It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:27 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Good to see someone clearly summing up what's going on with the US, Syria, Iran Etc. Scary times we live in with scary people behind the wheels controlling it.

What happens if the end game versus Iran doesn't solve the Dollar/Oil issue at all though? Then what comes after that?


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:22 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

This is why I tell people that these wars have been al about National Interests and hence National Security. The Government perceives it as the same thing. A threat to anything that affects National interests such as economic, Geo-political, security and so forth. Well written and concise my friend. Thank you for taking the time. I would love a full draft of these writings if you ever have time. Feel free to U2U me.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:04 AM

Reza Shah changed the name of Persia to Iranian because of how impressed he was with the NAZI form of governance, and as a kind gesture to the NAZI leader Hitler. The Persian translation for Aryan is Iranian, hence the name change. it.

"Iran" is an ancient name for the country-here are some pictures of Persian coins from the 19th Century with "Iran" on them.

The Persian language is Farsi, and Aryan means "nobleman."

The website you linked to is an attempt to link Arafat to Nazis. It's a pathetic Israeli propaganda effort.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:49 AM
BREAKING NEWS! Watch these new clips from Assad's interview with Charlie Rose:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:17 AM
Great thread. S&F.

Thanks for the time put in it. Was really very informative.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck


I don't normally read such lengthy posts, but I felt the need to go over the information you put forth. I do preytell hope you are wrong, I truelly doubt that you are
you did a phenominal job of summarizing a lengthy OP at that
now I will sit and ponder this thread because it has hit the preverbial "nail" several times over it's daunting for lack of better expression.

Thank you for posting this.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:24 AM
Lost in all of the Anti-American pessimism. The U.S. is a leader in farming/Agriculture, Chemicals/Fertilizers, farming equipment (Equipment in general), engines, airplanes, defense, telecom, tech, and media.
We still are third largest trading country in the world! If the U.S. fails so will the rest of the world! All this China talk. They import a great deal of their materials that just gets exported right back out. The data is skewed! Oh they have all these people they are such a threat get real people ! How are they gonna mobilize some expendable force. They still have have hundreds of millions of dirt poor third world citizens. Their not even close to our tech. Other world leading economies defense is heavily subsidized by the U.S.! WHAT'S THE REST OF THE WORLD GOING TO DO WHEN WE PULL OUR RESOURCES??? America isn't goin to just turn into some dirthole because of minor economic issues. Even if the economy collapsed so what. This is a country of innovators not everyone just sits around doing nothing and would die without cable t.v. I've been through many hurricanes where I live, people are not as unresourceful as some claim.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:25 AM
A "coming terrorist attack" is an irrelevancy. If it happens it will be the latest cherry on the cake of a policy of military aggression that the United States has indulged in for decades.

Even if someone were to get wind of it in advance and hide around the corner filming the preparations with their cell phone and then post the video to YouTube, it wouldn't make a difference to the final result, which would be overwhelming American support for military retaliation on the framed nation.

It's a hopeless situation.

In France during WW1 there was an incident where soldiers were actually marching toward the front "baaaa-ing" like sheep as they marched.

We are exactly the same as those French soldiers.

Prior to WW1 there was a huge international anti-war movement, fully supported by international and national labor federations. As soon as war was declared, "presto", it disappeared into a cloud of fervent nationalism.

If war is declared by any of our countries, anyone agitating against war will be subject to internment for the duration. That's what happened in WW2.

Worrying about the "coming terrorist attack" is like a bull rider worrying about the bull's next fart. The mere fact that he has his mind on something like that shows you that he isn't really doing his job.

I think the only thing that could possibly change the course of US foreign policy at this juncture is mass civil disobedience. That would include many very disruptive actions on the part of hundreds of thousands of citizens. In effect it would be as if the citizenry itelf refused to take direction from the government, on anything, until the government renounced offensive war as an instrument of policy.

Nobody is even agitating for this. The person closest to it that I am aware of is Webster Tarpley, a very intelligent voice but one with a small following.

