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 in the forrest?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Just my thought.

The reason I dont believe 911 was simply a terrorist attack, and the reason I dont beleive the coming WMD attack are going to be genuine attacks... is this.

If I wanted something, for instance the removal of US forces in holy lands,
thus what Osama wanted prior to 911, for all infedels to be removed from holy lands..

why would he go and destroy and murder thousands of citizens..
surely he KNEW this would provoke a reaction towards hismelf and his arab allies?..

Wouldnt it of been the IDEAL situation, to take a wmd, preferably a nuke or something, take it out to a remote part of the USA, somewhere where civilian population is almost non existant and blow it up?

Then declare on public TV

' Youve seen the lengths at which we can destroy your country and your economy with one smooth blow, if you dont remove the infedels and allow us to remain non-manipulated to be free as arabs, we will detonate the NEXT one in a major city '

I mean, they arent an army, they surely knew if they hit the US with collosal damage, that the US would in turn destroy them and there infrastructure..

I mean this way, it really is the USA Making the decision, they can either let the arabs live and do as they please, or they can go in, and cause total chaos, with the result of many of its citizens murdered.

Why would a 5ft 2 scrawny kid walk up to a professional boxer and kick him in the nads... if all he wanted was for the boxer to bug'r off from his park?

Wouldnt it of been ideal to take a gun to the boxer, shoot him in the foot and say the nxt one is aimed at your head so buzz off?

just my thoughts.

Edit: Censor circumvention.

[edit on 13-2-2006 by intrepid]




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
i understand what you are saying, but i have to disagree. you are looking at bin laden from a western view, which he most definitely is not. as you will recall, he fought in the russo-afghani war during the nineteen eightees, and saw first hand that a world power could be beaten by militia guerillas. he thought if he could drag the US into a middle-eastern war in a place such as afghanistan, that he could eventually defeat us and win over millions of believers to his cause and possibly cause revolutions in pro-american muslim states, such as saudi and jordan. i dont think it went very much as he had planned (he didnt expect us to work withalready established afghani forces) until we entered into the conflict in iraq. that country has turned into the war he originally had planned for afghanistan.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Sounds like someone has been watching the movie True Lies a little too much. Believe me, if terrorists did have nukes then they wouldnt waste one on a non populated area. New York and/or DC are the main targets, of that you can be sure.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
But why do that when you know its going to mean direct retaliation against them?.
why not hit somewhere not important and say

unless u give us what we want, the nxt one will be a major city?..



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join