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.

 

Nuke terror set for Ramadan?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   


FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Nuke terror set for Ramadan?
Al-Qaida gears up for October 'American Hiroshima'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 29, 2005
5:21 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

If al-Qaida has its way, the next terrorist attack on the United States – a "nuclear hell storm" planned for seven major cities – is set to occur next month during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

That's what Paul Williams, author of "The Al Qaeda Connection," writes in a special report exclusively in the latest issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Ramadan begins Tuesday, Oct. 4 and ends Nov. 2.


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: Methods of ''Quoting'' – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/9/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I thought the "American Hiroshima" was supposed to be this past August? And haven't we been warned of major terror attacks during Ramadan every year since 9/11? Just as the American government is guilty of confusing the public and burning us out with their constant warnings and changing of the color-coded alert level, I think members of the press and certain alleged "terror experts" are getting even worse.

First I hear from someone that al Qaida definitely has nukes, and has so for a while. Then we hear that no one in the intelligence community believes they have nukes, with the predominant theory that if they had them they would have used them by now. Some say they have "suitcase nukes" from the old USSR, while others allege (including the Russian government) that all nukes are accounted for and/or the suitcase nukes don't even exist.

Sadly, I just don't know what to believe anymore. I don't know which "experts" really know what they're talking about and which "experts" are just trying to generate newspaper sales and web traffic to their site. Theoretically, I could see al Qaida being in posession of a nuclear weapon (especially from the former USSR). And I acknowledge that we have major holes in our border and port security. But the idea that al Qaida could sneak 7 nuclear weapons into this country without our government even getting a sniff of it or even stopping one of them is kind of outrageous to me.

But I suppose that we'll have to wait until November before I am proven right. Hopefully, I won't be proven wrong before then. God help us all...



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Let them come. And no I'm not in anyway wishing death upon millions, which would probably happen if 7 cities got nuked all at once, but, IF, and I mean IF it does happen and I am not taken out by the initial blast, ill be ok for about 4-5 months till I'm probably shot down by US soldiers. I plan ahead and have a 4 month pack ready plus weapons and ammo. Bring it. Lets see what they got... I personally dont think the have the set. Just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
you have guns and ammo? if a nuke goes off, you can come live with me in jersey! we'll stockpile everything here and go wipe out anyone that even resembles a terrorist!



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
If Al-Quiada had a bomb in the US it would have been detonated by now, simply because maintaining them is a pain in the arse, and probably quite dificult to to in a suburban neighbourhood.

There very much a use em or lose em toy.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
another bull**** topic about a nuclear attack on ramadan
wasn't thereone last time about this?
or is their one for every muslim/christian celibrations?

lets just put it simple ( as the person above said if they did have nukes they would have done it by now )

so all this they might/will do this on a certain date is just plain hilerious



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
If Al-Quiada had a bomb in the US it would have been detonated by now, simply because maintaining them is a pain in the arse, and probably quite dificult to to in a suburban neighbourhood.

There very much a use em or lose em toy.


Thats interesting. I never looked at it that way, in which the nukes would have to be 'maintained' while they lay in waiting. I know very little about nukes and it never occurred to me that someone would have to check on them from time to time. I always assumed they could bury them in a hole somewhere and retreive them at their leisure.

Do you have any more info on this ?

Nice observation



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Whoah, I’m a little bit concerned regarding a few of your comments here:


Originally posted by Cylent773
...till I'm probably shot down by US soldiers. I plan ahead and have a 4 month pack ready plus weapons and ammo. Bring it...

Why would you fight the Americans? The terrorists would be the ones who detonated a nuclear device within your city. I don’t see the logic in fighting your government for actions taken against you by forces who oppose your government and you yourself as you are a citizen of your government. Granted there is reason to believe the US is behind terrorism, there’s not enough proof to attack US soldiers, it’s the equivalent of the US invading Iran on a hunch.

Anyhow, going Rambo on your fellow countrymen and those who joined the military to fight those who are a threat to your freedom and security is hardly going to earn you a place in the record books as a hero. You might be lucky enough to be remembered as the psycho who went…well psycho. I’m not calling you nuts or anything, but that’s just what would likely happen.

It could also hurt the NRA, as people might say “take away our guns before another Cylent type attacks occurs!” by the way.


Originally posted by Rasputin13
...we'll stockpile everything here and go wipe out anyone that even resembles a terrorist!

Resembling a terrorist? You mean those of Arabic decent or appearing to be of? Surely you’re trying to be humorous...

If we went around killing everyone wearing a turban or with a “brownish” skin tone, where would we end up? I think we’d end up being genocidal, wouldn’t you agree? Most people believe the Nazis weren’t a very pleasant political party, the chief reason for this is their genocidal actions toward the Jewish and all other non-white communities. Besides, it’s racism and as the smert ones know, racism is based on stupidity, and here at ATS, members are supposed to “deny ignorance,” I believe.


Originally posted by Uncle Joe
If Al-Quiada had a bomb in the US it would have been detonated by now, simply because maintaining them is a pain in the arse, and probably quite dificult to to in a suburban neighbourhood.

There very much a use em or lose em toy.


Not necessarily, if Al Qaeda had one or more nuclear weapons within the United States, Al Qaeda may choose to wait until they can locate and deploy more, in order to increase the devastation. Attacking one city won’t cripple our economy or way of life (most likely) and they know this, they’re not stupid. In fact, I would wait until Al Qaeda had as many as I thought Al Qaeda could obtain within the next few years, if I were their leader, before deploying or detonating. It’s just the smart thing to do.

