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.

 

The Coming Terrorist Attack, Syria, Iran, and WWIII

page: 12
264
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 
There's only one event, that could shock the American people, like it did on 9-11; and that would have to be nuclear; or something along these lines.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


i agree with your hypothesis of a soon to be experienced false flag. my best guess is a nuclear attack on chicago based on the below and blamed on iran. maybe they'll find a passport of ahmadinejad or his successor there.
!. emmanuel stepped down from a cabinet position and took on the lesser job of mayor there.
2. mass evacuation plans were drawn up last year for possible riots in downtown chicago.
3. a prophecy from an obscure source i read several years ago before 1 and 2 occurred that a nuke would arrive there from across one of the great lakes. the elite have no qualms about mass murder and the zio rats creed is "by deception shall we make war"
4. some time back, an american nuke went missing; how convenient.

lets hope not.

and 5. maybe this is whats planned as a back up?
rense.com...

edit on 9-9-2013 by orangutang because: added 2 points



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


There is an alternative to the petrodollar paradigm that the ptb have refused to consider.
America could be a net exporter (by a large margin) of energy. That would basically solve all the petrodollar problems and the impending ww3 scenario. How? The technology is readily available to create enough solar energy in America and the needed transfer mechanics to supply the entire world with energy. All that is lacking is the infrastructure investment. Last time I looked, there are still some around 30 million people officially out of work that want to work. So, have them build it.

Energy export would support the dollar as well or better than the petrodollar exchange.

I'm not sure if tpb are just too daft, or if maybe they are using the petrodollar issue to leverage a wider war for control.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

TheRedneck
reply to post by GenerationGap

That's what I was alluding to when I mentioned "condensed version" and "more aspects." There was just no way to possibly cover a single percent of everything that has happened to lead up to this.

Reza Shah (the original Western puppet) was actually able to keep the people of Iran happy while he went about his changes. He was very impressed with Western culture and succeeded in large part in Westernizing Iran, including the name change. His major contribution from the West's perspective, however, was the continuing national complacency toward Western control of oil supplies.

The legacy of Reza Shah includes the beginning of Tehran University, the Trans-Iranian railway, an impressive increase in the number and quality of highways, a large increase in industry outside the oil-exporting industry which already existed, increased tolerance for the Jewish people, and even increased rights for women, although such were still dismal compared to our modern Western society. Some of these changes were actually at great personal risk since they angered the ultra-conservative clergy.

The Bretton-Woods agreement was not implemented under Reza Shah Pahlavi, but under his son Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Mohammed Reza took the throne after British forces forced the abdication of Reza Shah in 1941; The Bretton-Woods conference was held in 1944 and full implementation of the Bretton-Woods system was implemented in 1945.

Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was the one often referred to today as the "Shah of Iran." The term Shah is actually a general parallel to our term "President." How confusing would it be in 50 years if someone simply said "President Bush" without specifying which of the two they are talking about?

During all the modernization Reza Shah undertook, he developed a large trading partnership with Germany which lasted right up to the eve of WWII. So yes, he traded quite regularly with the Nazis, but then again so did the USA and several other countries. During WWII, however, Iran maintained a stance of neutrality, even when Iran was sometimes in the middle of a battle theater. Was he sympathetic towards the Nazis? Maybe, and if so that would explain why British forces demanded his abdication. But he also transferred Iranian economic control from the British Imperial Bank to the National Bank of Iran, cancelled the agreement made with William Knox D'Arcy, and made many other movements which would not have sat well with the British.

In the end, all we have on that single point about Nazi sympathies is speculation, and where speculation is concerned, yours is as good as mine.

TheRedneck


It's a well known fact the Iranians financed the German National Socialist Party, to this day their own government admits it. Also, traces of the swastika etched into buildings and monuments built during that time period can still be found through out Iran as well. It's not speculation, the proof is everywhere and you either have to be willfully ignorant or have an ulterior and undisclosed motive to even attempt to deny it. Naming your country Aryan Nation and funding a proxy war in the west to destroy anything not deemed Aryan is not in any way up for speculation; it's a fact that not even the current Iranian government has ever tried to deny.

It's funny, people always cry fowl that the Americans are levying a proxy war; fact is the Persians are by far the most practiced culture in existence when it comes to levying a proxy nation into a war to protect Persia's interests. Syria is simply the most recent example of this.

