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.

 

United States has, unbeknownst to America, detonated Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

page: 7
66
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


My facts are right. Yours are distorted by your bias, compounded with a rather short temper. You cite an article plagiarized from Wikipedia to prove "Red Mercury" is real, even though you seem to have read the original Wikipedia entry that explains that it's not. You have a strange sense of research. You also don't seem to understand the difference between "nuclear" and "radiological." All materials on earth contain a certain percentage radioactive isotopes. These decay over time and create a certain amount of background radiation. By your "definition" of "nuclear, therefore, any slab of granite is "nuclear." It's shameful enough that the US armed forces make such a liberal use of depleted uranium, aware of its radiological side effects. There's no need to twist reality and foist fabrications to level the charge that they're also using "nuclear weapons." The whole point to nukes is that they are a terror weapon. When you use one, you want EVERYONE to know. Right? Otherwise, you'd just use high explosives. They're cheaper.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


It seems as though you have a little knowledge about how it works, right?

Then the links you might want to provide would be stuff that refutes what the OP is saying. If it is impossible, explain why and put something up that will appease the source mongers.

That is all.

See, i don't know you. While your opinion may be worth gold, i have no way of knowing that. I am just asking, if you want it to be more than a credibility contest with the OP, could you just put up some information so that people who don't know enough can spend a few moments informing themselves?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I understand you told me about the "field manuals"...could you maybe provide a link, and possibly a rough idea of what page number or chapter i could find that information in?

The OP provided links when he presented his case. To refute that case, could you maybe not perform some of the leg work for the audience? Just the location where to find it.

I know i can do it...but it is customary on ATS that when you refute an OP, you provide supporting information so that the reader can draw their own conclusion on something more than opinion and hearsay.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkspARCS

Originally posted by lilwolf
I am sure there are some whiz kids that have the knowledge that can look up the tora bora charts and check via satellite for radiation... and even low level LY warheads would be active...

so I ask the OP to provide that aspect of your diatribe... that would lend credence to what you alledge... but at tthis point...

EOD was my MOS and i did my job quite well... so if you got that aspect of the maps and charts (they are there)... then post em...



better yet, since you know about all of this, WHY DONT YOU?

It could prove me wrong - and that would make folks real happy I think. Then again, I don't really want to think today... maybe tomorrow


This is what i am talking about.

The person you quote may be right. You may be wrong. But until they at least put in a little effort and provide something other than a typed out opinion, there is more credibility to be had from the person who put in a little work, and put in the effort to build a case.

Guys, the OP could be wrong. I get that, and would not doubt it. But until i see facts (not opinions) that are supported by a link, or a specific reference, you could type a million words and it won't change the fact that you are not providing any evidence.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spirit_horse
 



You don't get it do you, how the world feels about America effects Americans.. It will end up Americans VS Americans..

And I don't suppose America will Nuke itself


Let me elaborate..

Many things has occurred behind closed doors which the average Americans don't know nothing about. That information will eventually come out..

Those information is classified under national security because the government knows if released to public can effect the mentality of the US and which could potentially cause a civil war which it can't afford..

That being said, ATS is the result of all those classified information, we are here to bring it to public attention so that the public can make the right decision in to who they should elect.

The US have been electing the same Dooch Bags for a whole century now.. Democracy is there to keep the moral of the people high, it is not to allow people to choose, because in essence Democracy is not Democracy if people are not fully aware.. Choosing based on ignorance is not Democracy..

That is my opinion on this whole issue..



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Man, I was getting so in to this, probably since my scientific knowledge is limited, then the whole thread turns in to insults...

I was actually cosidering the possibility (technically still do) til he flipped out when he couldnt refute peoples evidence against... resort to name calling... jeez this whole site is a bunch of egotists... make a mistake and pride sends them running... people just cant admit if they're wrong even if its a misunderstanding...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The thing is, I'm not really trying to refute his case. I'm saying he hasn't made it yet. I posted quite awhile back what I think would refute his case. I'm not taking the role of "defense" for the U.S. and saying "that's not true because..."

I'm taking the role of "jury," saying, "I'm not convinced yet. What else have you got?"

If convincing me isn't a priority, I can understand that since I'm just one random person on the Internet. But keep this in mind: I'm a hard person to convince, and if he comes up with enough to convince me that nuclear weapons were used then he will probably convince a lot of other people along the way.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   


If convincing me isn't a priority, I can understand that since I'm just one random person on the Internet. But keep this in mind: I'm a hard person to convince, and if he comes up with enough to convince me that nuclear weapons were used then he will probably convince a lot of other people along the way.


Truth is a two edged sword my friend. On the one edge, you're cut to the bone with the dignity that through and through you've diligently put forth your best efforts and you shine in the face of the people who you've enlightened... to the detriment of those that wish to spread lies. They then target you and dog your heels until you are finished.

The other side of the sword cuts you to the bone in that you discover the truth... and like King Solomon said, you've reaped firey coals unto your bosom, and it hurts just to know...