If America had such a policy and if America decided to abide by international law, there would be no overt American military intervention in Syria.

In addition to that, a terrorist attack would have to be shown to have been committed by some person, organization or government before military retaliation could be initiatied.

If that were the case in America, none of the wars the United States has fought since Korea would have been fought.

I think the world would have turned out much better for everybody if that had been the case.

There is a line in the movie The Patriot when the character played by Mel Gibson says words to the effect of,

"Would you rather be ruled by one tyrant 3000 miles away or by 3000 tyrants one mile away?"

America chose the 3000 tyrants and they are living with the consequences.

They decapitated a monarchy but kept the aristocracy. Small difference, especially when the aristocracy, every four years, installs a new monarch.

American policy can be changed but only by massive civil disobedience.

edit on 9-9-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Racist

I don't think it is "anti-American pessimism" to point out when a wrong is committed, nor to point out a plan that could lead to some pretty bad consequences. I believe being an American means we have the right, no, the obligation to speak up when things are going wrong and to tell others.

The US is still the world's leader in agriculture, and we do still have one of the largest economies in the world. But look around. This economy is slipping, not growing any more. China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds. Try buying a TV made in America. Donald Trump himself tried it, and was unable to find even one brand that was made here. There are as many cars made by foreign countries on the road today as there are made by American companies. We have more people needing government assistance to simply eat than ever before. These are not things to be proud of.

I have never stated that any economic disaster that could come from this would be limited to the US. On the contrary, we are discussing a global disaster, just as surely as the Great Depression of 1929 affected countries around the globe as well as the USA. That's the problem with having an International Reserve Currency. if it falters,it affects everyone. That is the very reason Middle Eastern countries want to depeg form the dollar in the first place. We have been poor stewards of our responsibilities.

Patriotism is not always agreeing with your leaders. Sometimes it is disagreeing with them.


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:54 AM
Doubt even mass civil disobedience will change it.

Now they are so beyond reason that only a military defeat can change the situation.

The American people have been made so dependent on the State that they have no option but to toe the line.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by GargIndia

You have a point.

Japan renounced offensive war only after two of its cities were incinerated by atomic bombs.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

I have alluded to my belief that we will not be able to finish the war we start this time. I do not discount the possibility that this is due to massive civil disobedience, civil war, or even an overthrow of the government.

I should add that I am not looking forward to any of those possibilities. All would cause some serious casualty rates.


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:16 AM
RT is reporting that Syrian rebels plan to use chemical weapons to attack Israel with chemical weapons from Assad government controlled territories in Syria.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:26 AM
I can see how the fear of economic collapse does play a part in motivation for war, something has Obama jumping. But I do strongly question the actuality of any US economic collapse being a result of declining petrodollar status. The BRIC nations have been making moves against it, the relative effect of Iran in this is minor. Unless the goal is to give BRIC's a spanking as well. With how Syria is shaping up it could be one way to sort out the petrodollar status globally. But will this save the USD?

What is the petrodollar? it is just one of many markets, with trade is USD to help grow the USD demand. As people are already worried about just how much USD is in the market, is the answer really to force even more demand to use and print even more USD? What happens when there are no more nations to conqueror, is the whole world to collapse on this unsustainable economic model?

You bet the USD has some big problems, if the survival of the USD is dependent on what currency one commodity is traded in by another nation, then it has some seriously messed up problems. At best all the Syria diversion does is provide a back drop as much stronger global economic forces will come to bear as the conflict grows. Sure there is a lot of money at stake in the oil markets, but just how much of an influence is it really in the overall economy? Debt is just one of many that looks to have much larger numbers involved.

One thing economies do not like is sudden change, the US will be much better off to go through a gradual decline than a sudden drop in terms of petrodollar status.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by kwakakev

I see your point, but there's one aspect that most people don't fully grasp. I illustrate it with two quotes from your post:

But I do strongly question the actuality of any US economic collapse being a result of declining petrodollar status.
Debt is just one of many that looks to have much larger numbers involved.

