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.

 

NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Guys we are living in the "end" times right now. Easter, according to www.ken-welch.com, will be the next 911, and then bye bye Iran. I seriously wonder what is going to happen, and I hate myself for actually getting excited to see what is going to happen... it sickens me that part of me is smiling about all this. What is wrong with me?




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Syria will be invaded by Israel... it's plain and simple... and i would like to know why almost everybody here thnik that we are at the end of times? Bush and the president of Iran also think we are in the end of the world and that Jesus Christ will come back to fight don't know why and that Mehdi will also come back... according to the prophecy, they will come back at the end of 2008, near the american's elections...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Guys we are living in the "end" times right now. Easter, according to www.ken-welch.com, will be the next 911, and then bye bye Iran. I seriously wonder what is going to happen, and I hate myself for actually getting excited to see what is going to happen... it sickens me that part of me is smiling about all this. What is wrong with me?


Because like everyone else...you know that this is inevitable and it cant be stoped. Hey im smiling inside aswell, i was up this morning at 4 to watch the new and see if anything had hapened yet.
Here is another link... Does anybody here think its wierd that Nostradamus predicted nuclear war triggered in Iran on the 10th of April? which reminds me...THATS TODAY!!


nostradamus


[edit on 9-4-2006 by 9ine_Lives]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by 9ine_Lives]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
So the J-man will come back just in time for elections : )

As for if a nucular strike will happen at Iran on the tenth, well one day of waiting won't take too long. But I don't think this whole nucular premtive strike will work out support wise. The president can't even announce the idea publicly. No amount of sleaze or lies can fool the majority of the american people on this one.

They could try to quickly do it, but then just launching some assult would bring down his aproval rating who knows how low. Might have to suspend congrees and seize total control illeagaly in order to enact his insane will.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Loam, maybe you can quote the article where it says that the US is plannng PREEMPTIVE nuclear strikes on Iran. It DOESN'T. That is why I have a problem with this article. It says the US is planning the war INCLUDING nuclear strikes, but it doesn't say PREEMPTIVE.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Whatever nuclear/conventional contingency plans the military/government (shadow or otherwise) might make.......surely they would be a moderately well guarded secret. Or so one would hope!!

Personally, I think this whole 'news story' may be intended to provoke some sort of 'first move' by Iran......then there's no need to be preemptive, just retaliatory....



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Im in Australia so its the 10th here now...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by digitalassassin
Does anyone remember the "Doomsday Clock"

It hasnt been reset? Its still 7 minutes till midnight.
I bet its more like 1 minute to midnight by now.

When do they reset this?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Guys we are living in the "end" times right now. Easter, according to www.ken-welch.com, will be the next 911, and then bye bye Iran.


Ken Welch is a Wacko just like the reporter who made the outrageous statements in this story. Sure the US is making plans of some sort and I am sure they may contain possible use of nuclear weapons but to state out right that is the first action is just plain stupid.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
...is a Wacko just like the reporter who made the outrageous statements in this story....


What precisely makes him a wacko?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by digitalassassin
Does anyone remember the "Doomsday Clock"

It hasnt been reset? Its still 7 minutes till midnight.
I bet its more like 1 minute to midnight by now.

When do they reset this?


I don't believe there is any regular schedule for resetting the clock:


Chicago, February 27, 2002: Today, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock," the symbol of nuclear danger, from nine to seven minutes to midnight, the same setting at which the clock debuted 55 years ago. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, this is the third time the hand has moved forward.


More on the clock here:
www.thebulletin.org...



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
dg the original article was put out by Seymour Hersh in January of 2005. His latest version of the article will appear in the New Yorker Magazine tomorrow. Every time he has trotted his delusions out in front of the public he has been corrected by Bush & Blair administration officials and even taken to task by more responsible journalists. The man has a real problem with the Bush administration in general and Donald Rumsfeld in particular, but he has not said anything about a preemptive nuclear strike. If the Telegraph is reporting otherwise they are either misreading his articles or misquoting him, or something.

BTW I based by comment on the original articles, not on the Telegraph article, so if they used the words Preemptive Nuclear Strike in their article, then I sincerely apologize for saying your headline was unethical.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Ken Welch is a Wacko just like the reporter who made the outrageous statements in this story. Sure the US is making plans of some sort and I am sure they may contain possible use of nuclear weapons but to state out right that is the first action is just plain stupid.

Ill agree that Ken Welch is whacked out, but that statement isnt... we are in the liveing end right now, something big is going to hapen...and im shure a lot of people will agree with me.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

What precisely makes him a wacko?



The answer is simple. He had nothing to back up his statement, therefore he made it up. That is what wackos due ya know



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   


One more thing. Does the clock reset itself or does someone do it?


I sound like i'm off topic, but not really.


Thanks.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
...Every time he has trotted his delusions out in front of the public he has been corrected by Bush & Blair administration officials and even taken to task by more responsible journalists...


Hmmmm...






SEYMOUR HERSH

His journalism and publishing prizes include the Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, the National Magazine Award, and more than a dozen other prizes (Sigma Delta Chi, Worth Bingham, Sidney Hillman, etc.) for investigative reporting on My Lai, the C.I.A.'s bombing of Cambodia, Henry Kissinger's wiretapping, and the C.I.A.'s efforts against Chile's Salvador Allende, among other topics. In 2004, Hersh was responsible for exposing the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series of pieces in the magazine; early in 2005, he was awarded the National Press Foundation's W.M. Kiplinger Distinguished Contributions to Journalism award and received his fifth George W. Polk award, making him that award's most honored laureate.



Mind showing me your sources????


As for him being misquoted...that is a possibility. I'll await the article. But in the meanwhile, we have your word and the Telegraph's...
I know which one I'm bettin' on...though I wish your position was right.



Originally posted by shots
The answer is simple. He had nothing to back up his statement, therefore he made it up. That is what wackos due ya know


Yeah, a real wacko...who happens to have caught the US with its pants down on SEVERAL verified occasions. Mind showing me his extensive reporting failures in the past that demonstrate his writings are nothing more than the specious ravings of an anti-bush wacko?


[edit on 9-4-2006 by loam]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'm still looking for the word "preemptive" in the article you quoted loam. I've read it three or four times in three or four different places, and haven't been able to find it yet.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


One more thing. Does the clock reset itself or does someone do it?


I sound like i'm off topic, but not really.


Thanks.


In this case me thinks the reporter who wrote this ridiculous story using nuclear weapons use for his own glory without facts to back up his claim/statement is going to reset it. That is just my uneducated guess since clocks cannot reset themselves on their own.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm still looking for the word "preemptive" in the article you quoted loam. I've read it three or four times in three or four different places, and haven't been able to find it yet.


Zaph, I have already explained this. The article begins with the following:




The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.



It says "to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads." If that does not meet the definition of preemption, I don't know what does.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Zaph, I have already explained this. The article begins with the following:




The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.



It says "to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads." If that does not meet the definition of preemption, I don't know what does.


Those were the words of the reporter not Bush's or the administration, you should have made that clear. No where did the reporter quote a source for his info so it was nothing more then his opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join