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.

 

American al Qaeda Leader Sends Message to Americans!

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by radoult

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Just a random question.... how many nuclear missiles can the US simultaniously intercept? If Russia and China and Pakistan and Iran and North Korea all launch 25 nuclear missiles each at us simultaniously, how "safe" would we really be? Anybody know?

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Yarcofin]


not many, if any.

North Korea has no more than half a dozen nukes and none of their missiles can hit CONUS

Iran "allegedly" has 0 - even if it did none of their missiles can hit CONUS

No Pakistani missile can hit CONUS

If Russia or China launched how many would they get back?.......



If the US (or one of its allies, though a less likely scenario) is attacked. And...

If that attack were to utilize nuclear weapon(s).

I would be more likely to suspect Israel as the ultimate source of the device(s).

It is improbable, to the point of impossiblity, to believe that Al Qieda would have been able to develop such a device on its own. Certainly not to any degree of reliable functionality. And what is the use of threatening your enemy with a potential dud?

Bear in mind, I am refering here to an actual nuclear bomb, not merely a radiological device; a so-called "dirty bomb". I am quite certain that, with a supply of radioactive material at hand (and any such material will suffice for this purpose), the operatives of Any terrorist organization could construct and deliver a dirty bomb virtually anywhere they choose.

Currently, I believe, for a terrorist organization to utlize a true nuclear bomb against an "enemy", said bomb must be provided, in toto, to the terrorists by a third party. Of the "usual suspects" being bandied about here (Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran), only three have the Proven capability to deliver such a prize to the terrorists: Russia, China and Pakistan.

Russia and China both have serious dis-incentives to be party to such an endeavor: Russia has its own "Islamo-facist"problem at home and could not be certain that its own weapons might one day be used against her; China is of a mind-set to be unlikely to do anything that might upset its race to world economic dominence. Getting one of your primary trading partners nuked would put a sereious crimp in their ability to trade.

Pakistan poses a bit of a quandry. It has demonstrated the ability to produce a working nuclear weapon, even in a version small enough to be mounted on a missle; thus of a size considered to be easily transportable and therefore concealable. Pakistan also has a large fundamentalist Islamic population with a growing antipathy toward the west in general, and the US in particular.

However, Pakistan's nuclear program was largely developed under the watchful eye of the US intelligence community. Some might say the US did more than just watch as Pakistan developed, in record time, a very credible nuclear deterent to rival India. The US knows what Pakistan has, and it can be assumed that the US is still keeping a close accounting of Pakistan's inventories. A task made far easier considering that the person responsible for that inventory owes his position (yea, even his life) directly to the US.

I have little doubt that if any of these known elements were to supply the nuke used against an American city, the US gov't would be able to identify the origin of the device very rapidly; and appropriate counter-action would be swift and horrible.

But

Israel is a different story. It is assumed that she is nuclear armed; she refuses to confirm or deny the allegation. It is reasonably logical to believe that even if the nuclear weapons at her disposal (if they exist) were not developed by her, they would have been supplied to her by the US, close friend and benefactor. Therefore there should be little doubt as to the reliability of the devices.

Given Israel's perceived status as US proxy, facing an over-whelming, and hostile, Arabic neighborhood, it would be only logical for Israel to possess nuclear weapons (whether of her own design and manufacture, or US-supplied under her control) to counter the "threat" she faces. In fact, Israel's strategic importance to the US is such that , I beleive, it makes a strong arguement for the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal.

It cannot be denied that within Israel there exist factions wich are as dedicated to the survival of their nation as the so-called "Islamo-facists" are dedicated to Israel's destruction, figuratively and literally. These Israeli patriots would likely see no act as too extreme if it furthered the nation's odds of survival. Many of these "super-patriots", as I'm sure they see themselves, most certainly populate the Israeli military and intelligency agencies. Access to Israel's nuke weapons would be available, through legitimate means or elsewise, to some of these "homeland defenders".

In a scenario I've posted elsewhere on this board, I proposed that a nuke, detonated in an American city and blamed on a convienient "enemy du jour" could likely be the act of a possibly rogue element of the Israeli MOSSAD.

I postulated that such an attack against her ally the US, would be executed to convince the growingly disaffected American public that they share a powerful and horribly dangerous enemy in the bowels of Ilsam.

"The Enemy of MY Enemy is my Friend".

