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.

 

Israel's Super-Thermite Lab

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Yes pipelines and Palestine, most fight for that purpose. Every so called terrorist you talk to they will mention Palestine. If America is so concerned about terrorism that it has spent over trillion dollars in two wars, then shouldn't it act more fairly between the current nation of Israel and the future nation of Palestine? I mean they can't even stop the Israelis from expanding their illegal settlements.

Iff America is so deeply influenced by Israel, not vice versa one can make the assumption that the Zionist regime in Israel is controlling Obama.


Don't get a chance to speak to many terrorists.

The logics of American foreign policy baffle most. Not a secret there was a major attack on the US in 2001. An acknowledged invitation for a confrontation on home turf in the Middle East.

The US is presently concerning itself with containing Iran and extending their sphere of influence eastward towards former Soviet Union members Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc. The reason they're in Afghanistan. They moved into Iraq largely at the behest of the Saudis, to act as a buffer against the Shiite expansionism.

Iran supports Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah moving their influence towards the coveted Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan.

Keeping Israel and the Palestinians in perpetual conflict has become a sideshow for major players. Israel is seen as a supporting pillar by the West. Whether they will be called on by the US to do the heavylifting in a possible direct confrontation with Iran, remains to be seen. The Saudis again will call the shots.

Complicated.

M




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


When you quote my comment, please don't hesitate to respond to it. It is as if you are in your own little world.

Now see watch how I reply to your reply.



Don't get a chance to speak to many terrorists.

What does that suppose to mean, I don't know what to call you now because I'm afraid of getting banned as MODS are very concerned about name calling. Ofcurse not if the name calling is on their side, double standards, I don't know.


The logics of American foreign policy baffle most. Not a secret there was a major attack on the US in 2001. An acknowledged invitation for a confrontation on home turf in the Middle East.

No it doesn't, it only baffles brainwashed Americans.

Not a secret that a major attack on the world's most expensive defense systems, backed up by the worlds most expensive intelligence system And to bring it all together it was done by some clerics who are hiding in the caves of Afghanistan. When I said brainwash I actually mean it, or did I? UMMM



The US is presently concerning itself with containing Iran and extending their sphere of influence eastward towards former Soviet Union members Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, etc. The reason they're in Afghanistan. They moved into Iraq largely at the behest of the Saudis, to act as a buffer against the Shiite expansionism.

So according to your paragraph Afghanistan was invaded due to Shiite expansionism, and Iraq also? Am I on the right track? So you are saying that Iran is expansionist yet Iran hasn't expanded any where, they haven't invaded any country or bombed any country, or started proxy wars against any country and yet you claim Iran is expansionist therefore America had to invade two neighboring countries. Wait, am I on the right track? Need help, someone help.


Iran supports Syria, Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah moving their influence towards the coveted Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan.

Iran supports not influence. Funny how you say 'Iran supports ...' and then you say 'moving their influence towards...'. WOW Is it just me or do I smell BullSh1t.




Keeping Israel and the Palestinians in perpetual conflict has become a sideshow for major players. Israel is seen as a supporting pillar by the West. Whether they will be called on by the US to do the heavylifting in a possible direct confrontation with Iran, remains to be seen. The Saudis again will call the shots.

WOW the Saudis are influencing America, WOW. And do you believe the Saudi Kind will survive a day without the American support? Or any other dictator in the middle east?

The Israel/Palestinian issue is not solved due to the Zionist regime controlling Israel. And no it is not a sideshow due to the fact that if America solves this crisis not only Sunny nations but also the Sunny population would support America. With that support Iran wouldn't be able to move a muscle. But the fact of the matter is that Sunnis and Shiites are united against America and the only people who are sided by America in middle east is the dictators who America has given amnesty in the ocean of hate.

Complicated... When you can't think for yourself.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
WOW the Saudis are influencing America, WOW. And do you believe the Saudi Kind will survive a day without the American support? Or any other dictator in the middle east?

The Israel/Palestinian issue is not solved due to the Zionist regime controlling Israel. And no it is not a sideshow due to the fact that if America solves this crisis not only Sunny nations but also the Sunny population would support America. With that support Iran wouldn't be able to move a muscle. But the fact of the matter is that Sunnis and Shiites are united against America and the only people who are sided by America in middle east is the dictators who America has given amnesty in the ocean of hate.


Why don't we just agree to disagree.

