What's new

FLASH: “Prepare For Armageddon”

asad71

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
4
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Canada
Russian Leader Tells Top Generals, “Prepare For Armageddon” | Khudi.pk

Russian Leader Tells Top Generals, “Prepare For Armageddon” [/B]

Source: EUTimes
A grim Federal Security Services (FSB) report on Prime Minister Putin’s plan to meet China’s leader Hu Jintao in Beijing next week warns that both Russian and Chinese military forces are being placed on their ‘highest alert’ in anticipation of a massive land invasion believed being planned by the United States of both the Middle East and Central Asia.


The plans for this “Total Global War” the Americans are preparing to launch were first revealed to China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) by the former Blackwater mercenary Bryan Underwood who is currently being held by US authorities for spying and which we reported on in our 4 October report titled “China Warns Russia Of Coming American “Great Event.”

Within hours of Putin’s reading of the coming US plans for Total Global War, this report says, he wrote a rare article in the Izvestia daily outlining a grand project to integrate post-Soviet states into closer cooperation, scheduled an emergency trip to China to meet with Hu, and ordered the FSB to notify China’s MSS of the arrest and detention of their spy Tun Sheniyun who was captured last year for attempting to steal sensitive information on Russia’s most powerful anti-aircraft system.
As we had detailed in our previously mentioned report, the “New Great Game” moves being planned by the Americans that is striking fear into both Russia and China includes:
1.) The deliberate implosion of both the US and EU economies in order to destroy the Global Financial System that has been in place since the ending of World War II
2.) The launching of a massive conventional war by the US and EU on the North American, African and Asian Continents to include the Middle East
3.) During this all-out war the deliberate releasing of bio-warfare agents meant to kill off millions, if not billions, of innocent civilians
4.) At the height of this war the US and its allies will sue for peace and call for a new global order to be established in order to prevent the total destruction of our planet.
This past week an unidentified source within the US Department of Defense (DOD) further warned that the Obama regime was preparing for a massive “tank-on-tank” war and that US military forces are “expecting something conventional, and big, coming down the pipe relatively soon.”
To how close this war may be the FSB in their report states that it will be “much sooner than later” as the Americans have pre-positioned in Iraq nearly 2,000 of their M1 Abrams main battle tanks, have pre-positioned another 2,000 of them in Afghanistan, and between the Middle East and Asia have, likewise, put into these war theaters tens-of-thousands of other typed armored vehicles.
The “final piece” for the activation of this massive armored force, standing poised like a dagger at the heart of both Asia and the Middle East, the FSB says, is the call for a “Full Mobilization” of over 1.5 million American reserve forces which can occur at “at a moments notice” as the US is currently at war and needs no further authorization from its Congress to expand their areas of operation.
Important to note about the American plan for global domination through massive warfare is that it is not really a secret, and as (curiously) revealed on the tenth anniversary of the 11 September attacks upon the United States when the US National Security Archive released a memo written by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in September 2001 wherein he warned “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the US will not achieve its aim.”
To what the “aim” of the United States is as their war against the world has now entered its 10th year, the FSB says, is to prevent “at all costs” the implosion of the US Dollar as the main reserve currency of the present global economic system before the West’s envisioned “New World Order” can be established.
The first threat to the Americans “master plan” for global hegemony came in November 2000 when the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein quit accepting US Dollars for oil and, instead, stated his country would only accept Euros. In less than 10 months the US was attacked and used that as an excuse to topple Hussein and reestablish the US Dollar as the world’s main reserve currency.
Interesting to note is the failure of Libya’s former leader Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the US Dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth, but which like Iraq’s Hussein “plan” brought a swift and brutal invasion by the Americans and their Western allies to keep it from happening.
The only nation that has successfully abandoned the US Dollar is Iran, who since February 2009 abandoned all American currency opting instead to value their oil and gas in Euros. Iran, however, and unlike oil rich Iraq and Libya, has not been attacked due to the Iranians having acquired from Ukraine between 6-10 nuclear armed X-55 missiles (range of 3,000km [2,000 miles]) in 2005. [Note: Former Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko stated that the missiles sold to Iran did not contain their nuclear tips, a statement disputed by the FSB who states they were armed and “ready to fire.”]
This FSB report further states that both Putin and Hu were “enraged” by the deception of the West in regards to Libya, who after being given “absolute assurances” by the Obama regime that they weren’t planning an invasion, broke their word and did it anyway.
Russian and China, in turn, stopped the West’s plan for another war this week by their vetoing the US-backed plan in the United Nations Security Council to turn Syria into another Libya. So angry did the Americans become that their furious UN envoy Susan Rice stormed out of the meeting after the West didn’t get what it wanted.
Even worse for the West’s war plan against Syria was its President warning this week that if his nation was attacked by NATO he would cause to be fired hundreds of missiles into Israel’s most populated city of Tel Aviv within six hours, which would, of course, bring about a catastrophic nuclear response.
And in a preemptory move to counter the planned American blitzkrieg into Central Asia and Pakistan from Afghanistan, Indian Army Chief General VK Singh warned yesterday that thousands of Chinese military forces have now moved into *****************-Kashmir joining an estimated 11,000 more of them believed to have entered that region in the past year.
To the coming deliberate implosion by the US of the global economy, the FSB further says in their report, it now appears “certain” after a new report emerged this past from Philippa Malmgren, a former economics adviser to President George W. Bush, stating that Germany was preparing to abandon the Euro and has ordered the printing of Deutsche Marks to replace it.
Most frightening of everything in this FSB report, however, is the reply Putin gave to Russia’s top generals yesterday when asked what preparations should be made and he answered…. “Prepare for Armageddon.”
 
yep now it would so readily happen persnally i want it to happen might give me a chance to skip papers
 
People should either refrain from posting such obvious pieces of cr@p or if posted, they should clearly state that the article is a fake or a joke. This is just so that all those with better things to do, do not have to waste time to read to discover that it is a fake.
 