Were such a horrific event to occur, NO sitting US administration could safely point an accusitory finger at Israel! The ramnifactions, both political and strategic, would be sufficient to rend both nations, and possiblely, the world as we know it.

So, even if the US gov't knew for certain the true source of the nuclear device it had just suffered from, it would be Forced by overwhelming circumstance to accuse AQ, Iran, or some other likely-related "terrorist" faction.




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Israel is NOT going to attack the USA. Be serious here.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I dunno. Israel government has shown they do not care about anyone else except themselves. UN peacekeepers, Canadian civilians, Arabic civilians, and countless others have fallen to their military arsenal. Of course things would have to be getting really bad there for them to even consider it.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Israel is NOT going to attack the USA. Be serious here.


That just about sums it up.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
What they might be getting at is this.

If you vote Bush out we will see you as none supportive of his goals. If you leave him in power you will send us the message you support anything his govenment and masters do.

Personally you should kick him out of office because he can't speak for himself. If people put words into his mouth who really makes the choices behind closed doors...?



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Make no mistake, the situation as it is now, with one party excercising "global dominance", is inherently unstable. Being king of the hill means everyone else has a strong motivation to knock you off. Especially as the last five years have demonstrated the potential effectiveness of assymetrical warfare techniques used against against technically superior opponents.

An Imperial America represents a threat to the life and liberty of every single man, woman, and child in the country.
Not to mention the rest of the planet.


What makes you think the next "king of the hill" is going to be any different? There will eventually be someone else that takes the mantle and they become the most hated country in the world. Make no mistake that anyone who fills the shoes of the U.S. will no doubt be more interested in it's own self interest first, perhaps even more so than the US. Might make you pine for the "good ole days".

I will let history judge.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra

Personally you should kick him out of office because he can't speak for himself. If people put words into his mouth who really makes the choices behind closed doors...?


7th Charkra,
Just in case you think any president of the U.S. will actually make his own decisions you might want to read this, Omega Agency

mod edit, spelling/grammar

[edit on 3-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Originally posted by radoult

Originally posted by Yarcofin



If the US (or one of its allies, though a less likely scenario) is attacked. And...

If that attack were to utilize nuclear weapon(s).

I would be more likely to suspect Israel as the ultimate source of the device(s).


alright you sound like Mel Gibson , Israel is not going to bomb the U.S. why would they?? were allies........remember??




Russia and China both have serious reasons to be the one to pull such a stunt due to the fact that with the U.S. being the oil hog that we are, have put a serious restraint on the amount of available oil Russia and China both can aquire. With Russia and China both having an ever increasing appetite for more oil due to their booming industrial sectors, using Al Qadea as a proxy for an attack on the U.S. makes way more sense than the Israel theory. IMO

[edit on 3-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 3-9-2006 by the_sentinal]

[edit on 3-9-2006 by the_sentinal]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Just a random question.... how many nuclear missiles can the US simultaniously intercept? If Russia and China and Pakistan and Iran and North Korea all launch 25 nuclear missiles each at us simultaniously, how "safe" would we really be? Anybody know?


I just read an article yesterday about NKorea flipping over our display of fire power as we shot down one during last week's war games. The article continued that we had been successful in 5 of the last 9 attempts to intercept a full speed projectile. So... to answer your question... If there were 4 nukes on their way to the US... chances are 1 would get through. IMHO.

Question:

Does anyone have a link to this 48 minute vidoe of "Azzam The American" ? I've seen a 3 minute snippet of it at youtube.com but have yet to see the whole thing and I would definately sit through it.

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Question:

Does anyone have a link to this 48 minute vidoe of "Azzam The American" ? I've seen a 3 minute snippet of it at youtube.com but have yet to see the whole thing and I would definately sit through it.

Sri Oracle



Oracle,
I did not find the hole article but I did find this link which does have links to several pices of it. It will at least be more then the three min clip that was on youre tube.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   


What makes you think the next "king of the hill" is going to be any different?


