DescentBB

How close were we to a third world war?
What really happened when Israel attacked Syria on September 6 … and is Iran destined to be the next target?

Foreign Editor David Pratt reports


PERHAPS YOU were watching a late-night film or dancing the hours away in some packed nightclub. Maybe you were already tucked up snugly in bed. Wherever you were, it's pretty much a dead certainty you were oblivious at the time to the dramatic events that were unfolding in the skies over Syria on September 6 - events so startling, so secret and dangerous in their implications they could have come straight from the pages of an international best-selling thriller.

But this was not fiction. Indeed, what took place in the small hours of that Thursday morning - still the subject of immense speculation - was a terrifying reminder of the dangerous times we live in, and how much more volatile the Middle East could yet become.

\"If people had known how close we came to world war three that day there'd have been mass panic,\" one senior British ministerial source was later quoted in a magazine as saying.

\"Never mind the floods or foot-and-mouth, Gordon Brown really would have been dealing with the bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon.\"

more... http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... ld_war.php

ThunderBunny wrote:Foreign Editor David Pratt

Is that kind of like Asian Reporter Trisha Takanawa?

I kid, I kid.

we'll get hit by an asteroid first.

If there's gonna be a world war, it's gonna be started by America!

ThunderBunny wrote:"If people had known how close we came to world war three that day there'd have been mass panic," one senior British ministerial source was later quoted in a magazine as saying.

So many political no-bodies tried to make their name over this 'incident' (including a couple of Israeli idiots whose popularity is on the wane) by releasing soooo many uninformed statements which will, in the end, be the real cause of world war three. Not the actions upon the ground.

I doubt that Syria and Israel slugging it out would start WWIII. It would be bad news of course but why would China and the U.S. start exchanging ICBMs over it?
Taiwan annexed by China .... There is your worry.

ThunderBunny wrote:How close were we to a third world war? ... http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... ld_war.php

A small potatoes skirmish ... and you think we're "on the verge of World War III !!" It would require a whole lot more than that to start World War III. The history books reveal that over and over.

Spreading fear, paranoia, and distrust only weakens the resolve and strength of the nation where you're at ... thus aiding whatever or whoever the real enemy is.

Ain't you got something better to do with you time than sniff around spreading distrust and paranoia?

TechPro wrote:A small potatoes skirmish ... and you think we're "on the verge of World War III !!" It would require a whole lot more than that to start World War III. The history books reveal that over and over.

Uhm, ok, I am NOT coming down on the "we are on the edge of Armageddon" side here, nor am I coming down against it. BUT, I would like to point out that both WW I and WW II were set off by rather trivial events.

Kilarin wrote:

TechPro wrote:A small potatoes skirmish ... and you think we're "on the verge of World War III !!" It would require a whole lot more than that to start World War III. The history books reveal that over and over.

Uhm, ok, I am NOT coming down on the "we are on the edge of Armageddon" side here, nor am I coming down against it. BUT, I would like to point out that both WW I and WW II were set off by rather trivial events.

WW I can be attributed to rather trivial events ... but only combined with several MAJOR issues that had influence with many nations. Sorry, I don't have any links right on hand ... look it up in your history books. The assassination of one man does not a World War make ... but the fall out from that assassination and the actions taken by others in response to that and others in response to their response ... you get the idea.

WW II didn't start over "rather trivial events" (IMHO). It started by conflicts and invasions that combined together brought many nations to a state of war ... which led to it becoming a "world war":

• Germany invading Poland
• Germany invaded Denmark and Normandy
• Germany invading France
• Italy was also involved
• Germany invaded the Soviet Union
• Germany attempting to bomb the British into submission
• America tried to stay out of it until too many innocent people (including a lot of Americans) died while German U-boats sunk ocean liners.
• At the same time, Japan was trying to take on China and all the nations of the South Pacific,
• Pearl Harbor (nuff said)

Those were NOT "rather trivial events". Combined together, the conflicts became a world war.

I'm just saying it would take a lot more than that skirmish to start World War III.

Most have predicted that WW3 will be the end all of all wars.

If any of the middle eastern countries (including terrorists) have nuclear capabilities, it will be brutal.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Most have predicted that WW3 will be the end all of all wars.

If any of the middle eastern countries (including terrorists) have nuclear capabilities, it will be brutal.

It will end with Israel glassing everything around them.

Am I the only one humming \"Its the End of the World\" by REM?

Olmert sounds alarm: Iran has crossed red line for developing a nuclear weapon. It’s too late for sanctions
October 22nd, 2007

This is the message prime minister Ehud Olmert is carrying urgently to French President Nicolas Sarkozy Monday and British premier Gordon Brown Tuesday, according to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources.

