It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kingdom Wants Nukes Now Too! And So It Begins...

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Just a thought here, folks...

What if...(like the old Marvel comics used to say)?

this is just a way to keep the general public scared and small counties buying US and Russian weapons?

Think about it. All the stink the past few years about Russia and nukes. The US posturing with NO support of its own people at home due to war weariness, but, the Spice (armaments) must flow to keep an imaginary currency that can change with the click of a mouse in power.

Money is a concept that we BELIEVE in. And with the malfesience of the past decade, people are distrustworthy of their "dollar gods".

Why not blow up a small country?

Just a little one. And run tensions high for global thermonuclear war? Worked in the '80's, right?

I'm afraid a few hundred thousand or a few million of us will be vaporized for profit. Not religion, not anything else. Profit. Then, those same "entrepreneurs" will make money off of fundraisers for the nuked stankholes and the miserable people that survived.




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: xuenchen
The nations (and organizations like ISIS) with Sunni majorities are coming together.

Watch what happens when they really get organized.

Shi'ite Syria and Iraq will fall.

Iran will stand alone.



Actually, you shouldn't believe the narrative. It's not Sunni vs Shiite, it's Wahabi vs Shiite and Wahabi vs Secular. Remember the 1980-1988 War between Iran & Iraq? Iraq is roughly 60% Shiite, yet the country still fought Shiite Iran. And 10% of the country is Kurdish, who are almost completely Sunnis. Yet Saddam (a Sunni) was attacking the Kurds (Sunnis) while leading the Iraqi people (mostly Shiites) against Iran (mostly Shiites).

It's the same in Libya, another Sunni-majority nation. Many of the "rebels" were Wahabis & hardcore Salafis, fighting against the Sunni-majority Libyan army. And many of those same Wahabis who NATO supported in Libya then went into Mali and were attacked by the West (guess they didn't have orders to go there).

Syria is also a Sunni-majority country while Assad is an Alawite, a branch of Shiite. The majority of the Syrian Army is made of Sunnis and yet they are defending Assad! How can it be Sunni vs Shiite if the Sunnis are defending their Shiite leader? Also, the Kurdish people (mostly Sunnis) are constantly fighting the Wahabi groups like al-Nusra & ISIS!

They only claim it's "Sunni vs Shiite" to make outsiders not want to get involved. It's always been about money, domestic power, and regional influence. It would be the same as international news saying the reason Americans are so anti-illegal immigration is because of the centuries old feud between Catholics (Mexico) & Protestants (America)! Actual Americans would know it has nothing to do with that.


But that is way to complicated. People like simple, us vs. them, narratives. Not complex real world, factions within factions, narratives.



As much as I hate to admit it, even my explanations in this thread are simplified. Because nothing I've said takes into account the massive family, tribal, and clan feuds (much less the upstarts or "traitors" from each family/clan/tribe). I stopped caring about it all when I started realizing how intertwined the families of the friends & enemies are. It's like a 40-series long soap opera of love, grudges, promises, betrayals, and more. Religion is rarely a real issue with it.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Edumakated
Everyone other than Obama seems to understand that Iranians are nut jobs and MAD does not apply when one side is crazy.


LOL You realize Saudi Arabia is far worse than Iran, right? Look up Wahabism. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the two biggest sponsors of Wahabi terrorist groups. And it's Saudi Arabia that won't let women drive or go in public without a male guardian's supervision. I'd be waaaay more worried about Saudi Arabia having nukes than Iran. Just imagine Bandar Bush with nukes!


I have to agree.

SA is the epitome of women oppression.

They are so good at it they have it on lock down.

Isis doesn't even cone close in comparrirson.

The 911 highjacking took place with almost all Saudis.

So why did we bomb Iraq and afghan not Saudi?



Honestly?

1. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the rest of the GCC support the Petrodollar.
2. GCC members invest heavily in Western markets and are reliable buyers of Western military equipment.
3. The House of Saud & their fellow Hashemite royal families are pro-Zionism. Officially they are not, but in practice they protect Israeli interests & hate Israel's enemies (from Saddam & Qaddafi to Iran & Assad).
4. Wahabis, Zionists, and most Western intelligence agencies are usually aligned when it comes to the Mideast. Israel doesn't want any strong, unified Muslim opponents. Wahabis don't want any strong, unified, secular or ShiaMuslim governments. And the West doesn't want any strong, unified, independent or "defiant" Muslim governments in the Mideast.
5. Wahabism has a literal blood feud with Shia Islam. This helps Israel and the West's leaders that hate Iran. It also helps because Wahabis can raise independent black ops groups that can attack Israeli or Western targets while giving plausible deniability to our countries.

There are probably more reasons, but as long as these things stay constant, the US will never attack Saudi Arabia.


You are of course dead on the money here.

Unfortunately....



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Admittedly, the Middle East is a complicated and toxic tangle of interests and ambitions.
Introducing a proliferation of nuclear arms to that mix will add nothing positive to the lethal situation...on the contrary.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Admittedly, the Middle East is a complicated and toxic tangle of interests and ambitions.
Introducing a proliferation of nuclear arms to that mix will add nothing positive to the lethal situation...on the contrary.