The ability for the debt problem to exist hinges on the petrodollar. Without the pertodollar, the USA does not have the ability to maintain the debt it presently has. Not even close.

How many times have you heard, "If a person tried to have the relative debt the US has, they'd be bankrupt"? That's because a person does not have the ability to economically demand use of their assets... a person must compete with other people. If someone with a lucrative job gets deeply into debt, then loses that lucrative job and becomes unemployable, all that debt is called in immediately. The same thing will happen if the US loses the dollar-oil peg. Their lucrative position is gone and all their debt is suddenly called in, leaving them broke, deep in debt, in collections, and unable to do anything about it.

That, in this case, means no more food stamps, social security, government pensions, money for infrastructure, tax refunds, money to pay for contract services already rendered, etc., etc., etc. The dollar value plummets; everything manufactured overseas suddenly doubles, triples, quadruples in price... and remember that includes almost everything we buy. People are hungry, desperate, indigent. Looting becomes commonplace and there is no money to pay police. The entire economy breaks down into something out of a Mad Max movie.

Economics relies on studies of relative assets and monetary exchanges, but it does not go into the effects when someone doesn't have the essentials for survival. It expects that repayment of debt is not only possible, but within certain guidelines predictable. That dynamic changes when an economy collapses, and the amount of turmoil is exponentially proportional to the change in lifestyle people experience. That's a lot of turmoil in the case of the wealthiest society on the globe.

So, yeah, the debt is the real issue, but the petrodollar is supporting that debt. Take away the petrodollar and the whole house of cards collapses.


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

How do you compare a debt call in from a decline in the petrodollar against a world war? Perhaps a war is good for jobs, but basic resources sound pretty tight all over from my grandparents stories. Then as the conflict grows it is not just calling in the debt, but also releasing held reserves of USD on the market further flooding and degrading the currency, pretty much rebuild time.

I very much expect those advocating the Syria intervention do have investments at stake, but as a representation of the global economy it is coming across as a band of bandits getting their protection money and holding their turf, through any means necessary.

There are a lot of problems in terms of moving towards a more cohesive global economy. The whole world is not going to drop their trade in the USD overnight, unless the US gives the world no other options. With the way money currently works, debt is just part of the equation. The government pays interests on the bond to create the money, then pays interest again to get the money from the bank. To fix the US economy the answers are closer to home.
edit on 9-9-2013 by kwakakev because: spelling

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I wish today your posts/wisdom would "go viral". Thank you.

There is a storm coming IMHO.I think the address tomorrow is simply going to be a statement of fact and intention, not a request for "permission" or support.

When I go to an Pilates upscale studio full of "affluent females" with comfortable, sustained lifestyles and every one of them is angry and tense today because even they realize that 'things are going bad", I need to believe that MANY more people are feeling the same?

I have NEVER heard such language, such discontent, and so many ideas of "to hell with them" expressed as I have in the past three days of interacting with friends and others! People are FED UP!

I don't believe everyone is "sticking their head in the sand" this time:too many have been personally affected by the circumstances in the Middle East, too many are exhausted from having their resources (in some cases, their life-savings lost!) depleted, concerned about health-care and privacy of all kinds,and too many are worried for their families and futures...

They had best have a Plan B because I think they're going to need it.

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Lots of countries are having some serious debt problems.

Argentina collapsed about 20 years ago basically by defaulting on their debt obligations, and today they seem to have not learned their lesson well. They are on the verge of collapsing again by reckless spending and government corruption.

Look at greece which needed a severe haircut to maintain itself. Look at italy, look at ireland, look at spain, look at portugal.

Bad decisions bring bad results, but never is hope lost.

At some point one needs to dig deeper into WHY so many countries have debt problems. Why do people still believe in keynesian theory? Why do politicians make so many fake promises? Is there a deeper conspiracy involved?

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by kwakakev

I don't directly compare a collapse in the economy to a world war. I do explain how attempts to repair that slipping petrodollar can lead to a world war.