My stance will always be that I stand for truth, in the face of oppression, as I've faced an EXTREME amount of with this post. Even now - all folks care to do is dissect me and my credibility vs. find interest in the possibility of truth this message carries.

you inevitably will learn thee truth, once your heart finds acceptance in possibilities.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The thing is, I'm not really trying to refute his case. I'm saying he hasn't made it yet. I posted quite awhile back what I think would refute his case. I'm not taking the role of "defense" for the U.S. and saying "that's not true because..."

I'm taking the role of "jury," saying, "I'm not convinced yet. What else have you got?"

If convincing me isn't a priority, I can understand that since I'm just one random person on the Internet. But keep this in mind: I'm a hard person to convince, and if he comes up with enough to convince me that nuclear weapons were used then he will probably convince a lot of other people along the way.


Outstanding reply.
Just what i would expect from you, given you prior interactions on this site.

I agree with this. No, i am not convinced yet. But i am more convinced than not, just because i know so little about the subject, and he has presented the most info.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


it was throwing out terms like "zionist" that did it, i think.

but i agree.

edit to add: perhaps the OP is correct in his "disinfo agent" assertion.

It seemed that some folks who are pretty good at pressing buttons came in at the right time to throw him over the edge and destroy the story.

but i would still like to see how it pans out. I am interested, as this isn't the first time i have heard this very thing. Nor the second, third, or fourth.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
If they did use them they didn't have any effect did they?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
What I can say is isolated incidents like that are most likely the result of directed energy weapons, either microwaves or high energy lasers. If the people reported being blinded, but no bright flash is involved and they heard a thundercrack, it was high energy laser. If they saw and heard nothing but spontaneously combusted it was microwaves.


This is a bold claim. Please back it up with facts and hard evidence. Otherwise it is B.S.

There are high energy lasers made for shooting down missiles, but I have never heard of this being used on a person. And what are these microwave weapons you speak of, other that the non-lethal crowd control devices?

[edit on 3/29/2010 by pjslug]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pjslug
 


Its a more plausible answer than tactical nukes or neutron bombs.

We have been testing so much crap, non nuclear crap, it is far more plausible.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Iraq unable to deal with numerous mass graves


Ayam Sharif, the head of the Department of Terror and Victims at the Ministry of Human Rights, said that 84 mass graves were discovered in the country last year,

all of which held victims of the post-Saddam violence

that has rent the fabric of the country.


So now we're starting to see the mass graves that have come into existance "POST SADDAM" a.k.a. deaths while U.S. occupied Iraq. and we're not talking 5 or ten people in a grave...

We're Talking Fresh Kill, by the hundreds.... perhaps even thousands...











[edit to add]

Now these may possibly be victims of tribal genocide, at least the ones showing their hands tied behind their backs. or perhaps - the arabs put them that way after they uncovered the bodies for added effect... kinda doubtful though.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


My facts are right. Yours are distorted by your bias, compounded with a rather short temper. You cite an article plagiarized from Wikipedia to prove "Red Mercury" is real, even though you seem to have read the original Wikipedia entry that explains that it's not. You have a strange sense of research. You also don't seem to understand the difference between "nuclear" and "radiological." All materials on earth contain a certain percentage radioactive isotopes. These decay over time and create a certain amount of background radiation. By your "definition" of "nuclear, therefore, any slab of granite is "nuclear." It's shameful enough that the US armed forces make such a liberal use of depleted uranium, aware of its radiological side effects. There's no need to twist reality and foist fabrications to level the charge that they're also using "nuclear weapons." The whole point to nukes is that they are a terror weapon. When you use one, you want EVERYONE to know. Right? Otherwise, you'd just use high explosives. They're cheaper.



lol, WHAT FACTS? you haven't posted a single link to any of your claims, and once again, you post link you're a disifo agent here trying to do your best to bash me and my character.

Stick to the topic... and start posting facts via links to credible documentation or don't post at all.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


What does that have to do with nukes?

Trying to derail your own thread?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 



lol, WHAT FACTS? you haven't posted a single link to any of your claims, and once again, you post link you're a disifo agent here trying to do your best to bash me and my character.

Stick to the topic... and start posting facts via links to credible documentation or don't post at all.


Would something like this do?


Red Mercury connections

The main proponent of ballotechnics as a claimed fusion initiator is Samuel Cohen, a somewhat controversial figure in the nuclear arms field who claims that the almost certainly mythical "red mercury" is in fact a powerful ballotechnic material, and that the Soviets have perfected its use and used it to create a number of softball-sized "mini-nukes".

Most are highly sceptical of these claims due to the physics involved, as it is not clear how heat could be used to trigger the implosion required. It has been recorded that Edward Teller laughed the concept off entirely.

Further damaging the already-low credibility of this claim is that Cohen claimed that Saddam Hussein was in possession of about 50 of these devices and planned to use them against the United States during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. To date none have been reported found.


encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...






[edit on 29-3-2010 by DJW001]



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join