afghanistan and Iraq people are not as quick to jump to war.. so yeah I think it would have to be much larger at any rate in order to get Americans behind a war effort. It appears to be most keeping with common sense in light of recent history.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Sure they can. Put some missiles on some tramp steamers and sail off the coast of the US in international waters. Lawyers for Obama would spend months debating whether it would be legal to take out the ships. Meanwhile the missiles would be in range of many American cities. If you don't have a long range missile, shorten the range. One of many ways to attack America without large fleets of planes and ships.


It is much easier that that.

One fast speedboat, laden with one "dirty bomb" enters the Fort Lauderdale Seaway on a sunny sunday afternoon in company of hundreds of others.
Once inside it has the intercoastal waterway to play with and can get undetected anywhere on the eastern seaboard.
Simple really.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Sailor Sam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 

If we were to invade Iran,I would expect the world to jump all over the US,but not over an airstrike. The effort here is not to destroy Iran but to attack the covert infrastructure of a given technology.NO one is advocating taking land with boots or a campaign to capture Iran.
We couldn't do that.That is why American generals have stopped this effort over two administrations.The military says no.
There would have to be a bio attack that would be really bad.We already suspect TPTB over 911.They have burned that bridge ,An EMP or a dirty bomb in one city won't cut it this time.
If multiple SADMs go off,we know that would be an inside job.
edit on 3-4-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 

What I figure is that any country that has nukes for power in this day and age has nukes.
The reason is if you load a 50 or 60kg chunk of waste on a regular old warhead BOOM you got nukes.

All of the rest is smoke and mirrors for the machinations of old people that like to blow stuff up and build it again, they use earth like a big giant game of risk



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by Jameela
 

If we were to invade Iran,I would expect the world to jump all over the US,but not over an airstrike. The effort here is not to destroy Iran but to attack the covert infrastructure of a given technology.NO one is advocating taking land with boots or a campaign to capture Iran.
We couldn't do that.That is why American generals have stopped this effort over two administrations.The military says no.
There would have to be a bio attack that would be really bad.We already suspect TPTB over 911.They have burned that bridge ,An EMP or a dirty bomb in one city won't cut it this time.
If multiple SADMs go off,we know that would be an inside job.
edit on 3-4-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)


Herein lies the crux of the matter, when US (or Israel either one) decides upon that effort to attack the infrastructure (covert or not) in Iran it will not be considered a light matter, it will be an overt act of war against a sovereign nation and Iran will treat it in the same manner as boots on the ground invading her country.

This is where American egotism takes effect, because you have done this to other countries without any difficulty you imagine that Iran will be the same.

The guarantee is she will not.

Also, I have no clue as to what a SADM is. Forgive my ignorance but I could not comment on that because I am ignorant as to the term.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I've never understood why terrorists haven't leveraged sleeper cells to this date in the US. There's been more domestic terrorism(ie. McVeigh), 9-11 aside, than what could be expected. The obvious targets are laughable. Look at the buckets of money spent securing events like Times Square/New Years and the stupid bowl. You wouldn't get a mouse fart past those events.

As other posters have clearly stated an attack on Iran could present a scenario the US is ill equipped to handle. FEMA, military and law enforcement drills would not adequately prepare for the mass panic that would ensue. High volume targets like shopping malls, university campuses, theatres, subway stations, etc. seem logical of course. If a chain reaction starts, markets would plunge and people would simply lose it on a grand scale.

brill



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I'm sure Iran has got a few ICBM's off Russia so I'd say ya Iran could have the capability of striking the US, but the chances of it making threw the US defense are pretty low.

to be honest I think some Americans are pretty ignorant to think they are the best military in the world and are invincible. (note i said some, i do not mean all are like that. also not limited to Americans either)


maybe this is what they need to come back to reality??


I personally think Iran is being set up in all of this. not many countries left in the world now without a Rockefeller / Rothschild Bank set up in there, what maybe 3-4 including Iran??

anyway the last couple of invasions by the west are just coincidences tho!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join