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.

 

Nuclear attack on America is very(!) imminent

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
They aint gonna go nucleah. Why not? Well after 9/11 world leaders were talking the W muppet off the button (Bran Van 3000 - 'now bush has got the button, is he gonna push' - was written before). They know the US president, and no-one else wants Armeggedon.




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
^ actually I (speculate) you are only half right, they will wait for Bush to leave office and (possibly) that is the only reason why they haven't attacked "yet".



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mjmurphy53711
^ actually I (speculate) you are only half right, they will wait for Bush to leave office and (possibly) that is the only reason why they haven't attacked "yet".


Or, as I believe, the Dubya/Cheney BushCo will launch a nuclear attack on his own country before he leaves office. That is, if he is not assassinated first. A guy on C2C predicted it would happen in November of this year. He said he warned about a previous attempt in the past on Dubya and the secret service showed up at his door. They took it so seriously, he said, that they hired $150 million in security for the particular event/meeting.

[edit on 8/9/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
One major problem is the date of the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6th which has already passed and then Nagasaki on August 9th, 2007 todays date I doubt we will be bombed.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I can't believe this thread is still alive !!!! how can we put it out of it's misery???



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

As a side note, if we have folks here in the insurance business, have any of you looked at the number of riders on a train that wrecks as opposed to the same route average on trains that do not wreck? On a large scale, there is some evidence that people avoid places of catastrophe, even though they don't know why. The WTC had many such stories, told on national TV. Think of the unusually low number of people on the planes that crashed on 9/11.


Any links on that? Is this anything more than the obvious -- such as not taking trains during inclement weather?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Im not that big of an idiot after all?

www.debka.com...

Whos laughing now?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Any other sources other then debka??



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I dont know why people talk bad about this site.


Debka began in the summer of 2000, and has since received Forbes' Best of The Web award. DebkaFile reporting relies heavily on apparently well placed sources within the Israeli Military and Intelligence Communities. en.wikipedia.org...

Israeli intelligence may be the best in the world, so i dont see why people think this site is not credible enough.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
:shk: Japan was NOT broken.


Yes they were as is evident by the fact that they started negotiations long before nuclear bombs were dropped.


They were still VERY capable of mass killing Americans and they had no intention of ending the war.


Shear nonsense and for them to kill Americans in significant numbers American generals would have had to been stupid enough to launch a invasion.


Have you ever been to Hiroshima? No? I have. I lived in Japan for three years. You should visit sometime. Hiroshima was bombed - it needed to be - and it was JAPANs FAULT that it was.


Hiroshima did not need to be bombed and while one can fatuously argue that it was Japan's fault it may serve to remember that the US accepted the terms Japan offered long before the nuclear bombs shortly after the bombing. For some strange reason the nuclear crimes apparently convinced the American leadership that they now no longer needed to make all those demands of the Japanese and that they would now settle for less than they wanted BEFORE the bombing. It's just fascinating how obvious these crimes becomes once you actually STUDY history.


The date of THIS Monday due to Hiroshima has no basis. However, the prediction that someday a terrorist will get off a nuke in the USA IS very likely.


The US is being run by terrorist and their predecessors already used nuclear weapons at least once when they nuked their own federal property in Oklahoma city. There is no reason to suspect that they won't do it again at some point.


We are already in World War III. We are already at war with Iran - a proxy war with Iran is being fought in Iraq.


As far as i know , and certainly as far as American generals who investigated those claims, Iran as state is not involved in Iraq so there is no world war three against Iran just yet.


It depends on the size and scope of the catastrophe to make the POTUS a 'dictator'. One dirty bomb in one city probably wouldn't be enough to do it.


Actually POTUS now has at least the 'legal' authority to decided that something is a 'national emergency' and i think you will be stunned to find what those powers will include and how little of the original , to say nothing of all the democratic gains since, constitution will still effectively protect the American citizens of their government.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

From Debka Wikipedia page
Forbes identifies the best part of the website as its archives, but decries the fact that "most of the information is attributed to unidentified sources."


Seems like Debka likes to pull information from the air.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I would suspect any single source. I have nothing personal against debka because I'm not familiar with the site.

Let me give you an example:
If I read a big story from CNN and it seems a bit OFF,
I will check with other news agencies such as BBC, USA Today, The Raw Story, etc.. to confirm accuracy.

Thats why I asked if another news agency has posted this information. Especially a story of this magnitude.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Why would any news source post as big of a threat as "New Al Qaeda threat of radioactive truck attacks naming New York, Los Angeles, Miami"? That would cause an almost immediate panic attack and any station broadcasting it would be held responsible of the mob. It is similar to running into a theater screaming "Fire".



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kneebiter42

Originally posted by Peyre
Terror attacks in Western Countries:

2001 - New York
2003 - Madrid
2005- London
2007- ?????? (failed London car bombs, failed glasgow attack?



Actually, Madrid happened in 2004.


2001 New York wasnt the only city attacked Pennsylvania crash, Pentagon attack as well.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
kezeglubey wrote,

Why would any news source post as big of a threat as "New Al Qaeda threat of radioactive truck attacks naming New York, Los Angeles, Miami"? That would cause an almost immediate panic attack and any station broadcasting it would be held responsible of the mob. It is similar to running into a theater screaming "Fire".


Why would they? Well if it's true, it's called a warning. We have had many terrorist warnings over the years that gave specific locations.

Regarding yelling fire in a theatre.
Why wouldn't you yell fire in a theatre if the theatre is ON FIRE. If it is on fire, you saved a bunch of people. If it's not on fire, you lied and now you're going to get into trouble.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I just came out of my hole...did I miss the nuke?



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join