I'm talking about the real Middle East, not the rhetorical storybook version of peace loving simple folk whose only problem in life is the presence of Evil Zionists in their midst.

That’s for public speeches and printed article. We’ve seen for decades now no Muslim nation wants to help the Palestinians in any meaningful way except to keep them in perpetual war with Israel. Jordan could solve their problem with stroke of a pen, but declines. The Saudis won't allow them in or give them anything except if it translates to more weapons. Keeping them in a state of permanent victim hood is the strategy of the Arab League. They're a marketing tool for the billion impoverished Muslim masses and the sentimentalized West.

The Muslim oil states are jockeying for extension of their future influence as reserves have peaked and further extraction costs are crippling. Provocations war will make the price rise, and that’s being played with now.

It's all about finding new sources for them to corner in places like the Sudan, and tryin to get those oil prices back in the $150 a barrel range and climbing. The tried and true means is pushing for conflict but in someone else’s neighbourhood. The threat of conflict works wonders with nervous oil consuming countries.

The internecine gamesmanship of the Middle East can be mind-boggling. About the lowest concern for the Saudis, Iran, the Emirate, Egypt, Libya, pretty much everyone there, is the well being of the Palestinians. Humanitarian interest are not part of the Muslim regime leaders' agendas. But wringing their hands in dismay for Western spectators always provokes sympathy.

When we see them trying to improve the quality of life for their own people with proper education, industrialization and job creation, health and quality of life improvements, basic rights for all, we might be inclined to take their cries of anguish at face value.


M



[edit on 4-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


OOHH I didn't know we were talking about the real middle east, sorry let me reiterate my position.

The real Middle East hates America's guts, that is why when the 9/11 occurred every one cheered and Americans were crying. See that hate exists, and that hate will exist, America needs dictators such as Mubarak and the Arab kings to have any interest at all in the Middle East.

See when a democratically elected leader in Iran came, who wanted what was best for his country, America said nooooo. The Shah was brought instead then a revolution came about which rid America's influence from Iran till now and still going.

See when a democratically elected leader in Iraq came to power, who wanted what was best for his country, America said noooo. The Baath party came to power with the help of CIA. And Saddam a beloved member of Baath party later gained the top job.

The point is that this whole situation is based on American interest. But you seem to think that the Arabs are actually players in this. The Arabs are puppet regimes, and history tells that if puppets don't follow their master's wishes, they will be squashed. An example is Saddam. Saddam was playing the dirty game of America fighting Iran, and America loved its bum boy. When the bum boys don’t follow order, another bum boy replaces him/her. Whether by invasion, coup, assassination, proxy wars etc it will happen and when these interventions fail the product would be Iran.

There is no point agreeing to disagree, if you are always going to have this pile of bull# stuck inside your brain then really what is the point of agreeing to disagree?

Once again the reason why the Arabs can’t and won’t do anything is because their leaders are American backed (like the Shah) and the Arab leader’s policies are based on American orders. And that simply means that the Middle East is simply a colony of America.

Modern day imperialism let’s hope it gets to your head. Don’t hesitate to ask me for some sources.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
The point is that this whole situation is based on American interest. But you seem to think that the Arabs are actually players in this. The Arabs are puppet regimes, and history tells that if puppets don't follow their master's wishes, they will be squashed. An example is Saddam. Saddam was playing the dirty game of America fighting Iran, and America loved its bum boy. When the bum boys don’t follow order, another bum boy replaces him/her. Whether by invasion, coup, assassination, proxy wars etc it will happen and when these interventions fail the product would be Iran.

[...]

Once again the reason why the Arabs can’t and won’t do anything is because their leaders are American backed (like the Shah) and the Arab leader’s policies are based on American orders. And that simply means that the Middle East is simply a colony of America.

Modern day imperialism let’s hope it gets to your head. Don’t hesitate to ask me for some sources.


I'll continue to respectfully disagree. History informs us but what people did in the past and what they do in the present is not always the same.

The Saudis are a prime example. At one time they may have been at the beck and call of the US, but their ambitions and goals are changed.

I also have reliable sources and they say things most don't hear from the media. The 57 predominantly Muslim states across the world have a co-ordinated program. It involves direct confrontation with the West and it's on schedule. They refer to 9/11 as the Awakening. A showdown is coming up.

Not acknowledging this is denial.

