The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: A "State of war" declared by Iran
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
My son's neighbor has been alerted to leave immediately for the gulf area.
He was told "not if, but when"
He thinks when is now. He is being deployed.

Israel official says "A preemptive military strike might eventually be necessary."

Hope this is only a false alert? The word "eventually" might be years down the road.
But I think not.
They need a War before the Elections.
If fighting starts, its gonna just devolve into all out war over there past whats already happening. The US will pull alot of its troops out of the 2 countries being occupied to help support any Iran incident leaving those 2 countries weak; someone else might try to take advantage of that. Just speculation though. One thing is certain though, once war starts between Israel and Iran, they are going to go at each other pretty hard.
What a surprise.

The banksters luvs them a good war, don't they? Always so profitable........
Quote:Fsbirdhouse said:
The word "eventually" might be years down the road.
But I think not.
I agree. 'Eventually' leaves timing completely open.
Azerbaijani bases that may house American and Israeli jets,
do not have a major ground force contingent that is an invasion option.
These bases would be air operations bases primarily,
and the Iranians are positioning troops to primarily maintain ethnic control in Azerbaijani Iran and along that border.
In lieu of war breaking out they still have to maintain internal security,
and my guess is that this isn't that significant of an armored contingency compared to what they have available.
Effectively, they would have to launch an assault into Azerbaijan to hit the air bases there to do anything about them.

I still think we have two to six months, and US / Israeli buildups in Azerbaijan are contingency plans.

Either the US designed Kandahar offensive happens first, or after, the Iranian conflict.
I cannot imagine US military strategy to start a Kandahar offensive, and commit to backup for Israel
on their attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure simultaneously.

Maybe McChrystal had to go ..... ... 7362.shtml
McChrystal: Kandahar Offensive Will Take Longer

Quote:The top commander in Afghanistan says securing the Kandahar region will take longer than planned.

General Stanley McChrystal says the crucial operation will carry into the fall,
instead of wrapping up before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in August.

McChrystal says the process of gaining local support is taking longer than planned, and he doesn't want to "rush it."

Kandahar is Afghanistan's second-largest city and the birthplace of the Taliban insurgency.
The NATO-led military force in Kandahar will roughly triple by this summer.

A Taliban commander in the province told CBS News on Thursday that a suicide attack which left 40 people dead
at a wedding party in Kandahar was "collective punishment"
for villagers who had established their own non-Taliban defenses.

The family targeted in the attack includes at least three Afghan national police officers. ... rines-isaf

Quote:Whatever the spin put on the operation in Kandahar,
the bottom line is that about 25,000 U.S. troops are flooding into this area over the next few months,
and they will be settled and ready to go in about four to six weeks.

Quote:These are some of the first casualties of an "offensive" in southern Afghanistan
that the military has suddenly grown reluctant to call an “offensive.”
It has begun quietly, with the U.S.-led NATO force here seemingly confused about whether the operation
is about bringing “governance” to Kandahar or clearing areas of insurgents.
What is clear is that the slow trickle of wounded and the dead back to America has started.
Fifty-three NATO troops have died so far this month — if the pace continues,
it will be the deadliest month since the Afghan war began.

Although the “cooperation” was planned to be in full swing by this month,
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has said the offensive will take longer than planned, and will last into the fall.
That may stem from lessons learned in trying to fill governmental void
after the counterinsurgency clearing operations in Marjah.
It has proven harder than expected to set up a meaningful governmental structure there,
and the Taliban continues to harass Marjahs’s residents and to attack U.S. troops, according to news reports and analysts.
Quote:What a surprise.

The banksters luvs them a good war, don't they? Always so profitable........

Yep they seem to be working the same playbook as usual. Economies seem to driven by wars with bankster blessings. Pennywise
Can't deny the bankrollers know just how to manipulate these things to their benefit, and greed has always been a foundation of war. But before banksters there was always war,
The cultures of Sumeria, Greece, and ancient Egypt must have figured their bankrollers were going to be their victims, but I think that sometimes there are other motives for war.
Just a couple of decades ago, a war was fought between to Latin American countries over the outcome of a soccer game...If you can believe that!