Last week, Olmert placed the Israeli intelligence warning of an Iranian nuclear breakthrough before Russian president Vladimir Putin, while Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak presented the updated intelligence on the advances Iran has made towards its goal of a nuclear weapon to American officials in Washington, including President Bush.

Olmert will be telling Sarkozy and Brown that the moment for diplomacy or even tough sanctions has passed. Iran can only be stopped now from going all the way to its goal by direct, military action.

http://www.1913intel.com/

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Warning letters delivered to thousands of Jewish families in Iran advise them to leave the country without delay

October 17, 2007, 11:04 PM (GMT+02:00)

The letters, according to DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources, have been posted to Jewish families in Tehran (where the community numbers some 13,000), Isfahan (under 2,000) and Shiraz (some 4,000). They are captioned: Danger! Danger! Danger! and tell recipients to try and reach the West with all possible speed. Iranian Jews like the rest of the population face grave danger from impending events, the anonymous writers warn.

Wednesay, Oct. 17, President George W. Bush spoke of World War Three if Iran which seeks to destroy Israel gains a nuclear bomb. He said those who helped the Islamic Republic would be held responsible, a broad hint at Russia and China...

...The letters posted to Iranian Jews, our sources report, are not signed; they were postmarked from different towns in America and Europe and from private addresses so as not to raise the suspicions of Iranian security services.

All the same, some were discovered and confiscated, prompting Tehran to accuse Israel and world Zionist organizations of a campaign to scare its Jewish citizens.

In recent months, Iranian officials angrily held up a new Israeli offer of a one-time grant of $10,000 for every Iranian Jew migrating to Israel, over and above the regular grants for other immigrants. Learning of these incentives, the Iranian authorities not long ago ordered the Jewish deputy in the Majlis, Mauris Mo’tamed, to declare that the Jews of Iran cannot be bought for money and would never forsake their country.

http://www.debka.com/

LOL, quoting Debka?? You've got to be jesting.

Screw that: check out the new cool map for SSB:Brawl!

Let's see, Bush wants the Rapture to occur and Cheney, I mean Darth Vader, is rattling his light saber and drooling over the Middle East oil fields. What could It mean?

TechPro wrote:WW I can be attributed to rather trivial events ... but only combined with several MAJOR issues that had influence with many nations.

Which to me certainly fits the current world situation. Again, I'm not saying I think WWIII is about to begin. I'm not willing to say it's NOT either. I DO think that there are enough tensions in place that a small spark COULD (theoretically) set it off.

TechPro wrote:WW II didn't start over "rather trivial events" (IMHO). It started by conflicts and invasions that combined together brought many nations to a state of war ... which led to it becoming a "world war"

I wasn't counting Pearl Harbor, because by the time America entered the war, it was already a world war. I was mainly considering that German's invasion of Poland is a big country gobbling up a small and, relatively speaking, unimportant country. The parallel to Iran does seem direct to me.

Of course, I'll have to concede that while the invasion of Poland got the ball rolling, it took a lot more to keep it going until the avalanche of World War began.

oh my god, iran MIGHT be developing a nuke! run! hide! lament your women!

Iran hasn't done a damn thing and if you think otherwise.. LOL

Bush is your typical retarded monkey who does what he's told no matter what. Dude just can't think for himself. Argue all you want about this but look at the dude's track record. That speaks for itself.

Sorry Ferno, but you're the one that thinks 9-11 was an inside job ;p

In other observations, is there a point when a conspiracy theorist's head explodes after they yell enough times about things that never happen?

Nirvana wrote:Sorry Ferno, but you're the one that thinks 9-11 was an inside job ;p

ROFL. if you think that's what i believe.. whoo man i think you've lost a few marbles. how's that bill mahr fan club anyways?

Ferno wrote:ROFL. if you think that's what i believe.. whoo man i think you've lost a few marbles. how's that bill mahr fan club anyways?

Dude, Anthony lost a few marbles a long time ago and it had nothing to do with any of this....

haha.

ya i already knew he was borderline bonkers but maybe he's been drinking the kool-aid

Sure sure, Ferno. I'm about 90% certain you stated you thought it may have been an inside job in another thread at one point (unfortunately I can't find it - but your argument was \"how could jet fuel do that\", just like the truthers). Add to that your championing of the \"911 truthers\" in the Maher thread and it all adds up.

Oh, and the only marbles I ever lost were the pre-pubescent-shorn balls of the infant I had to flush down the toilet post-microwave to avoid getting caught

Ferno wrote:Average Americans are your typical retarded monkeys who do what they're told no matter what. Dudes just can't think for themselves.

I fixed your post for you!

Nirvana wrote:Sure sure, Ferno. I'm about 90% certain you stated you thought it may have been an inside job in another thread at one point (unfortunately I can't find it - but your argument was "how could jet fuel do that",

So show me another instance of jet fuel melting iron and i'll take it back.