I don't want the US meddling in Syria because US leadership is no where near as intellectually equipped as they need to be in order to win a proxy war vs. the Persians.

People seem to think the US and her allies are the only ones wanting war; well for thousands of years before the words "United States" were ever put together as a proper noun these cultures were plotting and carrying out wars. To assume they have stopped, or ever will stop, is to concede sovereignty to them.


(post by SamuelRose removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna

One massive problem with that idea, from the viewpoint of those in power:

All of the large oil-exporting countries have nationalized their oil reserves and infrastructure, or they have given concessions which allow only those holding the concessions (the large oil companies who are all on board with keeping the status quo running smoothly) to get to the oil. In the United States, oil exploration can be owned by individuals. Anyone can go out on their property (assuming they have mineral rights still), dig a well, buy a pump, and start pumping oil out of the ground. Once they have the oil they have the right to sell it to whoever they choose for whatever payment they choose.

In Saudi Arabia, those in power only need deal with the Royal Family to control the oil from an entire nation.

In America, they have to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that happens to have an oil well.

That is the real reason why the US doesn't develop its own oil reserves. As long as we are using oil that comes from someone who is controlled by those in power, we maintain the petrodollar and the International Reserve Currency. As soon as we start dealing with people who have economic freedom, it becomes much harder to maintain that status.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenerationGap

A quote from www.iranchamber.com...

Reza Shah tried to minimize involvement with Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; formed from the Russian Empire in 1922), although Britain, through its ownership of the Angelo-Iranian Oil Company, controlled all of Iran's oil resources. But many of his development projects required foreign technical expertise. To avoid awarding contracts to British and Soviet Companies, Reza Shah preferred to obtain technical assistance from Germany, France, Italy and other European countries. This made problems for Iran after 1939, when Germany and Britain became enemies in World War II. Reza Shah declared Iran a neutral country, but Britain insisted that German engineers and technicians in Iran were spies with missions to sabotage British oil facilities in southwestern Iran and demanded that Iran expel all German citizens. Reza Shah refused, claiming this would adversely impact his development projects.


No one is saying the Iranians did not deal with or even have friendly relations with the Germans during that time period. They did. Iran remained neutral in WWII. Neutral means they did not support either the British/USSR or the Germans. Reza Shah did have a problem with the British because they owned substantial interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and that probably did lead to him having additional dealing with the Germans as mentioned in the excerpt above.

But to claim that somehow Iran embraced the Supremacy movement embraced by the Germans based on nothing more than a similarity in a chosen name to a word used by the Germans shows a lack of understanding of the word "Aryan" itself. It comes from a sanscrit word meaning "noble" and was the name of a section of Persia in Farsi (the Persian language). "Aryan" in its proper form does not even refer to whites; it refers to anyone who descends from an Indo-European background. In Farsi, "Iran" means "land of the Aryans," which in turn means "land of the brave and noble Persians."

Now if you want to argue that Iranians believe Iranian is a good thing to be... well, you win. The British think being British is a good thing, the Germans think being German is a good thing, the Italians think being Italian is a good thing, Australians think being Australian is a good thing, the Chinese think being Chinese is a good thing, the Russians think being Russian is a good thing... heck, I have met people from Chicago who actually think that is a good thing!

Hitler gave the word the context it tends to carry today through his adoption of the word to the Germans and his Supremacy movement. In short, he perverted the meaning. Iran, while probably derived from the same word and even possibly taken as a measure to ingratiate the Germans as trading partners, does not necessarily mean the same as the perverted use by Hitler.

I am not aware of swastikas on Persian architecture. Do you have a link to that?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
There is the obvious, a chemical attack on Israel. The U.S. has treaties to enforce. It would stir up the Israel supporters, Jewish and Christian Evangelicals. Maybe a little excess blown over into Jordan or Lebanon. Just enough to get the Sunni and fence sitters going in the correct direction. Now, to drag Iran into the mix in a forceful manner, perhaps as a co-conspirator.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 
A point always missed concerning China. The biggest elephant in the zoo has a chain attached, the Chinese language as blue printed by the Confusicain scholars/imperial bureaucrats. Remember, what was probably the largest fleet of the largest vessels for the era was destroy on orders of the Imperial Bureaucracy. China needed nothing from any where else. It had everything needed within its borders. This belief is part and parcel of the social training of Chinese, learning to speak Chinese. And yes, MAD will not work with them. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese do not love their grandchildren. Grandchildren are only future worshipers of their ancestors.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
That's all grand, and much of it is very accurate. However,there is a premise that makes the wheels fall off. That is the premise that america is acting in americas own best economic interest. That's absolutely false. America is acting in the global interest of bringing our economy down, the NWO bigwigs have all said as much. There can be no great global communist empire when america has so much to lose, so america must lose everything.

