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.

 

6 Nukes were never missing,They are heading to IRAN.

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The headlines about the nukes are similiar to Israel dropping tanks on Syrian turf(sand?). It's a clearly a message, flexin' the muscles before the punch on.

Bottom line is this, America is a very intelligent country and surely knows the consequences for any type of action in the Middle East - Especially nuclear - All outcomes for further action = Very very big problems. So obviously, the puppet masters want this to happen and will stop at no costs to make this all eventuate. Time is starting to tick away faster as the endgame approaches and so helpless we all appear to be.




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by arclore
 


I agree,and all through the thread we see more examples of this,and heres another.

Iranian rocket used in fatal attack on U.S base



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
I agree,and all through the thread we see more examples of this,and heres another.

Iranian rocket used in fatal attack on U.S base


Yeah, just heard about that.

The media is gearing for war, SKYNEWS (FOX sister station in the UK) is going Iran crazy too. It had a special program the other night about nuclear threats and war.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I agree,

It seems there is a concerted effort to validate and justify military action against Iran.

We fell for it before, do you think public opinion will support it this time.

I don't think UK public opinion will support it at present, but more of this and who knows?

The fear of nuclear weapons being in the hands of percieved "extremists" and "loose canons" is very strong and could quite easily be exploited and manipulated, some would say justifiably so.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
We fell for it before, do you think public opinion will support it this time.

I don't think UK public opinion will support it at present, but more of this and who knows?


Yeah, they will.

I believe if the United Nations supports any military action, then the UK public will be supportive of such a move.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Sigh.I feel like such a fearmonger and doom and gloomer lately,but i cannot help it.And slowly but surely I have witnessed more and more poeple feeling something is up.

Well now it is confirmed by Fox news that war is the only option left.But then a Russian news site says they talked to the same guy in Germany and he never said Germany is done with diplomatic options.

Well if Fox completely put words in U.S and German goverment officials mouths then they should get into trouble of some kind.Saying we had weapons of mass destruction experts talking to Condi about war planning.I mean WTF.

I tend to believe Fox on this one because the article is so detailed and I can't think even they would go this far.I mean, you don't really mistakenly say a series of events happend and now there is no more diplomatic approach to Iran.

We shall see more and more Iran news I'm sure,and each one will slowly but surely get poeple behind the idea.Hell im almost so annoyed of hearing it all I want it to just happen already.Not really but enough is enough dammit.Either get your full proof evidence or talk to them behind the tables.

Stop using U.S. media to help win over the world for an attack on Iran.It's almost as bad as that fricken Anna nicole fiasco.Oh hey were at war and all but who cares,check out this baby,guess who gets the baby dum dum dum.OOOh it was the damm dancer guy.Oh wait a sec,NO ONE CARES.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


We did it before to end a war that had already claimed millions of lives. The only other way to end the war was a land invasion of Japan. Want to guess how many hundreds of thousands would have died?

I know it sounds trite, and it wasn't the only point of dropping the bombs, but it may have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

four hundred thousand plus versus possibly millions. It's a horrible kind of math, but true for all of that.

Dropping, or launching, a nuclear devise to start a war has a whole 'nother ethical connetation to it. One that no nation, assuming any are left in the after math, wants hanging over its head. The US is no more likely to use one than any other.



[edit on 13-9-2007 by seagull]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
We did it before to end a war that had already claimed millions of lives. The only other way to end the war was a land invasion of Japan. Want to guess how many hundreds of thousands would have died?


You make a good point.

It can be related to Iran. An ground invasion would be a blood bath. It seriously would, the Iranian army are trained and regularly told they will go to war with the United States soon.

But, if a nuclear strike did happen on Iran, it would be interesting to see the international reaction to it.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Interesting is one way to put it, I suppose.

A nuclear strike on Iran would be counterproductive, IMHO. You think the US has issues in the Middle East now? I can't even imagine the ramifications of a nuclear strike on Iran. Politically. Socially. Economically. Just about everything would get worse, possibly even fatal.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Interesting is one way to put it, I suppose.