Add to that your championing of the "911 truthers" in the Maher thread and it all adds up.

Survey says.. *bzzt!* you lose!

at no point was I championing any of those truthers.
just because I questioned a few things about 911, that makes me a loon? that's disgusting, man.

the only thing about maher is first he was calling W a liar and now he's basically done about face to toe the party line. Someone butter his bread better?

Ferno wrote:

Nirvana wrote:Sure sure, Ferno. I'm about 90% certain you stated you thought it may have been an inside job in another thread at one point (unfortunately I can't find it - but your argument was "how could jet fuel do that",

So show me another instance of jet fuel melting iron and i'll take it back.

Add to that your championing of the "911 truthers" in the Maher thread and it all adds up.

Survey says.. *bzzt!* you lose!

at no point was I championing any of those truthers.
just because I questioned a few things about 911, that makes me a loon? that's disgusting, man.

the only thing about maher is first he was calling W a liar and now he's basically done about face to toe the party line. Someone butter his bread better?

I find myself saying this from time to time lately, so again I say ARE YOU ★■◆●ing JOKING FERNO? You basically said it was an inside job with that first comment! BTW, as I said in that other thread I couldn't find, the same damn thing happened in SF recently when a fuel tanker ran into a freeway wall which melted the steel of the bridge (I believe steel, not iron - both here and with the WTC) in the same fashion as the WTC. The shape of it looked like a ★■◆●ing pancake draped over a stick. Bill Maher made fun of some mooks, and it was funny. They even look like idiots with their retaliation, really... I don't think of you as a loon, Ferno (unless you really, truly are a truther ;p)

LOL. dude you're acting more and more rediculous. Quit it.

I checked out that bay bridge. that's a structural collapse. Yes the steel did get soft, which is evident by the bend in the collapsed portion. Check this pic. See those rebar lines? they'd be gone if it did melt. and the fire was hotter too. Also, if fire does melt steel, then why can I poke a fire and leave the steel rod in the embers if it's supposed to melt?

Oh.. have you actually seen steel melt? I don't think so. I have, though. Did a lot of work with cutting torches and welders, so I have a fairly good idea of what steel looks like when it melts.


yea, those truthers did look retarded pullin that kinda stunt.

No, you're just backtracking, but whatever

A news source (don't remember which one) said that that bridge had basically the same effect as WTC. And as far as completely melting, did the WTC even completely melt? I don't think it would have had to (and I don't know how you could possibly know which fire was actually hotter, particularly since one was jet fuel and one wasn't). I mean, seriously, if they find melted steel, then there was melted steel!

Nirvana wrote:No, you're just backtracking, but whatever

lol. sure, whatever you say.

A news source (don't remember which one) said that that bridge had basically the same effect as WTC.

Oh noes! invoke WTC! That'll bring in the viewers!

And as far as completely melting, did the WTC even completely melt? I don't think it would have had to (and I don't know how you could possibly know which fire was actually hotter, particularly since one was jet fuel and one wasn't).

Easy. look at the the difference in color. Red flames usually mean it's a cooler burn. If you do a little digging, you'll find that different colors mean different temperatures in regards to combustibles.

I mean, seriously, if they find melted steel, then there was melted steel!

I could say that I found an anteater in my house.. doesn't make it true tho. Like I said before, I know what melted steel looks like. It kind of looks like a blackened sponge and it's usually called slag.

I think the only thing that will get both sides to shut up is if someone creates a model of the WTC and tries to replicate the events.

Ferno wrote:Easy. look at the the difference in color. Red flames usually mean it's a cooler burn. If you do a little digging, you'll find that different colors mean different temperatures in regards to combustibles.

Uuhhhh... It's not as easy as that. Seeing the external fire means nothing, sorry. I mean, if you had a front row inside the building and a front row at the freeway fire and were able to compare the two based on memory, then I'll shut up, but I'm pretty sure you didn't/can't.

Fernman the steel did not have to melt for the WTB's to collapse. The steel \"WARPed\" and twisted from the heat causing support beams to lose structural integrity from support columns. Hopefully even you can understand the concept.

As to WW3, of course it will be Bush's fault.

Nothing to see here folks. Go back to your homes.

ThunderBunny wrote:What really happened when Israel attacked Syria on September 6

According to wikipedia this stuff happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_6#Events

Oh, you mean about the Israeli bombing of the Syrian bunker?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

My smartassedness prevails!

woodchip wrote:Hopefully even you can understand the concept.

Nice comment. I'm done. Not because I have nothing to add, but because it's such a garbage comment that it's not even WORTH replying to.

Duper wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:Most have predicted that WW3 will be the end all of all wars.

