Just what we need....

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Will Israel Start World War Three?
And finish the set-up the US started by radicalizing and arming Iran in the first place

Paul Joseph Watson/Alex Jones | October 2 2005

Israeli rhetoric towards Iran has considerably heated in the last few weeks as the world hurtles towards an inevitable confrontation over Iran's nuclear programs.

Last week three senior Israeli lawmakers went public to warn that Israel would act unilaterally to eliminate any perceived Iranian threat. Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party in the Knesset stated, "Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it, we feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally."

In 1981, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad immediately prior to it being fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds of poison drifting anywhere across the globe. This attack was essentially the brainchild of the same Neo-Cons pulling the strings today, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the Reagan administration. Through their actions and incessant saber-rattling they later became known as 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under the first Bush presidency. Even Colin Powell, an establishment underling through and through went one further, calling them "!!!!ing crazies" during the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.



The Bushehr nuclear reactor is a Russian project and it is set to be fueled very shortly. A senior Iranian atomic energy official said back in late June that the first fuel would arrive in a few months. Any targeted air strikes on the facility would merit an immediate response from the Russians.

Despite reports of increasingly strained relations between Russian and Iran, Vladimir Putin has publicly stated that Russia will defend Iran both diplomatically and militarily. The implications of this are obviously deeply concerning. If the situation was to spiral out of control, China, which has recently conducted several wargames with Russia, would step in on the side of Russian and Iran. The US would be obligated to defend Israel and in turn Europe would be obligated to defend the US.

Estimates of when Iran is likely to have acquired a usable nuclear arsenal range from five to ten years, but the Israelis have been fear mongering by saying it will be as soon as one or two.

Israeli officials have gone on the record to warn that military exercises have already been conducted and fully rehearsed to strike Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as they go live.

Lieut. General Thomas McInerney appeared on Fox News earlier this year and was asked about the likelihood of the US instigating or supporting any attack on Iran. McInerney sated, “Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.”

The history of how Iran's path to nuclear proliferation began is a familiar story.



The 1953 CIA ouster of President Mossadegh, a leader who was conforming to westernized policy but made the mistake of asking to keep a small portion of his country's oil revenue, was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup.

After installing the Shah Globalists like Henry Kissinger opened the door for Iran to develop sophisticated nuclear energy programs which laid the foundation for today's crisis. Twenty three reactors were built with the help of American corporations like General Electric and Westinghouse.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford even authorized the Shah to buy and operate a plutonium-extracting and processing facility - a big step toward converting energy processing to weapons making.

After the revolution of 1979 the fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeni reversed westernized policy but maintained Iran's nuclear interest albeit staggeringly before the end of the war with Iraq. After the war ended Iran was again free to pursue its ends leading us to the impending crisis we face today.

It seems almost inevitable now that the Neo-Cons will launch targeted military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Whether Israel goes alone or has US support seems beside the point. There are two dangers which apply to either outcome.

1) Will there, as George Galloway has warned could happen, be a staged terrorist attack either in Israel or the United States that is blamed on Iran?

One would suspect that the scope of this attack would have to be on the level of 9/11 to warrant an immediate military operation against Iran.



American Conservative magazine reported that Dick Cheney had given the authorization for a military strike on Iran immediately after the next terror attack in the United States.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi echoed the same sentiments.

2) How will Russia and China react and will this escalation light the blue touch paper for world war three?

Only time will tell.


We can't seem to get our shizzit straight now, just what we need...another war in the sand box.

Let's hope that Bush has enough sense to drop Isreal like a hot potato! Though we all know bush is stupid and will plunge us into world war three just because his buds are cowards. And, just because Iran may aquire nukes, what's to say they would use them on Isreal? This news is deeply disturbing. I am interested in the groups' opinion on this matter.

[alan c.]

Just in case you guys have forgotten.
Any nation that turns it's back on Israel -- God will turn his back on them.
We will be judged according to how we treated the Nation of Israel.

[BattleRifleG3]

I'd like to see a sound New Testament support of that statement. Not flaming, just asking for a little more explanation. Not all of Israel is Israel. The Old Testament thoroughly shows how Israel can be good and bad.

[Dale]

Hey..I'm NOT about to talk bad about the children of God.

But, I'm sure someone (mmmm) will post something blasphemist that says that the Isrealis are not the chosen people.

[alan c.]

BRG-3 fair enough I will get back with you. Yes Israel has gone against the will of God and they have payed for it through past times and are still paying for it. It is a curse against Israel but I believe we should stand by Israel. Right or wrong the good Lord is going to stand by them.
Dale not me they are the chosen people.

[BattleRifleG3]

My interpretation has been that Israel was God's chosen people to keep His message and show that even the best we have to offer is totally fallen and that we need a Saviour, and ultimately to be the people from which the Messiah would be born. Most at the time thought that the promised Messiah would be only for Israel, and reacted pretty badly when He wasn't who they'd imagined Him to be. You know, pacting with their most bitter enemies just to kill Him.