A nuclear strike on Iran would be counterproductive, IMHO. You think the US has issues in the Middle East now? I can't even imagine the ramifications of a nuclear strike on Iran. Politically. Socially. Economically. Just about everything would get worse, possibly even fatal.


Exactly,
so why risk a nuclear strike? As I said before, if Iran has a nuclear weapons program and has the ability to use such a device, then the US could justify a destructive method.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I know that many here are of the mind that Mr. Bush and his cronies are doing this for power, money, yadda, yadda. What good does money, power, etc... do you if there is no way to spend, or no place to spend it. Not to mention no where to hide...

I just don't see how something like what people are suggesting can be hidden, coveredup, whatever...

No the problems such a thing would create far outweigh any possible benefit.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



To echo your comments, Freeborn, I say the use of nuclear weapons as a resort at anytime under any circumstances toward other human beings is unjustifiable and immoral regardless of law. The people who created them, those that would authorize the use of them, and those who would carry out the orders would be, and in the past have been, first degree murderers. This has always been my view.

I have to say, djohnsto77, your comments have been the first sign of the deepest fear I've ever, in my short time on ATS, known you to express. It is unfortunate and a pity that folks such as yourself have been inculcated with such fear.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Project_Silo
 


I will make no attempt to refute what you say.
Things are definately afoot and alliances are being made and lines in the sand are being drawn.

Even though diplomatic efforts have so far proved largely fruitless on the face of things, surely we must persevere and exhaust every available avenue before entering into even a conventional conflict.

I just can not accept or agree with nuclear strikes at present, and hopefully I never do, because the consequences will be devastating for the whole of mankind.


I agree. Nuclear war is deffinately not the answer. As soon as I saw the show Jericho and realized that it was more then a show but could be a prediction of what is to come, I have started educating myself on nuclear fallout and what to do.

I honestly believe that this next WW is the final epic battle we have for a long time. The earth will be close to uninhabitable. But, since we have the NWO, or um......terrorist around, the plans are set and cannot be changed unless by some miracle we get somebody willing to expose the Rothschild, Masons, Illuminati, and Skulls.

Until then, I can only pray that war with Iran does not happen. We don't know much about China but I guarrentee they are packin.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Well remember how i mentioned Russia is buddy buddy with venezuela?I have thought for a while now this would be a good strategy to catch the U.S with it's pants down.

Russia is sending tons of military equipment to just about everyone who hates us,this including good ol Hugo Chavez.Well what about slipping a nuke or two or even more into some of the silos of the submarines being delivered.

Then when the u.S has a air war against iran and has to defend agaisnt incoming missiles and all that good stuff.Good ol Chavez can now live up to some of his comments about the U.S.Pop up off the shore a few thousand miles and give the U.S a phone call....



Sorry if this is off-topic slightly, but I believe if you look closely at Chavez's speeches you will see that his rhetoric is against the U.S. federal government, not against "us" as in the U.S. population. In the haste of making a point, one might erroneously equate "us"--you, me, those Americans posting to ATS and all of our neighbors--and the government (factions of which have been committing or funding or ordering crimes against humanity in Central and South America for a century or more, leading to the deaths and torture of millions of civilians) but many leaders who oppose the U.S. interventionist foreign policies are careful to phrase their protests in language that isolates the government from the population at large.

Despite the fact that the U.S. media and some political mouthpieces trumpet the "government by the people for the people" line, the rest of the world has known for longer than we ourselves have understood that it is simply no longer the truth. After the bankruptcy of the U.S. in the 1930s and the concurrent corporatization of all levels of American governance, the United States is truly run by a government beholden to no one except the banks of the Federal Reserve, their multinational and secret owners and shareholders, and whatever controlling international bodies (like the CFR, UN, et al) that they create.

So I think it is unfair to characterize either the Iranian or the Venezualan president as being "against us"--they are truly against the same thing that "we" are against, a financially-motivated and manipulated oligarchy masquerading as a freely-elected government of the (now sadly defunct) American republic. The reality is, IMO, that there are only a very few individuals with the sociopathic lack of conscience required to use nuclear weapons (including DU ordnance), and all of them speak English as their primary language.