If any of the middle eastern countries (including terrorists) have nuclear capabilities, it will be brutal.

It will end with Israel glassing everything around them.

Merl, it was Einstein who said "I do not know what weapons will be used to fight world war 3, but I do know that world war 4 will be fought with sticks and bones."

An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.

Attack Iran and you attack Russia
By Pepe Escobar, http://www.atimes.com

The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration's relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.

But then, as if this were not enough of a political bombshell, came the abrupt resignation of Ali Larijani as top Iranian nuclear negotiator. Early this week in Rome, Larijani told the IRNA news agency that \"Iran's nuclear policies are stable and will not change with the replacement of the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council SNSC.\" Larijani will keep attending SNSC meetings, now as a representative of the Supreme Leader. He even took time to remind the West that in the Islamic Republic all key decisions regarding the civilian nuclear program are made by the Supreme Leader. Larijani actually went to Rome to meet with the European Union's Javier Solana alongside Iran's new negotiator, Saeed Jalili, a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), just like President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

In itself, the Putin-Khamenei meeting was extraordinary, because the Supreme Leader rarely receives foreign statesmen for closed talks, even one as crucial as Putin. The Russian president, according to the diplomatic source, told the Supreme Leader he may hold the ultimate solution regarding the endlessly controversial Iranian nuclear dossier. According to IRNA, the Supreme Leader, after stressing that the Iranian civilian nuclear program will continue unabated, said. \"We will ponder your words and proposal.\"

Larijani himself had told the Iranian media that Putin had a \"special plan\" and the Supreme Leader observed that the plan was \"ponderable\". The problem is that Ahmadinejad publicly denied the Russians had volunteered a new plan.

Iranian hawks close to Ahmadinejad are spinning that Putin's proposal involves Iran temporarily suspending uranium enrichment in exchange for no more United Nations sanctions. That's essentially what International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad ElBaradei has been working on all along. The key issue is what - in practical terms - will Iran get in return. Obviously it's not the EU's Solana who will have the answer. But as far as Russia is concerned, strategically nothing will appease it except a political/diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear dossier.

US Vice President Dick Cheney - who even Senator Hillary Clinton now refers to as Darth Vader - must be foaming at the mouth; but the fact is that after the Caspian summit, Iran and Russia are officially entangled in a strategic partnership. World War III, for them, is definitely not on the cards.

Let's read from the same script

The apparent internal controversy on how exactly Putin and the Supreme Leader are on the same wavelength belies a serious rift in the higher spheres of the Islamic Republic. The replacement of Larijani, a realist hawk, by Jalili, an unknown quantity with an even more hawkish background, might spell an Ahmadinejad victory. It's not that simple.

The powerful Ali Akbar Velayati, the diplomatic adviser to the Supreme Leader, said he didn't like the replacement one bit. Even worse: regarding the appalling record of the Ahmadinejad presidency when it comes to the economy, all-out criticism is now the norm. Another former nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, told the Etemad-e Melli newspaper, \"The effects of the UN sanctions are visible. Our situation gets worse day by day.\"

Ahmadinejad for the past two months has been placing his former IRGC brothers-in-arms in key posts, like the presidency of the central bank and the Oil, Industry and Interior ministries. Internal repression is rife. On Sunday, hundreds of students protested at the Amir-Kabir University in Tehran, calling for \"Death to the dictator\".

The wily, ultimate pragmatist Hashemi Rafsanjani, now leader of the Council of Experts and in practice a much more powerful figure than Ahmadinejad, took no time to publicly reflect that \"we can't bend people's thoughts with dictatorial regimes\".

This week, the Supreme Leader himself intervened, saying, \"I approve of this government, but this does not mean that I approve of everything they do.\" Under the currently explosive circumstances, this also amounts to a political bombshell.

As if anyone needed to be reminded, the buck - or rial - stops with the Supreme Leader, whose last wish on earth is to furnish a pretext for the Bush administration to launch World War III. If Ahmadinejad now deviates from a carefully crafted strategic script, the Supreme Leader may simply get rid of him.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

http://www.nwo101.com/2007/10/american- ... viewed.htm

file not found

woodchip wrote:Fernman the steel did not have to melt for the WTB's to collapse. The steel "WARPed" and twisted from the heat causing support beams to lose structural integrity from support columns. Hopefully even you can understand the concept.

As to WW3, of course it will be Bush's fault.

If you look at the WTC videos, you can see the plane took out about 90% of the support of two adjacent walls, and more than half of a third... it's amazing the building held up as long as it did.

There were, however, reports of molten steel in the rubble which stayed hot for days. I seem to recall seeing that on news reports. Proponents of the 'inside job' theories point to that as proof some explosives must have been used, as jet fuel does not burn that hot.