Thousands of US troops deploying to Israel

Sankari · 6 Jan 2012 at 02:37

Deific said:
As you've now edited your post with that last sentence - notsureifserious.jpg?

Good grief. Any sane, intelligent person should immediately realise that the first line was purely facetious.

I repeat: clearly this is just a routine exercise. There are two countries between Israel & Iran. If the US wanted to invade Iran she would not do it from here.

The conspiracy theorist sheeple can sod off and stop wasting people's time with their nonsense.

Are you not aware of the many crossovers between the Israel and US nations? In all areas of politics, economy, organisation, military, leaders etc.?

For ****'s sake, just how ******* badly broken is your ability to detect ******* sarcasm? ****!

Rameses · 6 Jan 2012 at 02:40

Where did RT come from? It's prominence has ground in the past few years, I see it all on YT and on Freeview, is it Russia's attempt at projecting because it smells of state fed propaganda. What I see/hear makes it look like Russia's version of FOX but not from a corporate ran way, just a poor 'America Bad, Mother Russia GOOD' way.

Guile · 6 Jan 2012 at 02:43

[TW]Sponge;20960515 said:
I just think if America had sent troops to start yet another war, we would have heard a little bit about it.

Since when are troop movements of national armies made public except when it is for the purpose of misinformation? Do we know every movement of your 'special' boys from Hereford?

Guile · 6 Jan 2012 at 02:47

AmTechFox said:
What I see/hear makes it look like Russia's version of FOX but not from a corporate ran way, just a poor 'America Bad, Mother Russia GOOD' way.

Although it is partly a 'Russia STRONG' channel - they feature loas of foreign commentators who are not given time on Western airwaves.

Their views on Western economic matters are enlightening to somebody who takes the BBC as gospel.

Sankari · 6 Jan 2012 at 02:58

Guile said:
Since when are troop movements of national armies made public

Since practically forever, especially when they're on a training exercise like this one.

I find it hilarious that the same people who tell us governments cannot be trusted because they're always conspiring against us and spread lies via state controlled media, are the same people who insist that the state-owned, anti-Western, pro-Kremlin, Putin propaganda machine known as 'Russia Today' is a credible source of information.

Guile · 6 Jan 2012 at 03:04

Evangelion said:
Since practically forever, especially when they're on a training exercise like this one.

I find it hilarious that the same people who tell us governments cannot be trusted because they're always conspiring against us and spread lies via state controlled media, are the same people who insist that the state-owned, anti-Western, pro-Kremlin, Putin propaganda machine known as 'Russia Today' is a credible source of information.

Did I not say troops movements are publicised for misinformation (i.e. poitical posturing/enticement/psychologically indoctrinating the masses)? Real troop movements are not publicised as any person with a brain cell knows.

Sure you can't swallow RT anymore much more than you can the BBC - wake up.

Deific · 6 Jan 2012 at 03:04

Evangelion said:
I repeat: clearly this is just a routine exercise. There are two countries between Israel & Iran. If the US wanted to invade Iran she would not do it from here.

The conspiracy theorist sheeple can sod off and stop wasting people's time with their nonsense.

For ****'s sake, just how ******* badly broken is your ability to detect ******* sarcasm? ****!

You repeat it, and then call it sarcasm?

Nutella33 · 6 Jan 2012 at 04:37

Guile said:
Since when are troop movements of national armies made public except when it is for the purpose of misinformation? Do we know every movement of your 'special' boys from Hereford?

there is a massive difference between special forces operations and thousands of troops being announced as being deployed on regular exercise in a friendly nation, testing systems they have been developing together for almost a decade, whilst thousands of miles from the supposed target with hostile nations in the way.

what RT and the usual CT nutters are suggesting is as delusional as usual.

Did I not say troops movements are publicised for misinformation (i.e. poitical posturing/enticement/psychologically indoctrinating the masses)? Real troop movements are not publicised as any person with a brain cell knows.

it doesnt take much more than google to know where real regular deployments are for most major nations. this is one of them. big whoop.

jmc007 · 6 Jan 2012 at 05:38

Nutella33 said:
there is a massive difference between special forces operations and thousands of troops being announced as being deployed on regular exercise in a friendly nation, testing systems they have been developing together for almost a decade, whilst thousands of miles from the supposed target with hostile nations in the way.