And perhaps there is much wheel-spinning in the various theories offered up here for the intended disposition of those nukes because of a reluctance to look closely at the most likely target, at least for the missile that's missing: a well-populated U.S. city.


[edit on 9/13/07 by without_prejudice]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
see unfortunately thats not a good way to look at things were all in this together despite borders and nationality we wont all get along one day like some people think but you have to gauge things if we agreed never to intervene in the middle east ever again then that very well could quell things imean were the only country that tries to come to everyones rescue noone else crosses continents to help people but this aggressive front weve taken is radicalizing more people in the mid-east and ppl in america who have family in those countries and polarizing us so far has this been good for anyone...



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


How hard would it be to blame the Iranians for "stealing" those nukes from US facilities? Even if it could be traced back to US, it doesn't mean the blame can't still be placed on Iran.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by DJMessiah]


If the Govt. tried to pull that one off then they must really think the country is completely full of morons. I know the majority have their heads up their arses but come on that would be extremely hard to pull off. Steal USA nuclear weapons without anyone's knowledge, then ship said weapons to facility in Iran.... Logic should slap most people upside the head to think that if they stole the nuclear weapons from the USA either CONUS or overseas, why not detonate them on US soil or property instead of going through the trouble of hauling those weapons back to Iran? The more likely source of stolen nuclear weapons would be Russia. Their security and accountability of nuclear stockpiles is a joke.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I certainly wouldn't be shedding too many tears if we did bomb them, even with nuclear weapons.


And what if you were a normal Joe in Iran going about your business trying to raise your kids... how would you like your children to be vaporised.

Get a life mate, why not try some therapy? You say you are a proud friend of Israel, I doubt many people would be proud to call you their friend.

I am damn angry at you for saying this. And I am so damn grateful that I have found the majority of your countrymen to be kind and considerate people - guess there is always a few rotten apples...

-SB



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   




Outstanding response!
Good to see someone that knows history. The nuclear weapons are always mentioned as the weapons that destroyed so much in Japan. The fire bombings did much more damage. The wood and paper structures didn't stand a chance.

But a low yield, high precision nuclear weapon specifically used for bunker busting would be a viable if unthinkable option. The B-2 can now carry the latest and largest bunker buster which is a more plausible option in Iran.

30,000lb bunker buster on B2 bomber



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 



I don't believe Saddam was a Ayatollah but I could be wrong.Anyway I'm not happy about this scenerio,no more happy than the next guy.But ignoring an issue will not resolve or fix that issue.

I think Bush needs to be able to prove without a doubt that Iran is making nuclear weapons.If he cannto make this case 100% then there should be no war.In my eyes the odds are to high that Iran will be helped by its buddies.These buddies also have had their own personal grudge against the U.S for different reasons for a long time now.

These budies being Russia and China.My views have changed,I no longer believe the IEDS is reason enough for attacking Iran.I do believe however earlier on before they had time to strengthen ties so much it would have been a good idea.Now the only way we should think about any kind of action is if it is 100 proof that they are developing wqeapons.


See my previous post with links to the IAEA discovering highly enriched uranium and plutonium in Iran. That's not fuel material but bomb material.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


Again if we nuked ourselves or Iran, a county we would then obviously occupy, WHO would do the investigation. Uhhhhh.. The USA. Wow, I bet we would really come back and say "After careful analysis we have concluded it was us that did it, which we should have known before the analysis because... uh well we did it." I am American, and proud, but ashamed at how some Americans think. Wave the flag, its for the good of the nation, we must invade to protect ourselves.. Na Im not talking about Hitler.. still the US. What's that? Some people don't like the Hitler comparison.. huh well if the shoe fits.


I would think that to prove the evidence as true, independent scientists from other countries tied to the UN possibly, would also inspect for the very reason you just stated. Also the fallout isn't going away for quite a long time if detonated so it wouldn't take much for another country to inspect. Also, nuclear weapons are physically different in design for each country. Another example that it would be extremely hard to pull off the ol' switcheroo.

As much as I don't like President Bush, the comparison to Hitler is completely false and extremely inaccurate. Once Bush fires up the death camps I'll say that comparison is valid.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join