The so-called soccer war:
Quote:My son's neighbor has been alerted to leave immediately for the gulf area.
He was told "not if, but when"
He thinks when is now. He is being deployed.

Israel official says "A preemptive military strike might eventually be necessary."

Hope this is only a false alert? The word "eventually" might be years down the road.
But I think not.

That link was a week

They are now "On-Station"

Bob... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/reefer.gif" alt=":uni:" title="reefer" />
Sounds like war propaganda to me. Why repeat it ?
We live in a shattered glass world, and I believe more so now than I can ever remember. Frankly I don't know what's keeping it together as well as it is. It could be worse I suppose.
The people in such nuclear nations as Iran, Pakistan, and N Korea could hate us, and be devoid of any form of pragmatic thought processes......Oh?
If you just happen to have a Nuke, and engage in Torpedoing your neighbors warship, if you're massing troops on your borders while denying you're building a nuke as fast as you can while everybody knows you are?
Pretty potent propaganda!

But, nothing I can do about it, so.....Me and Uncle Remus gonna keep on singing and smiling
"Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day"

Right on in to the sunset!
It's always been a good time to accumulate a few necessities, just in case things break down here, but now seems like a better time than ever. I also think it is not a good time to vacation in Tehran or Tel Aviv.

"Bankster". I heard that term for the first time this morning, and now I'm hearing it everywhere. They certainly are losing the 'naming' and 'defining' propaganda war. Control of the language is very important in a propaganda battle. Looks like things are turning against them. Dern... Now if we could only have corporations serve criminal penalties like humans.
Are you guys, like, caught in about 1955 or something ?
Quote:But before banksters there was always war,
The cultures of Sumeria, Greece, and ancient Egypt must have figured their bankrollers were going to be their victims, but I think that sometimes there are other motives for war.

The quickest way to get rich is to take someone else's shit.

Most of the ancient wars you mentioned were fought to take someone else's land and resources from them. Same motive - greed.
Ya know Barney, that wouldn't be such a bad place to be sometimes. We made it out of 1955 OK.
Not so sure about tomorrow!
yeah, 56 was a good year

[Image: 56chevxp.jpg]

[Image: Kasper56Chevy.jpg]
50's were good
but this 1984 shit is getting old.
No shit.

They stopped making Orwell's 1984 required reading in school, in fact in some places they've even removed it from the public school libraries.

guess that's part of the process of dumbing down.
Kucinich: We Are Losing Our Nation to Lies About the Necessity of War
June 30th, 2010 | Author: Patriot
Kucinich: We Are Losing Our Nation to Lies About the Necessity of War

June 28, 2010, WASHINGTON ... tID=192659
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement on the floor of the House concerning an expected vote on a $33 billion supplemental war funding bill:

“In a little more than a year the United States flew
$12 billion in cash to Iraq, much of it in $100 bills, shrink wrapped and loaded onto pallets. Vanity Fair reported in 2004 that `at least $9 billion’ of the cash had `gone missing, unaccounted for.’ $9 billion.

“Today, we learned that suitcases of $3 billion in cash have openly moved through the Kabul airport. One U.S.
official quoted by the Wall Street Journal said, `A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen.’ $3 billion. Consider this as the American people sweat out an extension of unemployment benefits.

“Last week, the BBC reported that “the US military has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who are funneling the money to warlords.” Add to that a corrupt Afghan government underwritten by the lives of our troops.

“And now reports indicate that Congress is preparing to attach $10 billion in state education funding to a $33 billion spending bill to keep the war going.

“Back home millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, losing their savings, their pensions, and their retirement security. We are losing our nation to lies about the necessity of war.

NYT Attacks “Border” With False Rant of Pro-Coup Reporter
Tuesday 29 June 2010, Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

No reasonable person would have bet serious money that news editors at The New York Times would be huge fans of Oliver Stone’s new documentary about South America, “South of the Border.” A key point of the film is that mainstream US press coverage of South America in recent years has generally followed State Department priorities more than objective news standards. The New York Times comes in for specific criticism in the film, which notes that the paper editorially backed the short-lived US-backed coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela in 2002. (Key evidence on the US role in the coup can be found here. After the coup collapsed, the Times half-apologized for its pro-coup editorial, as also noted in the film.)