Forgive me here, though could they be preparing some kind of defence?
Amadinejah has said some quite apocalyptic comments, starting with the "wipe Israel off the map.", (Yes contested translation.) to being "ready for the end of days." and also that the end would come in his life time.
Right researching the last comment I found this interview he did and shone some light for me and gave me a direct turn around from my position. i.e. Trying to portray Iran and Ahmadinejah as the bad guy.
I wonder how people with no belief in a God feel, when a world leader speaks of spiritual matters? You know the "lol religeon"ists. I mean if I did not believe in a loving Father God, it would worry me.

Deific · 6 Jan 2012 at 07:32

Give it a rest. How many conflicts has the US been in, and instigated in the last 100 years? How about the last 10 years alone?

Now tell me how many Iran has been in, in the last 100 years, with the exception of them being invaded by Iraq and they rightly defended their country? None.

wildman · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:14

No

why would they launch any attack against Iran from Israel ? They have to cut through Iraq first ?

If the US were hell bent on invading then surely they would have 1. Kept large garrisons deployed in eastern Iraq, 2. Increased military 'boots' on the floor in western regions of Afghanistan, both of which border Iran, and thirdly increased the size of their air fleets in the The Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, which they have not.

Israel as you can see from the map makes a very poor launching point for a military incursion of the scale needed to properly overun Iran

[TW]Fox · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:20

Deific said:
From the comments so far, it's almost as if some forum users don't believe the US wants to go to war with Iran...

Because they don't. War with Iran would be hugely expensive and arguably counterproductive. The US knows that.

Cosimo · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:32

In today's news RT are reporting that Ed Miliband will be standing in the Russian presidential elections.

wildman · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:36

simulatorman said:
In today's news RT are reporting that Ed Miliband will be standing in the Russian presidential elections.

Now that I could believe, with Ken Livingstone running for the position of Russian Prime minister, what a dream team that would be !!!!!

mcast · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:48

twin towers attack was a conspiracy

elmarko · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:52

I'd wager good money that the USA ends up at war with Iran by the end of the year.

I really don't care about R-T the BBC or Fox News - the simply fact is that America has shown no resistance to get involved in oil rich nations who won't play ball with them.

The only reason I'd prefer Ron Paul to win the US elections is because his foreign policy is the least likely to kick off any major world wars.

You can easily see the bias in western media when you read up on the Palestine/Israel conflict, not to mention the blind eye turned towards the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia & Bahrain.

Glaucus · 6 Jan 2012 at 08:58

There's been loads of news on the human rights of Saudi.
Bahrain as well has been in the news loads especially as f1 race there.

scorza · 6 Jan 2012 at 09:07

elmarko1234 said:
The only reason I'd prefer Ron Paul to win the US elections is because his foreign policy is the least likely to kick off any major world wars.

Doesn't Ron Paul advocate leaving the UN and NATO? I'd have thought that would have been the first step on the path to inadvertently starting a major world war.

wildman · 6 Jan 2012 at 09:13

elmarko1234 said:
I'd wager good money that the USA ends up at war with Iran by the end of the year.

I really don't care about R-T the BBC or Fox News - the simply fact is that America has shown no resistance to get involved in oil rich nations who won't play ball with them.

The only reason I'd prefer Ron Paul to win the US elections is because his foreign policy is the least likely to kick off any major world wars.

You can easily see the bias in western media when you read up on the Palestine/Israel conflict, not to mention the blind eye turned towards the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia & Bahrain.

you'd be losing good money. The US like sabre rattling and flexing their muscles when tin pot regimes are in play. Iran is not a tin pot regime and are a lot more organised than anything the US have come up against in the last 30+ years since Vietnam.

US will not engage in a military operation against Iran unless it involves nuclear submarines turning the whole country to glass.

Maximum Triceratops · 6 Jan 2012 at 09:35

wildman said:
you'd be losing good money. The US like sabre rattling and flexing their muscles when tin pot regimes are in play. Iran is not a tin pot regime and are a lot more organised than anything the US have come up against in the last 30+ years since Vietnam.

US will not engage in a military operation against Iran unless it involves nuclear submarines turning the whole country to glass.

30 years is not a long time, the USA are not afraid to get their hands dirty. I still cant see them attacking Iran though.