I say this not out of paranoia or racism. It is based on what significant player in the Muslim world are saying and backing up with their actions.
There's a reason they invited the US to their home turf. They are determined and resourceful. It goes deeper than hatred or revenge. It's about control and power.

Mike

[edit on 4-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike has a good point. The US has military bases all over the Middle East. They wouldn't be there if there wasn't also something in it for the Arab countries that allow them. And I can't believe it's just money and oil sales when there are so many ideological differences.

Why did both gulf wars get tacit support from most Arab leaders, when Saddam had so much grass roots support on the Arab street?

Remember, we in the West are viewed as barbarians in much of the world. Is there a long term game plan? Is the West a useful tool in accomplishing it?

It's intriguing, and not something that gets discussed enough on these boards imo.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by mattpryor]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


You can't put all the covert action in the middle east in the 40's - 80's on the US alone. Everything the US did was a counter move or a preemptive move against the USSR. Lest you forget, the USSR also fought a war in Afghanistan, a war that was resisted by a US backed, Pakistani armed resistance.

Why was Russia trying to take over this piece of dessert with mountains and caves? The same reason the US is in Afghanistan. To build a pipeline. Killing the Taliban and fighting Al Qeada is just the added bonus of putting troops in Afghanistan.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Nothing in world affairs is simple.

But history changed when the mujahideen held off Russia in Afghanistan in the 80s. A new confidence, sense of pride, of determination bloomed in the Muslim world. One of being on the offense, not the defense, with the rest of the world.

They have the financing, the resources, the numbers, strategic advantages, and the will to advance themselves collectively. They have come to realize this and are actively engaged in pursuing new sweeping goals.

Competition and confrontation don't always have to be viewed purely as malign. But in this particular case historically founded anger is a mobilizing force.

Recognizing this, dealing with it, trying to find a resolution, is the only resonable way to proceed. Rationalizing away what is there does not solve things.

Mike



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

I'll continue to respectfully disagree. History informs us but what people did in the past and what they do in the present is not always the same.

Yes I agree, but here is my point. If someone lies for a long, long time would you believe him next time he told the truth? You would believe him only if evidence provided to show he is telling the truth, other wise you wouldn't take his words. And that is where my point begins, you seem to take a liar's words without evidence and that is just illogical.




The Saudis are a prime example. At one time they may have been at the beck and call of the US, but their ambitions and goals are changed.

How has their ambitions changed, please don't hesitate to explain.



I also have reliable sources and they say things most don't hear from the media. The 57 predominantly Muslim states across the world have a co-ordinated program. It involves direct confrontation with the West and it's on schedule. They refer to 9/11 as the Awakening. A showdown is coming up.

Yes my previouse post already brought light in to this issue, as I said, dictators also need to keep their population happy, and for backup American soldiers and intellegence.




I say this not out of paranoia or racism. It is based on what significant player in the Muslim world are saying and backing up with their actions.
There's a reason they invited the US to their home turf. They are determined and resourceful. It goes deeper than hatred or revenge. It's about control and power.

Mike

[edit on 4-9-2009 by mmiichael]

Show me some actions which goes against American interests, like lets say nationalization of petrolium, would these dictators be able to do that?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Show me some actions which goes against American interests, like lets say nationalization of petrolium, would these dictators be able to do that?


The Saudi royal family, or most factions, financed and actively supported the activities of Osama bin Laden and other terrorist Muslim groups. This was usually done through subverting funds from Muslim charities set up in the Kindgom. Royal family banker Khalid bin Mahfouz was the facilitator. The first attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993 is one of many efforts, as was the USS Cole.

Bin Laden was given support on the condition he did not threaten the al Saud family or it's members. Through the direct intervention of King Fahd's son, Abdul Aziz, incensed at being left out of succession lineage, bin Laden and other Muslim terrorist planners in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, elsewhere planned and co-ordinated with Pakistan's ISI, the military power, the grand plot of the ultimate terrorist attack. Initially involving 10 hijacked planes it was scaled down to 4.

The US was successfully attacked on Sept 11, 2001.

A long list of efforts actively working against US interests since. More in the realm of economic warfare these days.

Mike



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Wait, should I ask this or not. I don't want to be sad but please don't hesitate to post some sources along side your allegations. The royal family are openly fighting and killing Al-Qaeda, at least they are named Al-Qaeda. They are simply Saudis who are sick of American colonization of the worlds most important Muslim site.