But still, accepting that no one likes to be criticized, there are supposed to be rules for newspapers like the Times. In an editorial, they can express any opinion they want. But news articles are supposed to be accurate, and if a reporter has a direct interest or bias in a situation, the paper should assign another reporter or at least disclose the interest or bias.
But on Friday, The New York Times ran an attack on Oliver Stone’s documentary by Larry Rohter, an attack that claimed the film was full of inaccuracies. Not only was The New York Times attack itself inaccurate in its factual claims, as documented by Stone, Mark Weisbrot and Tariq Ali in their response – do they have fact-checkers at the Times ? – but more importantly, the Times failed to acknowledge the bias of Larry Rohter in running the article. Rohter covered Venezuela for the Times during the period of the April 2002 coup, and during the coup, on April 12, 2002, Rohter wrote a piece for the Times claiming that the coup was not a coup, but a popular uprising. That alone should have disqualified Rohter from writing a piece on the film for publication by the Times. At the very least, the paper should have acknowledged Rohter’s previous advocacy for the coup – and its own.

From much past experience, I know that many will respond cynically to yet another attempt to raise the alarm about bias at the Times. “So The New York Times is a stenographer for the State Department. Tell me something new!” But this glosses over the fact that The New York Times’ biased reporting is an ongoing source of major social harm, because the Times continues, whether we like it or not, to be a leader in US media from whom others take cues. What appears in The New York Times appears to many to be holy writ. We swim in a sea of false information that the Times helps propagate, and frequently many – including many who count themselves cynical – aren’t aware of the false things that they believe that can be ultimately traced to a “report” in the Times.

No doubt, many supporters of US policy in South America and opponents of the region’s progressive governments will now cite Rohter’s piece in the Times as “evidence” that the film is “inaccurate,” in an attempt to discredit the film. “See, even the liberal New York Times says the film is inaccurate,” they may say, which would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Fortunately, anyone can go to the film’s web site and read for themselves the filmmakers’ refutation of The New York Times attack. If you think The New York Times’ public editor ought to investigate whether the Times acted appropriately in running Rohter’s piece, you can tell that to the public editor ( ... ty-of-war/
Almost the unthinkable in Saudia Arabia....if true.
Why is our mainstream media not covering this.
Are these just an attempt to whip up support in Israel for the coming strike.....that, and one we're just trying to play dumb about at the same time?

Strange stuff!
Wars and rumors of wars all over the place. ... inton_asia

Some interesting simularities to the European leaders scurrying about just before the second world war blew up.
Everybody could see it coming, but nobody could stop it. ... ?ID=181689

Photo by: Associated Press Castro warns of nuclear war in ME

07/17/2010 05:31

"When something like this is only a question of seconds."
There's been a danger of Atomic Idiocy in the ME ever since Israel armed it'self. That whole area is part of a nasty Trance State Control in The West. As the article about the South of the Border film said ...

and frequently many – including many who count themselves cynical – aren’t aware of the false things that they believe that can be ultimately traced to a “report” in the Times.

So many are still living in the same State Trance Control as we were in the good 'ol Atomic 50's - believing that we never had it so good. Blinded to what is going on South of the Border. In 1994 when I crossed over to the other side as I walked into Freedom in Mexico my Monarch Mind Control State Control Trance State was dealt a death blow. On 17th July at 8pm when I got half way through TranceFormation it started going into it's death throws.

Fuck War and all the Mind Control Maggots that drive it. They are all shrivelling up in the Light of Justice.

Iran. Peace be unto You.

[Image: salaamualeikum100px.jpg]

As salaamu aleikum.
The USS Truman is currently patrolling in the persian gulf, in Iranian waters, there are 2 more carrier groups in the gulf.

All set up for a false flag event.