Follow me on this: As long as there is sufficient tie between oil and the US dollar, the dollar must remain strong regardless of debt. The petrodollar is a sort of "get out of jail free" card for national debt. Without the petrodollar, the US is already far over its head in debt beyond any chance of recovery. If not for the petrodollar forcing the US currency to be the International Reserve Currency, our economy would have crashed twenty years or more ago.

The moves you mention about the IMF moving to a currency basket have been well under way for some time, and these moves threaten our IRC status. But the petrodollar makes such attempts fruitless, because the IMF cannot force OPEC to accept monies it does not want to accept. Our goodwill with Saudi Arabia from back in the 30s has protected the petrodollar via OPEC. Any large producer "going rogue" and accepting other currencies, however, undermines that status. Iran produces enough oil to do just that, and indeed has converted all of its oil sales to non-dollar currencies. The balance of power is shifting away from the US dollar as the IRC, endangering our economic status.

That has nothing to do with war... that is International economics.

War comes into the picture when the US realizes that it has but one chance to survive economically, and that is to maintain control over oil-producing companies trading policies. We did that in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc. through the Arab Springs and Gulf War. But we cannot get covert operatives into Iran because of our sordid history with mistreating Iran. We have only one option left to force them away from trading in non-dollar currencies, and that is destruction of the country.

If we attack Iran openly, we run a strong risk of drawing other major powers, such as Russia and possibly China, into the conflict. A victory over Iran would be a piece of cake, but against some of these other superpowers with nuclear capability and massive resources, we would be in for a prolonged bloody fight. To get around that, we can use Israel to attack Iran as our proxy, by using propaganda to build up the threats Israel already feels from Iran and by supporting and supplying Israel covertly.

So we need Israel to take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.

In order to accomplish that, Israel must be free to strike without a gun already pointed at their heads. That gun is Syria, a nation which is a strong Iranian ally, who already has an intense dislike of Israel, and is sitting next door, well within immediate strike range. Our answer was another Arab Spring overthrow of the Syrian government, but that didn't work out. Syria's government is too strong to overthrow, as the prolonged fighting indicates. So in order to assist the rebels in their task of overthrowing Assad and minimizing any threat to Israel, we need an excuse to launch a direct strike. We are attempting that using the excuse of chemical weapons capability and use.

So we launch a strike against Syria to help the rebels win so Israel can take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.

Now the issue is that the American Congress and the American people are dead-set against the strike, and Obama's very political career is threatened if he goes through with the strike. He needs public support for the strike. The answer is to use a terrorist attack against the US on US soil, blamed on Syrian terrorists, to drum up support for action against Syria.

So we allow a terrorist attack in the US to blame Syria to get support for a strike on Syria to help the rebels overthrow the Syrian government to protect Israel while they take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.

To fix the US economy the answers are closer to home.

You are absolutely right. But this is not about fixing the economy; it is about keeping the economy broken but functional. To revert to the comparison with a person's finances, how many people have found themselves deep in debt, at the point of bankruptcy, but still refuse to give up those credit cards and even accept more?

We may agree on what is best for the economy (and I think we probably would if that were the question here), but what we think is irrelevant. Neither of us have the power to make public policy. We don't have the ability to stop this immediate future either, but if we at least understand it, maybe we can make positive changes from there.


posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 01:41 PM
Well I can't find much if anything that I disagree with. I've been piecing together different areas of this mess since about 2007. Libya was the real dead ringer for me as it exposed a more apparent pattern to US intervention. It is clear to me that oil and profit are the main reasons for the US involvement, but the true war is in the Sunni/Shi'ite conflict. The biggest proponent of our involvement has been Saudi Arabia, and dare I say.. every event that has led the US to Middle Eastern conflict has been a result of Saudi executed false flags, or "terrorist attacks". I feel that our government has known and planned for what is happening now in the Middle Eastern region.

I have a thread that sort of follows the same parallels, looking mostly at Saudi Arabia's involvement. I think the US is most heavily invested in Sunni interests although we've declared "War" on their most radical groups.. We now want to fight alongside them. It appears that it may have been the plan all along..

Saudi Involvement in US intervention. How do the US and SA both benefit?

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in