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: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.


And I fail to see where any of this makes it any better that we are telling Iran, "Sure go ahead and build that bomb ..."




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Uhh, because everyone in the known universe already know that...except for you...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Saudi Arabia to seek bids for its first nuclear reactor



Saudi Arabia plans to call for preliminary bids for its first nuclear reactor next year, kicking off the region’s biggest atomic energy programme.

The request for proposals could be for more than one reactor, the first of which would start construction in 2017 for completion in 2022, said Muhammad Garwan, the atomic energy team leader of the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (Ka-Care), the government’s energy diversification planner. Over a decade-long construction period, Saudi plans to add 18 gigawatts of nuclear power, which combined with 54GW of renewable energy, would represent half of the country’s soaring power demand.



Hmmm.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
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.


They started development under Clinton, but blame Bush if it'll make you feel better.

The point is, they have them and they threaten to use them.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

NoKo has been after nukes for decades but during Bush's reign they created and tested their first nuke so yes it is their fault.

Instead we invaded Iraq because of WMD's, who Israel's Netanyahoo testified Saddam was definitely making a nuke.
edit on 27-3-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Of course, this is Bush's fault. NK wasn't first, China was before NK...1964 back to Johnson watch....


Man the spin is spitting out FAST....



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

We don't live in peace with North Korea.

So you're okay with multiple potential North Korea's?

I don't understand.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Spin? This thread is created on spin. How ironic.

Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program

Let's all join hands and blame Obama for allowing Iran to have nukes but let's forgive Bush for NoKo's nuke creations.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It's Obama's fault for not speaking up about North Korea when he was a Senator.

Period !!




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I'm okay with multiple potential NoKo's? How do you come to that conclusion? My point is, under Bush NoKo, a bassackwards nation, created and tested a nuke, meanwhile Iran has no nuke and isn't building one. Obama is trying to be diplomatic with Iran about their nuclear program and no where in that deal would the US allow Iran to build or acquire a nuke, yet this thread's OP would have you think otherwise.

Now I'm no Obama fan but let's at least give diplomacy a chance, otherwise the only other option is war, which Israel would love. Do you want more war in the Middle East? I don't understand?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: nwtrucker


Let's all join hands and blame Obama for allowing Iran to have nukes but let's forgive Bush for NoKo's nuke creations.


Okay. Cumbaya.
Bush- North Korea.
Obama- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan...



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

I'm okay with multiple potential NoKo's? How do you come to that conclusion? My point is, under Bush NoKo, a bassackwards nation, created and tested a nuke, meanwhile Iran has no nuke and isn't building one. Obama is trying to be diplomatic with Iran about their nuclear program and no where in that deal would the US allow Iran to build or acquire a nuke, yet this thread's OP would have you think otherwise.

Now I'm no Obama fan but let's at least give diplomacy a chance, otherwise the only other option is war, which Israel would love. Do you want more war in the Middle East? I don't understand?


Let's give diplomacy a chance?

How much of a chance?

do we wait until they have nukes before we do something?

Or should we wait until the first mushroom cloud?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
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.


"Blithering idiot"? Really? Why would you go that route? This could stay a sensible discussion, but name calling other posters can ruin that dynamic. Why not just say you disagree then state your reasons? Though I do admit, I pray you're right. And I agree that North Korea, Russia, and Iran wouldn't start a nuclear war because of mutually assured destruction.

However, I know a fair share about the groups involved in the Mideast & I'm convinced you're wrong about Wahabis. I know for a fact that Wahabis have no problems killing hundreds of thousands of non-Wahabis, especially Shiites. Because they've been doing it for decades. In fact, you should probably look into the founding of Wahabism & its acclaimed heroes, and you'll get a better understanding of it. As I posted earlier in this thread, Wahabism has a literal blood feud with Shia Islam, & Wahabi doctrine calls for the eradication of Shia Islam.

And I stand by this as well: Depending on who in the Saudi government would have access to the nukes, they would launch them immediately (assuming they're smaller tactical nukes). There are thousands of royals, and the more powerful ones have really powerful government positions. I mean things like "Mayor of Mecca", Governor of entire provinces, or complete control of different law enforcement agencies (some even overlap). They also have private armies but I don't know much about them. Some of these leaders were jockeying for power before the previous king died (a few months ago), and there were concerns that a civil war was going to break out.

I mentioned this so you'll understand 1) how fractured they are and 2) that some of them are far more militant than others. The House of Saud itself isn't hardcore Wahabi. In fact, they are rather liberal by Saudi standards (just look at some of their overseas scandals). However, ever since radicals took over the Kaaba in Mecca, the Saudi government has appeased their radicals to maintain power. So depending on which agencies (& their commanding royals) had access to the nukes, I could definitely see some of the more hardcore leaders dropping tactical nukes on their biggest enemy.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

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.



What part of my postwas cheering for anyone?

Or do you have trouble reading?

Cause I never said I want a nuclear Iran.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

I'm okay with multiple potential NoKo's? How do you come to that conclusion? My point is, under Bush NoKo, a bassackwards nation, created and tested a nuke, meanwhile Iran has no nuke and isn't building one. Obama is trying to be diplomatic with Iran about their nuclear program and no where in that deal would the US allow Iran to build or acquire a nuke, yet this thread's OP would have you think otherwise.

Now I'm no Obama fan but let's at least give diplomacy a chance, otherwise the only other option is war, which Israel would love. Do you want more war in the Middle East? I don't understand?




do we wait until they have nukes before we do something?

Or should we wait until the first mushroom cloud?


Probably depends, to some, on WHERE that first mushroom cloud shows up.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

When North Korea:

North Korea threatens nuclear strike on White House

No one cares!

Iran wants a nuclear deal not war ..

Everyone loses their mind!


edit on 27-3-2015 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:22 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'....






Im sorry why should I trust the word of the saudis?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Swills

Of course, this is Bush's fault. NK wasn't first, China was before NK...1964 back to Johnson watch....


Man the spin is spitting out FAST....




It is when bush invaded the wrong effing country!


Instead of marching into North Korea when the first test happend
You marched into Iraq!


Did Bush just read a map wrong and send the army to the wrong place?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The situation as I see it is the group that wants everyone to have nukes will always be in the right, until one nuke goes off. Then who cares.

The other group that wants to limit nukes will always be wrong, until one nuke goes off.

Then who cares.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join