I think having any one country with as much power as the US now has is inherently dangerous. It doesn't really matter which country it is, it's a bad idea. Attempting to create a unipolar world is a recipe for extinction.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
hmm i dunno maybe its me but dont most people on these forums believe that its the american government who organized the whole 9/11 business? well assuming that it is the american government... why should you even be occupying your minds with such frivolous concepts such as how islam is trying to recruit you? besides look at it from their perspective... if you were sitting there doing your own thing and then someone shows up on your doorstep and basically tells you how to live your life how are you going to react? personally if the american government came up to canada here and started implementing laws and codes of conduct id be shoving rockets up their arses as well... then again i suppose thats already been happening for awhile... i dont mean any offense im just saying from their perspective i say keep it up because a wasp wont sting you unless you hit the nest... its not like they purposefully hunt you down out of shear spite... you have to give them reason... and if anybody would like to argue this point im pretty sure your pro bush or pro democrat or pro whatever you want to believe is running your country... in all reality anybody who has opted for peace hasnt made the cut... how many people remember al gore? and how many people want to bet that somehow bush is going to bend the rules and stay in office after the next elections? some freak war... or natural disaster... something convenient pops up allowing him to stay in power... state of emergency... locks down the whole country into a military state... and im pretty sure you all remember hitler... just remember theres alot more to this whole deal then a bunch of men running around in the sand... anyways cheers



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by newage2012


and how many people want to bet that somehow bush is going to bend the rules and stay in office after the next elections? some freak war... or natural disaster... something convenient pops up allowing him to stay in power... state of emergency... locks down the whole country into a military state... and im pretty sure you all remember hitler... just remember theres alot more to this whole deal then a bunch of men running around in the sand... anyways cheers



Do you realize how big the catastrophy would have too be to keep bush in office???

Short of California falling off in the ocean no natural disaster I can think of would keep Bush in office. were that sick of him



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Sentinal,

I wouldnt be too sure. An attack would keep him in office. I think he's going to "fix" it so he can stay.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
ive read about this in the news. islam says it supports peace and then look what its saying now. Ayman can kiss my western rump.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Sentinal,

I wouldnt be too sure. An attack would keep him in office. I think he's going to "fix" it so he can stay.




Nooooooooooo, "Say it ain't so" DG, can we really take anymore of his shock and awe??? what if someone found a link between this administration and Al Qaeda??? There has to be a link if this is a government op.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Israel is NOT going to attack the USA. Be serious here.


If israel felt threatend enough, and honestly believed they wouldnt be able to prolong there existence, I wouldnt put it past them to HIT the USA, which brings them into the conflict.

I mean the USA had no right in supplying israel with all the bombs they could want to anhiliate lebanon, but we did.
So there's obviousy someone in the Israeli heirachy that is desperate enough to have the USA intervene.
Theres obviously hawks in the US admin that feel compelled to assist israel aswell.

All they need is to push the public behind the cause.

BEst way to do that is hit them.
again



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
An attack would keep him in office. I think he's going to "fix" it so he can stay.


When slick willie and wifeypoo were in office everyone on the far right thought they would make something happen so that they could declare martial law and stick around in the White House longer than they were supposed to.

It never happened.

Bush won't be around longer than his 8 years ... if he even makes it that long. I have a thought that his health isn't as good as we think. Not physically ... mentally. I wouldn't be surprised to see him gotten rid of by the folks who really run Washington ... like they did Kennedy.

Now, as far as that al Qaeda snot nosed brat goes ... this article sums it up for me.
www.homelandsecurityus.com...


[edit on 9/4/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Bush won't be around longer than his 8 years ... if he even makes it that long. I have a thought that his health isn't as good as we think. Not physically ... mentally.


Now remember that Clinton was not fighting a war with hidden agendas.

I would not be surprise if is true, remember Reagan in his last years in the presidency some say he was already having problems with Alzimers back then but they keep it very well hidden.

Occurs it was just rumors.

But it would be a shame if we get attacked taking into consideration all the money and resources that are spend for the war on terror.

It would not look good for the party that was the one to give birth to that terminology.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
its not like its going to inspire anyone in the US to join AQ.

------------------------------------------------------------------

don't bet on it...

matter of fact, don't make any bets, one way or another...since, half of the info we are being fed is either fake, or carefully selected to lead us to the conclusion that this group or that group wishes us to make.

but well, I ran across an interesting news story in our newspaper awhile back. Islam is becoming very popular to hispanic groups who have grown tired of the catholic religion. it's growing by leaps and bounds.

and well, where we moved to it is quite common to see women with their head coverings and such. I just don't know if this means there's been an increase in the immigrant population overall or even in this area. but there seems to be many following the religion around here. where their heart lies is something that can't be easily determined. but well, considering what has been said about sleeper cells in america, this little message might be designed to just wake a few up!

then again, it could be just designed to get more republican votes, who knows....
we're being fed baby food by the media instead of meat and potatoes that is needed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join