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.


Khamenei brandishs Kalishnikov at US & Israel

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:28 AM
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given a war speech in anticipation of the arrival the Eisenhower Battle Group on Oct 21.


Military circles in the United States and Israel interpret these steps as meaning that Iran will be standing by in battle positions the day before the Eisenhower reaches its destination. Military sources have been reporting since late August that Iran’s political and military leaders have resolved not to wait passively for an American attack but to go instead for a pre-emptive strike against US forces in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as well as targeting Israel.

On October 7, DEBKAfile reported: Tehran and Damascus are gearing up for a pre-emptive attack on Israel to ward off a US strike on Iran’s nuclear sites – whether from Lebanon, or Golan, using Hamas to launch an offensive from Gaza, or a combination thereof. The Bush administration would then have to divide its attention and military might among three warfronts simultaneously.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It seems that the Middle East may soon erupt into conflict again. Israel is fairly well surrounded by enemies. American firepower is closing in and tensions are rising.

Will this explosion be bigger than the last one? Was the last conflict really over? Khamenei doesn't think so!

A preemptive attack indeed. There seems to be no way off this runaway train.

Related News Links:

[edit on 15-10-2006 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:00 PM
How reliable a source is Debka? I have heard it mentioned before but have no expierience of it myself.

It seems rather Pro-Israel at first glance.

As to the story about pre-emtively striking the US forces, well, what can you say? They see a threat and they need to neutralise it. After all, isn't that the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war?

Lets hope this is nothing but hot air by them or spin by these Debka folks....

Is it possible to get any transcript of the speech or verification Iran is going into "battle positions"?

EDIT: For crappy spelling

[edit on 15/10/06 by stumason]

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:04 PM
Paving the way for a possible USS liberty like false flag type scenario maybe?
I really hope not,but these days who knows?

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:10 PM
I think the author of Debka is a Russian guy. Haven't heard of them being untruthful at any point. Then again, a totally unbiased news source is hard to find. At any rate, most of the elements of the story are fairly well known. If anyone finds additional info please post, I'll be looking around myself.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:16 PM
I had heard of the battlegroup going out, but thought that was part of a rotation...But then again, good cover I suppose.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:33 PM
Here's an AP photo on yahoo, rifle in hand.


posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:50 PM
Well spotted Himwho,
Isn`t it odd to see a religious leader holding an assault rifle...Imagine if that was the archbishop of canterbury or the pope toting that AK.
It actually sends a shiver...this guy has sent quite a message here.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:02 PM
Russian made rifle in the hands of one religious leader today, or home-made swords in the hands of religious leaders in the past, it would make sense for any human being to defend themselves in the time of hostilities against them.

Anyways, if Iran does indeed strike first, I wonder how long the boms will drop on their land? I mean we practically have an indefinet amount of ordinance and the same goes for methods of launching them. Cruise missles, stealth bombers, artillery, subs. I think it would be mostly cruise missles in the first strikes to knock out radar stations.

Then I suppose our two air-forces will meet head to head in the first modern air battles of our time. They will eventually lose due to being outnumbered. However, any ground based attack would not be wise. Bomb them till they surrender and then leave it at that.

The Iranian terrain is very unforgiving to any foreign land attack and will result in massive casualties in such an event.

Don't forget about Syria, they do have a mutual defense pact with Iran.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:17 PM

Bomb them till they surrender and then leave it at that.

I agree. Then maintain a no-fly zone indefinitely.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:30 PM
I really dont think the Iranians would go ahead with a pre-emptive attack on American forces.Apart from the fact that this would be military suicide for them,it would also look as though they have something big to hide,thus giving support to their enemies.
Not a wise strategy for a Iran,the pre emptive one.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:21 PM
I agree that it would be foolish. But if they will not give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, they know as well as we do, we're gonna face off! So, back to the wall, cornered animal. It's not gonna be rational.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:52 PM
Debka is as one-eyed as they get.
I would take 3 quarters of what they say with a grain of salt.

To my knowledge Hamas has very little to do with Iran. I love the way the right wing Israeli's love to lump them all together.

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:59 PM
Iran attacking the United States first=not going to happen.

I think if it did, the Bush Administration would be jumping with joy.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:49 AM
Im sure hezbollah thought the same in kidnapping the soilders...
Even atleast standing and fighting there ground..

Point is, its Irans home turf..
The american forces have been in tha gulf for quite some time.
Iran have been building up there defenses...

Probably have people in place in the USA... Israel and Iraq..

The US Is mighty.. but people thought the same of Israel.
Hezbollah brought them to a stop.. imagine how much damage iran could inflict.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Iran attacking the United States first=not going to happen.

I think if it did, the Bush Administration would be jumping with joy.

The Bush admin are not war mongers, contrary to popular belief.
They are greedy idiots.

They never planned for nor did they want it.
They went into IRAQ thinking of the money they could make of a poor, weak country.

God behold someone stands up to the USA, the best we can do is put on sanctions.

yeah right...

Iran will deal the USA A serious blow...
They wont beat them conventionally.. but they'd bring them to a stalemate battle.
And the US Will have no choice but to deploy tactical nukes.

Think about it... we have to ship all this stuff from our home state on the other side of the planet...
We have to maintain our economy... our public support..
our treaties and our defense pacts elsewhere.

If we hit IRan.. everthing that country stands for, will be souley against the US machine.

They will have neighboring arab states support also.

Dont fool yourself, The US wont win a war in IRan easily.. if at all.
Plus youve got corporate men running the country. Not savvy intellegent people like in previous decades...
your administration arent ready for the truth that lies in front of them.
and it will be you poor mugs that suffer the ultimate price.. while there figuring it out.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:17 AM
Iran attack!that pic made 4 ignorant public consumption.iran MAY try 2 close gulf oil shipping constant u.s.policy has been we would attack ANYONE who threated the oil supply routes.only a fool would test u.s.resolve here.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:28 PM
I think it's far more likely they'll strike out at Israel through Hizballah/Hamas/Syria. It's always in their interest to hide behind proxies. Just like the last bout in Lebanon.

It worked out fairly well for them. It took the attention off their nuclear program for a awhile and no one had the guts to call 'em on it. Will it work again? Who knows, only time will tell.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Here's an AP photo on yahoo, rifle in hand.

Or did you mean to post "Here's an AP photo of a yahoo, rifle in hand.", instead?

Sorry couldn't resist pointing out a potential error.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:13 PM
HAHAHAHA LOL, Could go either way. One of those multi-use posts I suppose!

Seriously though, I was just watching Bill Oreilly interview Bush about NK. Scary! Absolutely clueless as far I can tell. I'm afraid Israel is gonna get left on their own against their surrounding enemies. Which isn't good for anyone. Powder keg!

new topics

top topics


log in