posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:53 AM
Just in case some of you are not aware of this, but a nuke is not as bad as it would seem in comparison to biological or chemical weapons.
A nuke goes bang and yes, a lot of people die in one hit. Then you get the radiation fallout, but that will only fall in the same direction the wind
is blowing. If there is no wind then fallout will be localised.
So, if you are able to miss the initial strike, then the fallout can easily be missed.
Where as bio and chem weapons spread out in a circular radius either through the air, water, close bodily contact or other forms of contamination.
These are far worse than a nuke.
And we all know which country has the biggest stockpile of those types of weapons (it's not Iraq)
As far as a false flag operation goes, it could be very possible that something would be done, yet why bother?
The majority of the planet would soon realise that any major attack by "terrorists" is in no doubt a false flag. I for one would not believe the
media presented response to who was to blame. Especially if war war propeosed against certain nations.
But, as a theory, what if a false flag attack was made in a country that is normally seen to be against the US and the war on terror? or even neutral
territory such as Switzerland?
By drawing the attention away from yourself you can make it look like an attempt by the 'terrorists' to bring the rest of the world into the
We all presume who the supposed target would be, either the USA or the UK.
But what if it was Pakistan after installing a new government (although Pakistan is supposed to have some ties with the US in regard of protecting
O.B. Laden.) or any other country, like North Korea.
NK has just recently supposedly stopped making attempts at gaining nukes. How would an attack on them in a false flag op shape the immediate period