Now when I made that claim I will prove it


Like this:

The White House says a failed assassination attempt against Saudi Arabia's anti-terror minister was a "cowardly attack" and serves to remind of the importance of U.S. cooperation with partners in that region.

www.foxnews.com...

Wait there is more:

Saudi Arabia has waged a campaign against al-Qaeda in the country, killing or capturing most of its leaders after a string of attacks that started in 2003.

Earlier this month, Saudi authorities announced the arrest of 44 people thought to be linked to al-Qaeda and the seizure of explosives, detonators and firearms.

Human Rights Watch has criticised the country for detaining thousands without charge while Amnesty International said the state had committed human rights violations on a "shocking" scale as part of its crackdown.

english.aljazeera.net...

They seem to be doing exactly what America wants them to do, don't you think, or are they supporting Al-Qaeda. What you don't seem to get is that Al-Qaeda hates America as much as the Saudis because they are two in one. The Saudi royals are the bums, we all know that but you don't seem to believe it even after all this evidence.

Now your turn to bring evidence backing your points.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by oozyism]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Wait, should I ask this or not. I don't want to be sad but please don't hesitate to post some sources along side your allegations. The royal family are openly fighting and killing Al-Qaeda, at least they are named Al-Qaeda. They are simply Saudis who are sick of American colonization of the worlds most important Muslim site.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

The Royal Family is very large and not monolithic. Many of its members are working at cross-purposes .



[edit on 5-9-2009 by VinceP1974]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


Yes I know that, we are discussing the people in power. Get it? Or do I have to post 10 more paragraphs?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974

The [Saudi] Royal Family is very large and not monolithic. Many of its members are working at cross-purposes.


Very much so. For expediency I did not get into the inernal politics.

When it came out that King Fahd's scheming son Abdul Azis and 3 princes had been separately funding and co-ordinating on 9/11, the 3 died in car crashes a couple weeks later.

Al Qaida turned out to be a Frankenstein monster for the Sauds. Seemed like a great project at the time, now their biggest threat.

The family have converted their holdings to gold just this month. King Abdullah is not going to live much longer. He was the most reasonable they've had in decades. A big succession fight is brewing.

I'm told to watch for a major event in the Kingdom soon. Too big for their closed media to conceal.


Mike


[edit on 5-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


Yes I know that, we are discussing the people in power. Get it? Or do I have to post 10 more paragraphs?


I was talking about those with power too.

10 more paragraphs would be great, thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


You are another mic and I don't want to waste time, firstly you should prove your claim:



The Royal Family is very large and not monolithic. Many of its members are working at cross-purposes .

Which Royal Family member are you exactly talking about.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


You are another mic and I don't want to waste time, firstly you should prove your claim:



The Royal Family is very large and not monolithic. Many of its members are working at cross-purposes .

Which Royal Family member are you exactly talking about.


I'm not your tutor, but I'll do it this time.

www.foreignaffairs.com...

Saudi Paradox
ParadoxMichael Scott Doran

January/February 2004


Summary -- Saudi Arabia is in the throes of a crisis, but its elite is bitterly divided on how to escape it. Crown Prince Abdullah leads a camp of liberal reformers seeking rapprochement with the West, while Prince Nayef, the interior minister, sides with an anti-American Wahhabi religious establishment that has much in common with al Qaeda. Abdullah cuts a higher profile abroad -- but at home Nayef casts a longer and darker shadow.


The Saudi state is a fragmented entity, divided between the fiefdoms of the royal family. Among the four or five most powerful princes, two stand out: Crown Prince Abdullah and his half-brother Prince Nayef, the interior minister. Relations between these two leaders are visibly tense. In the United States, Abdullah cuts a higher profile. But at home in Saudi Arabia, Nayef, who controls the secret police, casts a longer and darker shadow. Ever since King Fahd's stroke in 1995, the question of succession has been hanging over the entire system, but neither prince has enough clout to capture the throne.

The two camps divide over a single question: whether the state should reduce the power of the religious establishment. On the right side of the political spectrum, the clerics and Nayef take their stand on the principle of Tawhid, or "monotheism," as defined by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the eponymous founder of Wahhabism. In their view, many people who claim to be monotheists are actually polytheists and idolaters. For the most radical Saudi clerics, these enemies include Christians, Jews, Shi`ites, and even insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims. From the perspective of Tawhid, these groups constitute a grand conspiracy to destroy true Islam. The United States, the "Idol of the Age," leads the cabal. It attacked Sunni Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, both times making common cause with Shi`ites; it supports the Jews against the Sunni Muslim Palestinians; it promotes Shi`ite interests in Iraq; and it presses the Saudi government to de-Wahhabize its educational curriculum. Cable television and the Internet, meanwhile, have released a torrent of idolatry. With its permissive attitude toward sex, its pervasive Christian undertones, and its support for unfettered female freedom, U.S. culture corrodes Saudi society from within.

...

In foreign policy, Nayef's support for Tawhid translates into support for jihad, and so it is he -- not Abdullah -- who presides over the Saudi fund for the support of the Palestinian intifada (which the clerics regard as a defensive jihad against the onslaught of the Zionist-Crusader alliance). On the domestic front, Nayef indirectly controls the controversial Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), the religious police. The CPVVP came under withering attack in March 2002 when its men reportedly used batons to beat back schoolgirls as they tried to flee from a burning dormitory. The girls, so the story goes, failed to cover themselves in proper Islamic attire before running from the flames, and the religious police then mindlessly enforced the laws on public decency. More than a dozen girls were trampled to death in the incident. It is impossible to say whether the story is true in all respects, but considerable evidence indicates that the CPVPV did in some manner hamper rescue efforts. Nayef, however, flatly denies that the religious police did anything wrong.

[snip]

The article is 7 pages long.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I have used thermite well over a thousand times. I have made thermite into the hundreds.
A composition is thermite or it is not.

It reminds me of the guys saying they are running airplane fuel in their bikes as if that would make them go faster

I can cut quicker with plasma than therimite ever could
If I over powerd the water jet I bet that would beat nano thermite
Guess I will up grade to nano plasma



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


What I want to know is: what policy Naif has implemented which goes against the American interests.

I don't think he would survive in the leader ship if he went against American interests, now your job is to bring some evidence to show this prince's actions which go against the American interest. That is what the discussion is about, the article doesn't mention any of it and the article doesn't provide any sources which simply means it is propaganda based, not research.

Here's my evidence just for the heck of it:

Prince Nayef spoke out on terrorism, commenting on the Arab world's serious and positive efforts in fighting it and citing the Arab Agreement for combating terrorism that was signed in 1998. People gathering in Afghanistan from Arab countries, he said, are doing so in contravention of Islam, since Islam does not allow the killing of those who are innocent.

www.arabialink.com...

Read what he said, he is saying exactly what America is saying, his policy do not at all effect the American interests. He knows in what kind of position he is in, he knows that his country is colonized and that he needs obey the master or boom shaka laka boom.

He has done everything America wants him to do, he has cracked down on militants and arrested thousands of people without trial. Let's not mention torture.

Without the American backing the king and prince's wouldn't survive a day. I have brought evidence to support my claims, your turn.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
We know very little about what Saudi Arabia is really up to as they have nothing resembling a press that reports on their own government and allows comment and criticism.

Through the actions of what's called 'libel tourism' legal teams in Britain, paid by the Saudis, have been suppressing the publication of books and articles that discuss internal Saudi politics and their international ventures.

Beyond the hundreds of cease and desist letters sent to publications, there have been at least 50 cases in British courts with the Saudis winning every one by making them too expensive to fight. 11 books on Saudi funding of terrorist activities have been withdrawn by threats of libel to publishers who cannot afford the millions the Saudis are prepared to throw at these cases to keep critical material off bookshelves.

One recently slipped through this almost impervious net, "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed." The author Rachel Ehrenfeld managed to have an American court overturn the British court decision on the grounds it's jurisdiction did not extend to the US.

The Saudis own or have controlling shares in news services like Associated Press and Reuters. So we hear virtually no in-depth reporting on their political and economic activities. An example is how they are cashing all their US treasury holding into gold, an indicator of something very critical to the world's economy.

For years the Saudis have determined broad foreign policy in the Middle East, been the primary benefactors of terrorism, virtually controlled the international oil business, and increasing call the shots in Britain. Iran is a distant second regional contender in influence.

Most will find this hard to believe. The Saudis have effectively suppressed Western scrutiny. Little of any depth will come up on a Google search. But the information is out there.


Mike


[edit on 6-9-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join