A single torpedo would barely damage the ship, minimal injuries/casualties, but I can easily see our media whipping us into a super-patriotic frenzy on our way to war with Iran.

I expect it before mid august, and i do not expect we'll be bringing any troops home, but that was never Hussein's plan. ... er-is-here
Examiner Bio Orwell's nightmare--big brother is here
July 17, 11:58 AM
Conservative Examiner
Anthony G. Martin

The US nuclear posture review is actually nuclear terrorism
Obama threatens Iran

Milan Rai

On 8 April, while helping to launch the new US nuclear posture review (NPR), state department official Robert Einhorn laughed as he said: “there’ll be a lot of Iranian propaganda that this whole thing is about an implicit threat to Iran. It’s not about an implicit threat to Iran.” As radical journalist Claud Cockburn used to say, “Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.”

At its core, the nuclear posture review announced on 6 April says two things. First: if you are a non-nuclear-weapon state, and you have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and you are “in compliance” with the NPT, the US will not use nuclear weapons against you.

Second: if you are a non-nuclear-weapon state and you have not signed the NPT, or you are not “in compliance” with the NPT, the US may use nuclear weapons against you. Crucially, the US reserves the right to decide whether you are “in compliance” with the NPT, refusing to recognise that this is the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. On 5 April, Obama told the New York Times he was making an exception in the NPR for “outliers like Iran and North Korea”.

Launching the NPR on 6 April, US defence secretary Robert Gates said of the new security assurance to non-nuclear-weapon states: “we essentially carve out states like Iran and North Korea that are not in compliance” with the NPT. Gates added: “all options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category.” This is a nuclear threat, plain and simple; a nuclear threat against a non-nuclear weapon state; a nuclear threat against Iran.

In his New York Times interview, Obama escalated matters by indicating that he could not tolerate an Iran which did not possess nuclear weapons but which was “nuclear-capable”; which had acquired the capability to “break out” and develop nuclear weapons. Obama said: “a weaponising capability is obviously significant as we evaluate whether or not Iran or any other country is serious about these issues”. Apart from the illegality and immorality of the US nuclear threat against Iran, there is the illogicality of it all.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, both former members of the US national security council, observed on 6 April that these threats “remove at least some of Tehran’s incentives for restraint in developing its own nuclear capabilities”. They pointed out: “If Iran, as a non-nuclear-weapons state, will face the threat of nuclear ‘first use’ by the United States, why shouldn’t Tehran proceed to the actual acquisition of nuclear weapons?”

Under the Obama doctrine, the only way for Iran to escape US nuclear threats is to capitulate and give up the right to uranium enrichment which it enjoys under the NPT. This is politically unthinkable, not only among the elite. A poll last autumn found that 55% of Iranians opposed the lifting of sanctions in return for an end to Iranian uranium enrichment.

The strategy
The NPR and the Obama-Gates-Einhorn statements therefore increase the incentive to “break out” and pursue the nuclear bomb option. The Obama administration must understand this foreseeable consequence of its policy, and therefore this must be the desired objective of its policy.

Note that Obama has continued with Bush era destabilisation programmes, funding secessionist movements. According to Robert Baer, former CIA officer, and other sources, this includes the Sunni extremist group Jundallah, which operates in Baluchistan.

When Iranian forces captured the leader of Jundallah in February, they showed on TV an ID card and passport said to have been issued to Abdulmalak Rigi by the US, and a photo said to have been taken at the “headquarters of Americans in Afghanistan” 24 hours before his capture. The public nuclear threats, the tightening sanctions (at the UN security council and via US arm-twisting), the support for grassroots democracy movements and brutal secessionist gangsters are all part of one project.

This was described by Noam Chomsky in 2007: “The strategy appears to be: try to break the country up internally, try to impel the leadership to be as harsh and brutal as possible.” Iran must be prevented from taking its place at the centre of an emerging Russian-Chinese-Iranian economic unit that is powerful enough to be truly independent of the US. It doesn’t matter that the IAEA has found no diversion of Iranian nuclear materials to military purposes, or that almost all the questions raised about Iran’s nuclear programme have been investigated and resolved.