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 Terror Imminent?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by observer
 


I have known a few people from Pakistan and India. Musharraf is not well like, even among moderates. America is generally despised.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


That I understand.. Mushariff is an ironman and the U.S. fiddles too much in the affairs of others. But, even if thy are disliked does that mean that radical islamism is preferred as a replacement? I would not think so.
Now, with the apparently death of Bhutto, who knows. This could get pretty hairy.

Obs out



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well, now that Bhutto has been assassinated, Musharef seems to have no real opposition. So, it would seem that the general stance of Pakistan would remain the same, right? Unless of course, there is a civil war and he is overthrown. That might be what happens next I suppose.

Ugly times.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Musharraf's tenuous grip on power has only been further degraded by this asassination. Moderates will likely blame him for it, while the extremists capitalize on the turmoil it has caused. I don't think that Musharraf has much time left. It wouldn't surprise me if he was killed next. I think civil war in Pakistan is only days away at this point.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by observer
 


Radical Islam may be the preferred replacement, as we saw when Hamas won control of the Palestinian government democratically.

Ideological preferences are not really the case here though. Radicals are really the only alternative to Musharraf's rule. They don't need to be elected if they are simply strong enough to impose their will on the moderates by force.

Bhutto was the only viable alternative to Musharraf's rule, other than extremists. She is dead now, but she would have likely been more friendly to the extremists anyway, granting them concessions in order to strengthen her position.





[edit on 12/28/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
ha ha ha ha. i like dizzydames answer....
been there/ done that..ain't skeered!!!



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
why the third carrier in the Gulf now?

Eh?

Last I heard, Kittyhawk is near Burma, Nimitz is in the China Sea, and only the Enterprise in in theater. The rest are in the Atlantic or elsewhere.

Did I miss a memo?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Wow, here we go. Bhutto has been assassinated, Pakistan is in the throes of chaos. Lets hope all those Mr. Nukes over there are tucked in safe and sound, otherwise we are in for a bumpy ride.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I have to admit that your argument becomes more plausible now that Bhutto has been assassinated. I am unsure as to whether or not I am convinced that the extremists are on the verge of taking over but that may very well be my guarded optimism rather than reality and truth be told my knowledge about the region if fairly negligible so I am at my fringes at this point.
We shall see.

Obs out



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 



Enterprise, Nimitz and Truman. In the region since the beginning of the month. "Contingency Today" had an article.


[edit on 12/28/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
JackIntTheBox,

You should probably know that the US was gonna attack India's Navy during the war that brought about Bangladesh. If it wasn't for Russia positioning their Navy infront of the US navy, the war could have turned out very differently.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pendu
 


This was back in the 1970's wasn't it? Bangladesh was originally East Pakistan I believe, seperated by India.

I hear a deafening silence from India ever since 9/11, and particularly now with the turmoil in Pakistan. I wonder what is happening in Kashmir.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox

I hear a deafening silence from India ever since 9/11, and particularly now with the turmoil in Pakistan. I wonder what is happening in Kashmir.


I don't understand what you mean by "a defeaning silence since 9/11". The attack was on US soil so why would India start jumping up and down?

India is no doubt concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons in a country as unstable as Pakistan, but regardless if Pakistan is stable or not, the threat of a nuclear attack from Pakistan has always been there.

Whether the button was pushed by a politcian or an extremist.

I think kashmir has been quieter since the invasion of Afghanistan. The extremists have someone else to direct their anger towards.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Pendu]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pendu
 


Before 9/11, we hardly ever heard anything about Pakistan without hearing about India as well. It just seems to me that India would have a bigger voice in the affairs in their own neighborhood. Perhaps my perception was inaccurate, but before 9/11 I got the impression that the U.S. had closer ties with India than Pakistan. Now I sense a chill in U.S.-India relations. I would think that India would certainly want to give their input regarding U.S. strategy in the region.

I wonder how or if the Kashmir war will be settled if Pakistan falls into civil war. But I am glad that things have settled down a bit there for now.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
After 9/11 i did think that the US would have a better relationship with India. However apparently Pakistan is some kind of ally in the war on terror. Probably because for the last few decades, the makings of an islamic terrorist starts in Pakistan. It's better to attack the source i guess.

I don't think Pakistan is an ally of the US in any true sense, not like how India and Russia are allies (not in any militiristic way).

India and the US have never been the best of buddies and i personally don't think that is gonna change. India doesn't like to be given an ultimatum, "My way or the high way", so to speak. They had enough of that with the Moguls and then the British.

Only recently has the US changed their atitude alot towards India. I think they will be getting closer over the years to come, much to the displeasure of the Russians no doubt. India has a fine balancing act to do.

But i think India will always have a good relationship with Russia, perhaps a relationship that is always better than that with the US. But who knows, politics is not something i would ever put my money on, nothing is certain.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Pendu]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Pendu
 


India does indeed have a delicate balancing act to perform, particulalry with Russia and China being in such close proximity. The U.S. is on the other side of the world, and the often arrogant stances along with global bullying seems to only drive the U.S. even further away.

I think it is fair to say that Pakistan is not a true American ally, but that Musharraf is an American ally, for now anyway. I find it almost bizarre how shallow-minded many of my fellow Americans are on this point. Many people seem to think that Pakistani people are "all-in" on America's side, and will carry the fight to a ragtag group of extremists in the tribal areas. This is certainly not the case. I believe I have said this before, but America is not well-liked at all in Pakistan, even among moderates. The "terrorists" or "extremists" are much more than a group of mountain men hiding in caves with old bolt-action rifles and some goats. The forces poised against American interests in the region are well-educated, battle-hardened, and well supported both financially and ideologically.




U.S. soldiers may defeat a few militants, but will certainly alienate Pakistan's voters, who disdain America's alliance with Musharraf. Source: Yaleglobal






[edit on 1/1/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Things are really moving toward the brink now. The disclosure of increased U.S. troops in Pakistan shows clearly that a new front is opening for American military strategy in the region.

News.com reports on the new U.S. special forces move.

Then there are these sources, who some accuse of being less trustworthy or biased, but the news seems to remain the same in this case. www.roguegovernment.com... and www.prisonplanet.com...

Visit Yale Center for the Study of Globalization for an interpretive article about U.S. forces moving into Pakistan.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The question of wether or not a nuclear terror threat is imminent, has been answered. Please go to Special forces on standby over nuclear threat for the facts.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I've just learned something that had escaped me before. Pakistan represents Iran's interest in the US, since the US and Iran have no official diplomatic ties.

I found this in the CNN story Iranian boats 'harass' U.S. Navy, officials say, which was orginally posted in the linked thread.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


So jack, are you thinking that Iran is acting as a proxy for Pakistan? I would be willing to bet the incidents are related somehow but my mind is not wrapping around it yet.

Obs out



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join