Please read through and relate to happenings/events cited. This does not look fake. It's not a joke also.
 
It would all sound very believable, except which Russian source was used in the article..has the source been recorded by any RT, Russian blog etc.. they would never let such a juicy tid bit go..
Till then.. it just seems like somebody getting too eager to connect the dots..

there are dots to connect.. and a very real picture is there to form.. but not this way.
 
To all that claim the article is a farce.

What is the US's intentions?

This is a challenge.
 
US need Indian foot soldiers for any invasion of central Asia and Indinas need Pakistan to extend transit aid for military logisitics.

Bottom line....... transit through Baluchistan is key for any invasion of central Asia.

Support from China navy would help to diffuse any such threats.

While middleast is at indirect risk from Iran.
 
Europe is already close to being bankrupt. US economy in deep sh*t.

Wars cost money. Where will the money come from ?
 
Who the hell says that the Dragunov svd is inferior? I would prefer it to the M-24 any day. It is lighter, semi auto and far more rugged. The svdn passive night sights suck though. But then shooting at night with II Tube sights always sucks. Wonder why no one has thought of fitting thermal imagers to sniper rifles?
 
U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit

Andrea Bruce for The New York Times

Published: October 29, 2011

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

For example, in the time between the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States Army kept at least a combat battalion — and sometimes a full combat brigade — in Kuwait year-round, along with an enormous arsenal ready to be unpacked should even more troops have been called to the region.

“Back to the future” is how Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, Central Command’s chief of staff, described planning for a new posture in the Gulf. He said the command was focusing on smaller but highly capable deployments and training partnerships with regional militaries. “We are kind of thinking of going back to the way it was before we had a big ‘boots on the ground’ presence,” General Horst said. “I think it is healthy. I think it is efficient. I think it is practical.”

Mr. Obama and his senior national security advisers have sought to reassure allies and answer critics, including many Republicans, that the United States will not abandon its commitments in the Persian Gulf even as it winds down the war in Iraq and looks ahead to doing the same in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia last week, the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

As they undertake this effort, the Pentagon and its Central Command, which oversees operations in the region, have begun a significant rearrangement of American forces, acutely aware of the political and budgetary constraints facing the United States, including at least $450 billion of cuts in military spending over the next decade as part of the agreement to reduce the budget deficit.

Officers at Central Command said that the post-Iraq era required them to seek more efficient ways to deploy forces and maximize cooperation with regional partners. One significant outcome of the coming cuts, officials said, could be a steep decrease in the number of intelligence analysts assigned to the region. At the same time, officers hope to expand security relationships in the region. General Horst said that training exercises were “a sign of commitment to presence, a sign of commitment of resources, and a sign of commitment in building partner capability and partner capacity.”

Col. John G. Worman, Central Command’s chief for exercises, noted a Persian Gulf milestone: For the first time, he said, the military of Iraq had been invited to participate in a regional exercise in Jordan next year, called Eager Lion 12, built around the threat of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

Another part of the administration’s post-Iraq planning involves the Gulf Cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia. It has increasingly sought to exert its diplomatic and military influence in the region and beyond. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, for example, sent combat aircraft to the Mediterranean as part of the NATO-led intervention in Libya, while Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates each have forces in Afghanistan.

At the same time, however, the council sent a mostly Saudi ground force into Bahrain to support that government’s suppression of demonstrations this year, despite international criticism.

Despite such concerns, the administration has proposed establishing a stronger, multilateral security alliance with the six nations and the United States. Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Clinton outlined the proposal in an unusual joint meeting with the council on the sidelines of the United Nations in New York last month.

The proposal still requires the approval of the council, whose leaders will meet again in December in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and the kind of multilateral collaboration that the administration envisions must overcome rivalries among the six nations.

“It’s not going to be a NATO tomorrow,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic negotiations still under way, “but the idea is to move to a more integrated effort.”

Iran, as it has been for more than three decades, remains the most worrisome threat to many of those nations, as well as to Iraq itself, where it has re-established political, cultural and economic ties, even as it provided covert support for Shiite insurgents who have battled American forces.

“They’re worried that the American withdrawal will leave a vacuum, that their being close by will always make anyone think twice before taking any action,” Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said in an interview, referring to officials in the Persian Gulf region.

Sheik Khalid was in Washington last week for meetings with the administration and Congress. “There’s no doubt it will create a vacuum,” he said, “and it may invite regional powers to exert more overt action in Iraq.”

He added that the administration’s proposal to expand its security relationship with the Persian Gulf nations would not “replace what’s going on in Iraq” but was required in the wake of the withdrawal to demonstrate a unified defense in a dangerous region. “Now the game is different,” he said. “We’ll have to be partners in operations, in issues and in many ways that we should work together.”

At home, Iraq has long been a matter of intense dispute. Some foreign policy analysts and Democrats — and a few Republicans — say the United States has remained in Iraq for too long. Others, including many Republicans and military analysts, have criticized Mr. Obama’s announcement of a final withdrawal, expressing fear that Iraq remained too weak and unstable.

“The U.S. will have to come to terms with an Iraq that is unable to defend itself for at least a decade,” Adam Mausner and Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote after the withdrawal announcement.

Twelve Republican Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.


Thom Shanker reported from MacDill Air Force Base, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington.
A version of this article appeared in print on October 30, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Is Planning Buildup in Gulf After Iraq Exit.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom