It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


TERRORISM: U.S.: 'Very High' Chance of WMD Terror Strike

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:22 PM
Esdad, we are not even on the same page, with all due respect.

If beleiving all you hear is good enough for you, then so be it. I respect your opinion.

Some of us just dont want to buy into the lies. Now, as i said, we ARE going to be attacked. How can we not be? If OUTSIDE sources attack us, we asked for it by meddling into everyones business.

Then there are the INSIDE sources. I trust those less.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:37 PM
With all due respect, No dgtempe, we are not on the same page I don't understand the fact that since I have an opinion of my own and do not follow your rhetoric I must be blind to what my government is doing. Thank you for respecting my opinion, but I am realistic, that's all. I do not beleive that this is fear mongering, and that there is a positive chance of a terror attack. It is this qoute by an official and the way the media swings it that causes panic and fear. It is our government who is actively, everyday preventing further attacks on our country within our borders The world itself is in a spiral we can only help it can pull itself out of before we wake up to not an end of days, but a grim future.

My only other question is 'Do you actively work for the US government or any type of affiliated agency?'

[edit on 17-1-2006 by esdad71]

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:49 PM
No, Esdad. I am currently a housewife.
That does not mean i dont know what i beleive to be true in my heart.

We just have to agree to disagree.

By the way, i said twice (i think) that we ARE going to be attacked. I can feel it in my bones...this is going to be a terrible year. I am also telling you that all will not be what it seems.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:07 PM
Housewives have fanatastic intuition
I only asked because in other threads I have read 'I have inside information'. I guess it was just coming from your bones...

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
... and that there is a positive chance of a terror attack..

Oh, there's a positive chance of an attack, all right.

Edit: And I have no doubt that Iran will be blamed.

I love it when a plan comes together. Iran, you evil... country, you!

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I love it when a plan comes together. Iran, you evil... country, you!

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

The middle east will be known as the Middleast of the US of America.

Got to get the lands after all what is under all that sand is worth it.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:24 PM
for any of you who think this warning is ligit. first is there anything besides getting on your knees and praying, joining into the military, or complaining that you can do to stop an attack? then also realize that since the 2004 election the "terror alert level" has never changed.. or been used?

THe devote followers of Bush rely too much on emotions and gut feelings to bother with facts and information to know they are being led around like a puppy dog on a leesh

There is very likely a terrorist could attack us. but 99.99% of the people in the United states cant stop it, just like they couldn't prevent lighting from striking someone, or a meteor from falling from the sky. Don't let the fear rule your life.. jsut learn to live with it and go on with your life

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:45 PM
Well i think if terrorists use a WMD like a nuke or bio wep, OUR response should be to NUKE entire middle east sites related to the terrorists that CLAIM they did it now only if they claim they done it, if they stay stump and we wont know then who done it.

we should also nuke all places like Iran etc known to supply terrorists, harbor terrorists, our response should be a very we now don't give a piss on you and kill them all attitude ONLY if we are attacked with a MD. I'M sure this would start a CRUSADES 2 war.

Maybe theres plans if we are attacked by WMD and terrorists did it and claim it that we attack and take over all hostile middle east country's??

or maybe all holy middle east sites will have mushroom clouds on them?

we should defiantly reply in kind to whatever bio or nuke, our response should be equal to and if not twice the WMD that they gave us then maybe they shut up, if any more terror attacks happen we should then say attack us and we nuke you now beep beep off.

if we did go in an take over we prob offer Russia and China OIL for free so they don't get involved.

i sure hope our response would be equal too that of what they did to us if it ever happened, and we should hit something that is of value to the terrorists country's of origin, family's, holy sites.

i prey that terrorists are not that stupid to use WMD like a nuke on allied soil, and that they are intelligent enough to just stick with suicide bombers etc etc.

i probably repeated some stuff in my mumblings lol.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by blobby]

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:16 PM
You know... this is not news. There was no warning, no increased 'chatter', no sign whatsoever that anything different was going to happen. People have been saying that we could expect a terror attack all along... This Crumpton dude just mentions it today and cnn sees fit to make a big story about it and ATSNN follows suit with a scary TERRORISM headline. I'm disappointed.

I wonder why this Crumpton dude saw fit to talk about it now... Hmmm...

Could it be that there's just a little too much attention being paid to the criminal happenings in the White House? Could it have something to do with the fact that in the past 2 days, 3 top Democrats have come out and lambasted Bush for what he's doing?

That and the need for a 911-type-incident to motivate us to attack Iran? Ya think?

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:50 PM
And will this WMD strike be ebbeted by Iran perhaps? Would it pass if this administration were to justify aggressive action on Iran by such concocted pretexts?


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:28 PM
I'll place my bet on it being used to cement more power for DubYa so it will be easier for him to declare "no election" in 2006. It's all about the power.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:52 AM
My big concern, fear, paranoia or whatever you call it is that either a covert group within our country or government or our government itself is going to perform a covert attack and blame terrorists or that our government will allow an attack to take place with knowledge of what terrorists are planning so that we can retaliate in full force against some foreign country. It would be like knowing Pearl Harbor is about to happen but decide to wait for them to attack first so that the whole nation will be onboard with going to war. If our government knows a Pearl Harbor is about to happen and doesn't do whatever it takes to stop it, I think they are accessories to the crime. I just hope something isn't planned so that we can go to war with Iran.

I can imagine arguments in higher circles of those wanting to go to war but saying that the public will never support it unless we have another horrendous terrorist attack and can blame it on a particular group. If I am right and any word of what I am saying gets around, I would say please hold off. The US economy needs to get stronger and our debt under better control and we don't need another war right now. If China is going to become the number 1 GDP nation in 20 or so years, they will probably become the top terror target at some time. Let them wake up and see the light instead of the US and regular allies doing all the work. China may already be on board since a major terror strike would affect their economy as well.

I can't do much if a biological attack occurs. About the only thing I can do is hope our government is doing all they can to stop it. If our government believes Iran is going to give nukes away to terrorists, we need to discuss it instead of trying to cook up some stories or plan to let an attack happen on US soil without opposition. Hopefully I'm just expressing paranoia.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by orionthehunter]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:24 AM
First of all, does anyone in here knows if Henry Crumpton decided to go to England just to tell the Daily Telegraph newspaper about this possibility? or did the newspaper seek out Crumpton to ask him these questions?....

if the Newspaper did seek Crumpton out and asked "these specific questions" do you think that Crumpton would just lie, or change his statements to make anyone feel better?

The article does not mention how this interview came to fruition.

Second of all, can anyone tell me if Al Qaeda is just a "made up terrorist group" why is it that so many other countries also say that "Al Qaeda does exist and there are radical Islamic terrorists who have been planning, and in some cases have succeded, committing terrorist attacks against many nations?.....

I guess every nation on the planet is telling everyone to "duck and hide under the table" and you better do it now....

Oh, and what happens when there is some sort of terrorist attack and the governments in those nations where the attack occurred decide not to make public this information because they don't want to cause panic?...

The same people that are now laughing at this statement say that there is another conspiracy because they were not told about these possibilities. Which many of you have done several times.

I think some people around these forums are forgetting pre 9/11 intelligence and the decision of government agencies not to announce this chatter by Islamic terrorists to the public.

Anyways, i think, unless it can be proven otherwise, that this interview came to fruition only because the British newspaper asked these specific questions.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:20 AM
Well Muadibb is many scenarios as why the increased concerns of a nuclear attacks.

First we most see what is going on right now in the middle east.

US is becoming increasingly direct to the situation with Iran.

I will not be surprised that US decided to take over the problem in Iran and target their nuclear plants.

But in order to do that with the unhappiness of the American people about what is going on in Iraq he needs to win support.

Then we need to understand that Al-qaida is still deemed a thread, but the reality is that the whole middle east population has never been friends of the US and never will that makes all of them possible enemies of the US.

So yes as long as US has enemies around the world we can have the possibility of having another attack.

Now look at the situation with south America, because US is busy in the middle east it has forgotten to keep alliances with the government of South America and many of them are turning into communist countries like China for support.

If US don't hurry up and do some restrictions in our own continent China is going to be the one doing the callings in South American no US.

At one time the treat for violance came from the south of the border and from other hostile countries in the south, that treat is going to become again a problem.

The middle east is a treat and South America is becoming another, so now what is a nation to do.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:06 AM
It is always interesting that "top counterterrorism officials" have this detailed info, But have yet to arrest even one confirmed AQ terrorist group in the USA...

just like little bobby said
" if these guys are so wanted, then why didn't you all keep them, when you took the picture"

if we get the info, couldn't it be easy to get where the info came from?

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:47 AM

There is a set of prophesies that have been released that talk about a multiple city attack on Monday Jan 23, 2006. The cities to be struck are:

Cincinnati, San Francisco, Montreal, Atlanta, Dallas and Washington DC.

Other people are coming forward with revelations and visions of two of the six cities. Several people see both the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge collapse and the Washington DC Nuclear or Dirty bomb attack, including Chuck Colson, former Nixon aide, now Christian, on (1/3/2006).

The most collected read of these prophecies and their surrounding confirmations and news items is at:

Intelligence agencies are picking up increased chatter and then there's the recent multiple tracphone prepaid cell phone (untraceable) purchases in lots of 60 to 120 around the country by middle eastern men recently.

I am working on a theory about why now and not in the last few years after 9/11. The Bush administration would have us believe that fighting "them over there" makes us safer over here. However, nothing I have seen that we have done over there prevents an end-around by terrorists through a porous Mexican border to attack us here. We are among the, if not "the", most hated country in the world right now. So, if you can't stop the attack and one has not happened but several countries have every motivation to attack us....then what's left:

Could it be that we are involved in the selection of the timing of the attack?
Could it be that the only thing left is to make the most of the opportunities presented by such an attack?

The most basic sovereign principle of a nation's definition is its ability to make war. That's political theory 101. The most basic principle of marketing is to present the problem in terms of the solution you are offering.

If you can't stop the attack, then time the attack at a point when you most need it to bolster your cause and the systems required to implement surveillance and control of persons is finally ready.

Suppose, just suppose, there was no further attack on the US in the last 4 1/2 years because the societal changes and systems required to enforce the reductions in civil liberties that would result were not yet ready.

The greatest opportunity to effect societal changes toward a more closed, watched, totalitarian society is done by the changes in monitoring required to fight an infiltrated enemy. This is no longer a war in which there are defined battle lines as was WWII. The enemy is mixed in with us so the surveillance, tracking, suppression of liberties has to apply to everyone here. This type of battle provides the greatest potential to lock-down an entire people or nation within their own borders.

I have this funny feeling that perhaps, starting on Jan 24th, you will be hard-pressed to find new headlines complaining about NSA wiretapping or debates about Patriot Act extensions.

Could it be the image of the revived Roman Empire has the US at the head of it? Is it perhaps merely a coincidence that a recent CNS article debates whether the green light given to Al-Qaeda for their next attack was really to attack the US with a code-name of Rome?

You decide:

al Qaeda Video is 'Green Light' for Attack, Analyst Warns
By Sherrie Gossett - Staff Writer - January 11, 2006

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:06 PM
man, I live just south of Whiteman Aire Force Base, Where the government keeps the Stealths, which drop nuclear bombs

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:14 PM
The potential of a terrorist attack, is no more, and no less, than any time since 9-11...

if we knew any different, then the attack wouldn't happen...

the DHD just loves prophets... feed the fear, play off propaganda..
the usual methods... nothing unusual about that...

just dont fall in to it...

and my only true fear of an attack, is from one that the government ALLOWS to happen to further their agenda of cutting citizens rights.

We should all see by now, that the winners of the war on terrorism, aren't on our side... they are the military industrial complex, that will perpetuate war, to make money...

our own president Eisenhower has warned us about thier plans, and here several decades later, we have already forgotten the face of our fathers...

eisenhowers speech of warning regarding military industrial complex.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by timetravler_0
man, I live just south of Whiteman Aire Force Base, Where the government keeps the Stealths, which drop nuclear bombs

Hi there, I didn't mean to suggest that the US would actually do the bombing. Not at all. They don't have to. They simply can't stop it and can perhaps only negotiate over the timing in collusion behind the scenes.

If you read the book, "Osama's Revenge, the next 9/11" by Paul L. Williams, it makes a credible case (well documented anyway) that there are, in fact, suitcase nukes already in the US that can be employed for such at attack.

Intelligence agencies know that more than 40 suitcase nukes (5 kTon max yield) are in the hands of al-qaeda or already hidden in lead casings in the US now (undetectable til used). I have said for a long time that
none of what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan protects us from
an end-around of terrorists through the porous Mexican border to get
a nuke into the US. The suitcase nukes were planted in the US during
the cold war and there is some debate on the need to periodically
service the units for the bombs to maintain their full destructive
potential, but even if they can't get the full blast out of it. The radiation
will still be out there drifting in the wind. We also know that al-Qaeda
under bin Laden had always planned progresssively larger and larger
attacks (9/11 was only first wave) to demonstrate that we cannot stop

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:27 PM
I think there is an even higher probability that, if this attack on Monday, 1/23/06 occurs (5 days from now), Iran will be blamed for the attack. This will be used as the justification of our attacks against Iran in the March/April timeframe. We will either support Israel in the attacks or they will support us, but I think this is part of the buildup to that war with Iran.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in