Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.
Moreover, the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops, following the February 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has contributed to opening up a "new space". The withdrawal of Syrian troops served Israeli interests. The timely pullout was of strategic significance: it was a major factor in the timing and planning of the July 2006 IDF attacks on Lebanon.
In the aftermath of the Israeli bombings and the "ceasefire", UN Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by France and the US in close consultation with the Israeli government, has paved the way for the militarization of Lebanon, under a bogus UN mandate.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14860.htm
Note: http://www.informationc...
The Next Phase Of The Middle East War
Posted on Thursday, September 07 at 11:58 by 4CanadaContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
The UN takes a lot of it's motivation from Europe, where anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment is STRONG, and getting stronger. Even in Britain, there was huge outrage from people on the bombing of Lebanon.
No, I think that the PLAN was for Israel to crush Hezbollah and occupy Lebanon up to that river (name escapes me). Unfortunately, they were so ruthless and bloodthirsty that they decimated southern Lebanon, and ignited fury around the globe. On top of that, they found that after years of fighting kids with rocks in Gaza, their infantry were getting badly beat up by the tenacious Hezbollah guerrillas.
The UN force is a pain the butt for them, and it is constantly reporting their violations (and, just like the civilian casualty ratio, Israel has ten times the violations per day compared to Hezbollah).
The next phase will be some type of false flag op designed to motivate the US public behind a full scale attack on Iran. This will be largely carried out by the US, but supported by Israel, who will likely use the attack to re-invade Lebanon and, if things go well, move against Syria.
So, bets everyone. I'm betting on a suitcase nuke in a major US city. They'll detonate it in the centre of the ghetto, but claim it went off in the 'business district'. It will only be big enough to kill about 5,000 Americans, mostly the blacks and hispanics in the ghetto, initially, although the fallout radiation will kill thousands for years to come.
The attack will be blamed on Iran, of course.
The more conservative approach, kind of the 'Bill Clinton soft glove', would be a cruise missile barrage of Iran, with support from Israel. This would require a gradual ramping up of the retoric against Iran, which has been going on for a few months now in the North American Media.
But what I think they are now grasping is that time is running out. They need to get the final battle moving now quickly before they face any further increase in discontent at home. So for that they will need the nuke.
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
The attack will be blamed on Iran, of course"
I only wish I didn't have the exact same scenario running through my head lately, and you are right the clock is ticking fast. No one would be focusing on the emerging truth about 911 as an inside job in the wake of the next attack either, that would be spin off I guess.