Thus the haphazard spending, the increasing of taxes, the beginning of the takeover of our healthcare system, etc...

The dollar won't collapse should it's pegging to oil be removed, just like how the euro has continued to exist being backed by literally nothing. Runaway inflation has not happened in europe (which it will before it hits the US).

And if oil = money, america has positioned itself to dominate. We have sucked the oil out of the middle east, while sitting on our own reserves, which are much bigger than any of the reserves in the middle east.

It's not about the dollar, it's about power. The men that control the world have all the dollars they could care for, they don't need more dollars or want more dollars, they want CONTROL. That's all, their lust for power is insatiable, and while money helps with that, it also hinders in many ways.

Overall a great post by the OP and I thoroughly appreciate the thought and hard work putting it together. Keep up the good work


JMO.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
One last thought. Go to the Gutenberg Project and get a copy of "War is a Racket," by General S. Butler, USMC, Ret, from the 1930's. He fought in the Banana Wars during the 20s. Awarded two Medals of Honor. He knew about and pointed out the PTB used the Marine Corps like gangster muscle to take over many Nations.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
i dont think there is much more you could add to this topic / post.

well done, this should help people with some actual clarity as to why these events take place.

the question would be how do we stop it ..?

a war machine stops operating if the people stop participating.

peaceful civil disobedience is perhaps one way .. it worked for India against the British.


just a thought, again well done redneck !!





Muzz



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Wow, not really much to add, but I would like to say thanks for making such an in depth thread. A lot I already knew about, but I learned some interesting timbits that I had not known. These are the kind of threads I enjoy sinking my teeth into, when I have some time to do so. I have only read the first few pages so far, look forward to having a chance to catch up and read the rest



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Star and flag. Very well written. I hope nothing bad happens over the next few days but I'm going to be extra cautious this week.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I agree with the op.

another aspect that is not mentioned in the op that also sheds light onto this whole mess is peak oil.

in other words it is not just that the entire economy of the usa might collapse but in fact the entire infrastructure of the industrial world that is in danger.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




it is about keeping the economy broken but functional.


Yes I do agree with this as a motivator for the ongoing conflict. It does look like we both agree that maintaining petrodollar is not the answer to the US economy. With a lack of consensus around any alternative plans of economic management and restructure, the seemingly easy options of blaming someone else looks to be the current policy direction. As for a long term stable option it does has epic fail written all over it.

At a basic level, money is just about measuring an individuals input and output with society. An economy does not need to be backed by anything, but with people being incompetent and deceiving at times, having an economy backed by an asset does help provide some integrity and fall back when things go wrong. Take Bitcoins as one example, all that is backing it is the integrity of its encryption.

Being on these boards as so much conflict has gone down I know there is little we can do about it. Understanding the core problems is a start, if enough focus can be placed on what is really driving these actions then hopefully the community discussion and enough common sense can surface in time.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Think about it, we've seen it a lot since the 2008 collapse, companies dumping stock to avoid massive losses. I mean what does a ruthless business owner do if he knows his business is failing? Dump stock while there is still value and get out. We're just seeing it on a far deeper level. The glue that holds the illusion together. The dollar is the business and the business is a little shaky--with a reputation greed, arrogance and self-centeredness on top of pre-emptive (aka intial) strikes. The dollar can't survive because of the reputation America has (militarily and financially). Which means it's in the process of dying, because by the middle east countries all opening up to outside currrencies, they have effectively dumped their investment in the "dollar" business. America can't have a run on the bank so to speak because their is no reputable currency that could emerge instantaously. However, you can't stop those countries from planning an exit from the relationship with the dollar-- you can sure as hell try and intimidate them into organizing a structured transition to a new currency standard. It makes sense that those who are pegged are dumping with urgency as the longer they stay pegged the more money they will lose. That is IF the dollar is failing and leaders know it. This is unsettling to me for a number of reasons, the most important being the implication that Congressional approval for war, or anything for that matter, is esstentially a public spectacle and the real plans are already in motion. It wasn't always that way, the image of America used to be that of Freedom and the pursuit of happiness. However, times change and so do perceptions.