Again, this goes back to another arms race between the US and Russia and they will pretend to take it to the brink with each other until there is black glass in the Middle East. But they will spend "billions" to arm themselves and sell "billions" worth of arms to others...in order to keep the system afloat.

It might happen sooner than later.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh you're absolutely right. I would be willing to bet that if Saudi Arabia & Iran had nukes, they'd nuke each other. I don't believe Iran would start it though. In fact, if Saudi Arabia got them first, I wouldn't doubt they'd launch tactical nukes immediately. Especially depending on who inside of the Saudi Kingdom had access to them (though they'd probably try to hit chemical factories or military installations to make it look like conventional strikes).

ok ok, I wouldn't literally be willing to bet. I don't gamble but you get my point lol



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Don't forget all the Iranian supports on ATS whining how 'unfair' it is that Iran doesn't get them as well...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Edumakated

Don't forget all the Iranian supports on ATS whining how 'unfair' it is that Iran doesn't get them as well...



I'm certain the same individuals will be howling against SA getting them too.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Let's have a radiation pool. My bet is Israel first.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
If having nukes is no big deal, why do we have such sanctions against North Korea?

Granted, they haven't used any of them (yet) but they sure want to.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

As a strategy, a brilliant move by the Saudis.

They just disemboweled the talks between Iran and the U.S.. It is a PERFECT move by the House of Saud.

Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran are in completion with each other. this short circuits Obama totally!

First, the fact that the Saudis have made this move discredits the nuclear weapon debunkers that support Iran. If Saudi Arabia believes Iran is developing nukes anyone saying otherwise looks like a fool.(Which they are..
)

Second, If Obama continues with an appeasement strategy with Iran, it could even get him impeached. Nuclear proliferation in the ME due to a Democrat President?? Even the left would line up to 'hang him'....



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Anybody that thinks these guys (any of them) are gonna be tossing nukes around is a blithering idiot.

There has been "nukes" in ME for over 20 years...no mushroom clouds yet.

And, yes, both Iran and SA have had access to them.

North Korea is no different...they could literally lob a nuke at their 'biggest' enemy with a slingshot...yes, a sling shot.

Still no mushroom clouds.

We keep being told that they will use it as soon as they have it...biggest MIC selling bluff since the advent of war.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
If having nukes is no big deal, why do we have such sanctions against North Korea?

Granted, they haven't used any of them (yet) but they sure want to.


Then why doesnt the rest of the world have sanctions against the United States? It is the only nation to use an atomic+ weapon in hostility.

And Russia, France, etc...

It escalated to the Dr. STRANGELOVE thing...and it still is...but THEY know it...THEY know how much a "dollar" is As well...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: IAMTAT

As a strategy, a brilliant move by the Saudis.

They just disemboweled the talks between Iran and the U.S.. It is a PERFECT move by the House of Saud.

Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran are in completion with each other. this short circuits Obama totally!

First, the fact that the Saudis have made this move discredits the nuclear weapon debunkers that support Iran. If Saudi Arabia believes Iran is developing nukes anyone saying otherwise looks like a fool.(Which they are..
)

Second, If Obama continues with an appeasement strategy with Iran, it could even get him impeached. Nuclear proliferation in the ME due to a Democrat President?? Even the left would line up to 'hang him'....





I thought Obama wanted yer guns...he probably is coming for them soon.
Why worry about nukes in other countries When you have yer own guns to worry about?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
It'd be a solid bet that Saudi Arabia probably already has nukes. Probably courtesy of China or Cheney or the CIA.

Then there's this. Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?

Whatcha gonna do? The double standard is glaringly obvious.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I must have missed the part where he stated that they were currently trying to acquire nukes because of Obamas Iran deal. :/



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Edumakated
Everyone other than Obama seems to understand that Iranians are nut jobs and MAD does not apply when one side is crazy.


Cause your Sunni allies are so much better right?

Saudi Arabia are a becon of enlightenment to the world......


No, more like the understanding that if you let the Shias get nukes, the Sunnis would want them. If you let the Sunnis get nukes, the Shias would have to have them.

Well, we let the Shias get nukes. So the Sunnis need them. That means every nation in the Middle East will have them.

The only place on earth that would be worse to have a nuclear arms race would be Africa.

Say what you will about the tension of the rest of the world, we aren't daily blowing each other up quite like they do in either the Middle East or Africa. No replace those market place bombs with nukes. I fail to see why you are cheering for anyone there to have them. No one should in those regions.


For the record, Pakistan is a Sunni majority country & already has nukes. And Iran's Supreme Leader has stated many times that Iran doesn't want nukes and that they are forbidden by Islam because of their indiscriminate nature.


For the record, I'm not crazy about Pakistan having nukes either, but once the geni is out, you can't put it back in.

Did you know that North Korea also has nukes? And guess what? Now that they have them, they threaten the rest of the world with them on an almost 6 month basis. It's just great!



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
If course it is some how barry's fault that other countries want nukes when they are surrounded by countries with them.

And to equate that since the country gets nukes that some how the terrorists orgs will then get them is like saying our street gangs will get and use them in the states. Not a perfect parallel but close enough.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: the owlbear

I see a hint of desperation in your post.....



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

We can thank the Bush administration for allowing NoKo to acquire nukes under their watch. NoKo's first nuke test was in 2006.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join