When Jesus fulfilled the law, it became clear that He was the whole reason for Israel in the first place. Judaism apart from Jesus has missed the point completely. The post-Christian Jews have written some interesting things to basically add to their doctrine stuff that is basically against the Old Testament which they claim to hold.

Now don't for a moment think that I'm getting anti-Semitic here. I'm just saying that it's a sound Christian position that the whole setting apart of Israel was fulfilled by Jesus and that while they still keep the law, keeping it apart from Jesus is just plain missing the point of it all, and that they've since added stuff not exactly to scripture, but basically doing to the Old Testament what the medieval RC church did to the New, which even the modern RC church will agree was wrong.

My interpretation of Israel as described in prophecy is that it certainly does have a place in the end, but that it is not necessarily one that we must all join or be cursed for it. Additionally, it's not a crazy interpretation that post-Christian references to Israel may (in some cases) actually refer to the Church, as God's people independent of their background.

Of course this is all the interpretation of a humble layman who should of course be reading more than he speaks. Sounds like we'll both be hitting the books after this one. Maybe some other folks will too.

Evangelism by arguement... wow.

[alan c.]

As for now Gen 27:29 and Zech 12:3.
There is another verse I am looking for.
Later!!!!!!

[Hud]

Well Israel maybe involved in WW III and maybe even WW IV. And certainly involved in the war of Armigedon, but I don't think they are going to start any of them.

Most of the prophicies have come to pass in the Old Testament, but a few haven't.

Now I really haven't heard anyone preach this, but if you read in Ezekiel chapters 29 & 30 you will find that God is going to totally destroy Egypt. 29:11-12 says that for 40 years no one will live there. No man or animal will be able to even travel through it.
That hasn't happened yet in I know my history correclty. 30:18 says it will be covered
with clouds. Sounds a little nuclear to me.

Anyway back to 29;13 it says that this will be a reminder to Israel not to turn to Egypt for help. Which must mean that Israel was turning to Egypt for help. 30:5 says that everyone (except Israel), involved in the war, both sides it sounds to me like, will be destroyed. Then in 30:10 it says it will be at the hand of Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon which scholars & historians agree is Iraq. So it so seems to me that Iraq will attack Egypt and destroy it. Don't know it that makes a world war but it might be.

Then in chapters 38 &39 it talks about Gog and Magog (Russia) coming down on Isreal when it is at peace and unprotected. Has that ever happened yet? It says that after that war it will take the Israelies 7 months to bury the enemies dead left behind. It says they will live off the fuel of the enemies equipment for 7 years. In some areas they will have to wait for 7 months before they can go in there it mark the dead so that they can be buried.

I really don't think this is the war of Armigedon, but it might be.

Reading those four chapters are pretty interesting in any event.

I think a lot of the wars are due to hatered of Israel but not nesissarilly caused by them.

Just my two cents worth.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I think my thoughts on isreal are clear so there is no need to re-run them. However, I was annoyed to read this article and, by it's (the articles') inferance, that isreal may act on it's own and start a war. though i doubt many would care if iraq, iran or isreal, for that matter, were just gone one day. the ones (countries) not mentioned are lumped into the same group, as far as I am concerned and I believe the world would be a better place if they were all, just gone.This is why i doubt russia would envolve it's self just because iran got her butt stomped but, what does worry me is bush's blindness for isreal. isreal is not the poor little picked on child isreal wants the world to believe is the case. Far from it...and, i'll wager, if the TRUTH were known, the whole world would no longer believe the lie that isreal has been hideing behind for all these years.and, what would be even worse, isreal is the real problem in the middle east and not everyone else. But, that's my position and I understand the feelings of the rest. However, the security of our nation is now in the mix. As Alan has said: "Isreal is cursed...", I can understand that! But, I sure would hate for the big guy, in the sky, to find me guilty by association! I would much prefer for isreal to pay the price for the actions of isreal. however, you and I know, if the US had a differant prez (one not so blind to isreal), i'll bet isreal would not be so bold as to expose innocent nations, and the people, to war like isreal seems so willing to do, according to the authour of this article.

[BattleRifleG3]

My view on Israel is probably... gasp... moderate between the positions on this thread. I think friendship with Israel is a good thing, blind support for whatever they do, no. Ie if israel starts a war, let them finish it. They've proven they can do so. Heck, we've held them back in the past when I really think we shouldn't have. On the other hand, I do think they can stand on their own and ought to be allowed to.

By holding them back, I mean during Desert Storm, Iraq was lashing out at everyone in sight, including sending missiles into Israel unprovoked. The tactic was to bring Israel against Iraq, and build sympathy for Iraq from all the Arab nations who were otherwise quite against Iraq. The US insisted that Israel stay out of the war to prevent such a thing, and promised all our resources to stop Iraq, ie Patriot missiles and such. I think we've been running from an Arab World War for decades but will have to turn around and face it sooner or later, and with the US at full Cold War strength and the Soviet Union recently collapsed, the time would never have been better to simply deal with it.