The dollar is only as good as our reputation and when WWII ended we had an excellent reputation. Then Korea, then Veitnam, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afganistan and finally the people stopped celebrating when America was on their way. The murmurs of American Greed became front page, the lies of D.C. airing across the world. Leaks of major interferance in conflicts we officially never took a stance on. The image of America went from cheers of jubilation to silent fear as we raced forward to devolop the most unholy weapons ever known to the planet. The end of the Cold War was the dawning of the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) World. A world where all you needed was the technology to decimate a city and you entered into a club of countries that manipulated and decided which "little" country was deemed ok to possess the technology. Pupeteers, puppets and the little people distracted, oppressed or outright enslaved. So, while the good guys in D.C. stood by silent and watched out of fear, the corrupt inherited the world and spread like a cancer.


America's image is gone. To many wars in the name of freedom makes one question what exactly the freedom is we bring. To many innocent people killed in the Middle East by our Drones and troops, more importantly these perpratrators weren't brought to justic. Fathers, Mothers, Daughters, sons: their blood on our hands. The triumph evil is silence by good men in the face of evil; not to act is to act. While we sit on our island, and allow the same killers of innocents to take our means of defense, means of living and attempt (with frightening ability) to enslave every young adult (debt in every form) so they can continue pushing bills in your face to pay, slipping into your wallet to take the rest with cheap trendy gadgets that were made by other children near the other children's country we killed for our oil. That is the new image each year we fight people in THEIR native lands around the world.

The US Governement won't say it because freedom of choice is so much easier to sell than 'we're restructuring your country as we see fit'. We are an imperialistic country. The last true one, and quite possibley the worst, ever to have been conceived. The rest of the world knows it, and they're tired of it. By the time America falls, and it will as every great empire has, I would be very interested in seeing the Jew to Muslim ratio killed by Nazi Germany and Post 9-11 America. I apoligize to those offended, but eventually, if we keep this 10 year expansion, there will have been some serious casualties many innocent and someone from the US will end up being held accountable. A precedent, it will be sensationalized as. Atonement for progress, is what it will actually be regarded as inside the governement. All the while those with true power remain in the background pulling the strings of the world's newest Superpower.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   

TheRedneck
reply to post by Helious

Hence my concerns about even posting this thread. There is nothing that we can do about the situation at this point; what is, is. This is a no-win situation for all sides. So is it better to let people keep their heads safely buried in the sand, or to point out the obvious and help them see the truth?

I honestly can't answer that this time. But with the recent problems getting the American people to back the Syrian strike, and the associated probability of a terrorist strike in the US to change that dynamic, I decided to speak up one more time.

TheRedneck

Would you vote for a global standstill? A stalemate might be the only option. Are you "in" for your country or for the species?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWetCoast

There is no stalemate. Either the plan works or it doesn't. If the plan works, the US economy has a chance to exist for a while longer, but Iran and Syria are decimated and the world probably goes to war; people die. If the plan doesn't work, the US economy crashes and burns, taking most of the developed world with it and people die.

There is no middle ground at this point, no outcome that doesn't involve the conclusion "people die."

I know my plans: post this thread so as many as possible will at least be aware of what is coming, and sit back and wait this out. I am a redneck, and rednecks survive; it's what we do. There is an end to come of every war, and someone has to be here to rebuild.

And to help people remember the lessons of history this time.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

TheRedneck
reply to post by TheWetCoast

There is no stalemate. Either the plan works or it doesn't. If the plan works, the US economy has a chance to exist for a while longer, but Iran and Syria are decimated and the world probably goes to war; people die. If the plan doesn't work, the US economy crashes and burns, taking most of the developed world with it and people die.

There is no middle ground at this point, no outcome that doesn't involve the conclusion "people die."

I know my plans: post this thread so as many as possible will at least be aware of what is coming, and sit back and wait this out. I am a redneck, and rednecks survive; it's what we do. There is an end to come of every war, and someone has to be here to rebuild.

And to help people remember the lessons of history this time.

TheRedneck

I'm the one who is offering the stalemate. I can give everyone peace but the cost is everything you take for granted(and yes I DO realize how crazy/insane that sounds). Now is not the time for such drastic measures because it would cause a radical shift in the power structure of the planet. I need input because it can be done(without violence,destruction,loss of life; and without breaking any laws).



new topics

top topics



 
264
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join