Regarding their requiring a great deal of upkeep, I’ve never heard this. What type of regular maintenance would be required to properly maintain them? I believe we from time to time test our nuclear weapons (ICBMs, tactical missiles, etc), but I wasn’t aware we actually had to do anything with/to them in order to keep them functioning adequately.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
All i know about nuclear maintenence is that the UK Trident system has to be refreshed every year and i would imagine that a suitcase bomb smuggled out of a decaying soviet state would not have access to such maintenece, therefore it would be difficult to guarantee a detonation.

Fraid i couldnt find any links to this, so its all speculation but they are delicate toys, and im willing to bet your average terrorist has no access to the specialists needed.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
One of the main nukes in the US inventory had a high fizzle rate. They recalled a lot of them over the years, and the ones remaining have no guarantee of detonating. The B61 has had issues for years, and from what I understand is that if the normal explosive that sets off the nuclear blast isn't absolutely perfect, or doesn't fire EXACTLY then you fet a fizzle. It's not uncommon for it to happen, you get either a partial detonation, or nothing at all.

And I thought it was the 9th of September it was supposed to go off.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I would love to see Al-Qaeda whip up a can of whoop-ass during the month of Ramadhan. No, don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to see any Americans or any of their allies hurt but it will prove one thing for sure--Al-Qaeda is a wrong representation of Islam.

In Islam, during the month or Ramadhan, no conflict or war should be declared on anybody of different race or religion. During Ramadhan is when the real Jihad occurs for every Muslim worldwide which is Jihad against hunger,lust and temptations. NOT against those who don't believe in Islam. It's a month where we spend all our energy to do good deeds such as volunteer works and increasing our faith by doing prayers and reading the Quran.

Furthermore, any muslim who spilled a blood of another man during Ramadhan is hard proof of him not of Muhammad's teaching.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
www.red-ice.net...

This story has Bush and Cheney spending October 4th in the
nuclear hardened bunkers.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
...the UK Trident system has to be refreshed every year...


What do you mean by "refreshed" and are you certain it "has" to be or is it still possible for Tridents to fire and detonate without being "refreshed?"


Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the main nukes in the US inventory had a high fizzle rate. They recalled a lot of them over the years, and the ones remaining have no guarantee of detonating. The B61 has had issues for years, and from what I understand is that if the normal explosive that sets off the nuclear blast isn't absolutely perfect, or doesn't fire EXACTLY then you fet a fizzle. It's not uncommon for it to happen, you get either a partial detonation, or nothing at all...


What exactly is meant by "fizzle?" Also, you say even if they do "fizzle" they stay could detonate "partially" or normally (fully). If this is the case, then Al-Qaeda nuclear devices still have the opportunity to explode causing wide scale damage, right?


Originally posted by FlyersFan
This story has Bush and Cheney spending October 4th in the
nuclear hardened bunkers.


If I was President I would consider doing the same if I had reason to believe the United States might be attacked via a nuclear weapon. I wonder where they get the specific date from though...

Another thing I wonder (not to go off-topic) is what exactly are our "Space Warring Squadrons" composed of, and what is exactly is that "Battlelab" for? Of course, those who didn't read FlyersFans' link wont know where those questions came from, though.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
A fizzle is a non or partial detonation. Either the regular explosives don't go off, or only a small number of them go off (they are arranged in "hexes" around the nuclear material). If none of them go off, obviously you have a non-event and you recover the device, or you can render it inert where it is.

In a partial detonation, you get a much smaller yield from the warhead. Say it's a 10 megaton warhead, you'll get 15 or 20 kilotons for example. You get a much smaller blast than you're expecting.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
they've been warning about a ramadan attack since 2002. Hasn't happened yet


same goes for the inevitable dec 20th warning about christmas attacks.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Yeah, agreed, nothing is going to happen. It has been over four years now, and there has not been so much as a terrorist caused stubbed toe within the borders of the USA. These warnings show up with clockwork regularity. "Wolf!" anyone?



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The "terrorists" that concern me are the ones within our government. There is alot of heat on the powers that be and what better way to get everyone back into line? You can scream all you want about the dangers of Al Quaeda, but I trully believe that the "terror" via nuclear attacks will come from within. I know that I will get blasted for this, but I don't think that I am the only one that sees how we are being manipulated by our own government.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
naw its just the terrorists method of that they are still breathing down yer neck. they just want to remind us that we are still being targeted and that they aint stopping. so its just they way it is. call it psychological warfare. keep reminding yer enemies.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
The "terrorists" that concern me are the ones within our government. There is alot of heat on the powers that be and what better way to get everyone back into line? You can scream all you want about the dangers of Al Quaeda, but I trully believe that the "terror" via nuclear attacks will come from within. I know that I will get blasted for this, but I don't think that I am the only one that sees how we are being manipulated by our own government.


not going to blast ya at all.....i just truly hope society hasnt reached a point of the people who are supposed to represent us, decide to nuke us.

still, however much i want to say nothing will happen. Somthing is in the back of my mind which makes it to real.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Some information:

Most of the deterioration that affects shelved nuclear weapons is within the primary (non-nuclear) detonation system. Even though the nuclear material (uranium or plutonium) is surrounded by lead to keep radiation from affecting the other electronics inside the bomb (including those that control the primary detonator), nevertheless, over time radiation takes its toll. So in order to maintain nuclear weapons for an extended peroid of time, the detonators have to be checked/re-worked/etc periodically.

Anyhow, that's how I understand it. But you can take a look at nuclear bomb mechanics ... for those who want to better understand the basics.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join