Of course GW Bush learned a lot of what he knows from his father's mistakes, but if we could transplant him back fourteen years ago, I think he would have done exactly as I suggested, before Clinton could abuse our military.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

My view on Israel is probably... gasp... moderate between the positions on this thread. I think friendship with Israel is a good thing, blind support for whatever they do, no. Ie if israel starts a war, let them finish it. They've proven they can do so. Heck, we've held them back in the past when I really think we shouldn't have. On the other hand, I do think they can stand on their own and ought to be allowed to.

By holding them back, I mean during Desert Storm, Iraq was lashing out at everyone in sight, including sending missiles into Israel unprovoked. The tactic was to bring Israel against Iraq, and build sympathy for Iraq from all the Arab nations who were otherwise quite against Iraq. The US insisted that Israel stay out of the war to prevent such a thing, and promised all our resources to stop Iraq, ie Patriot missiles and such. I think we've been running from an Arab World War for decades but will have to turn around and face it sooner or later, and with the US at full Cold War strength and the Soviet Union recently collapsed, the time would never have been better to simply deal with it.

Of course GW Bush learned a lot of what he knows from his father's mistakes, but if we could transplant him back fourteen years ago, I think he would have done exactly as I suggested, before Clinton could abuse our military.

As pointed out elsewhere, the accuracy of the article is in question as most media driven articles should be. clearly, the article trys to point out possible actions that could be taken by the various parties. My only fear is that we will be dragged/forced/thrust into another war and we don't even have the man power for the one we are in now. i have serious doubts about the war we are playing in now. I seriously doubt things will ever be anywhere near as the plan was given to America. I even would go so far as to say things are worse now than they were before we started when you factor in the situation now, after we freed iraq! I hope I'll be proven wrong...but, i know that is not likely. :joker:

[Rave]

Come on Alan C.,don't start that again! :smash:

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

My view on Israel is probably... gasp... moderate between the positions on this thread. I think friendship with Israel is a good thing, blind support for whatever they do, no. Ie if israel starts a war, let them finish it. They've proven they can do so. Heck, we've held them back in the past when I really think we shouldn't have. On the other hand, I do think they can stand on their own and ought to be allowed to.

By holding them back, I mean during Desert Storm, Iraq was lashing out at everyone in sight, including sending missiles into Israel unprovoked. The tactic was to bring Israel against Iraq, and build sympathy for Iraq from all the Arab nations who were otherwise quite against Iraq. The US insisted that Israel stay out of the war to prevent such a thing, and promised all our resources to stop Iraq, ie Patriot missiles and such. I think we've been running from an Arab World War for decades but will have to turn around and face it sooner or later, and with the US at full Cold War strength and the Soviet Union recently collapsed, the time would never have been better to simply deal with it.

Of course GW Bush learned a lot of what he knows from his father's mistakes, but if we could transplant him back fourteen years ago, I think he would have done exactly as I suggested, before Clinton could abuse our military.

So, i gotta ask you...did you mean to say that after the cold war, we should have delt with the arabs (all enclusive)? I'm not searching for grist for the mill...just want to be sure I understood your post completly. It is a novel idea.... :nod:

[BattleRifleG3]

Dealt with them, ie gone imperial on their arses? No.

Allowed Israel to blow them to kingdom come when Iraq clearly provoked such a war, and where any other Arab nations would have only gotten involved out of sheer unwarranted hate for Israel? You bet. That would have clearly been an Arab initiated war against a sovereign state, and coalition involvement against Arab aggressor nations would have been clearly justified. Far more clearly justified than the 2003 invasion, which I still think was warranted.

Fact is that those Islamofacist nations are just plain aggressive when they have the means. The only thing stopping them from declaring a global Jihad is their means. I'm certain that if they had the resources of the west, they would have started such a war long ago. They've done enough already to declare one (on a case by case basis.)

I'm basically saying we've shied away from wars when we had more of a mandate in hopes of avoiding the fighting, and then started wars where we had less support and less of a legitimate objective.

Invading a sovereign nation that is not in a state of war with you in order to overthrow their government and install a better one is shaky ground. No one disagrees with this, not the military, not the president, not the cabinet, no one. But responding with full force to a clearly unprovoked attack and taking it all the way, even as far as setting up a colonial government, seems to have a much clearer mandate, as well as earn more respect from the rest of the world.

[Rave]

Unless attacked,a good leader will pick and choose his fights,over the years we have not done well when we had the chance.
There should also be something to gain,and an entrance and exit plan.
In that we have done woefully poorly.
Dam shame too.

[Rockabilly88]

I can't remember the exact passage of the bible, but I believe in the book of revelations the bible warns "beware of those who claim to be jews, but are not for they are from the senagouge of satan". I find it hard to believe that the people who now call themselves jews are the isrealites of the bible. Take the three 'greatest' Jewish minds Marx, Frued, and Einstein. What have they brought us? Communism, infintile sexuality, and the atom bomb.

The izzies had the balls to attack the USS liberty and blame it on Egypt and you still support them.