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.

 

Obama warns of nuclear terrorism. False flag imminent?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   


President Barack Obama has said the biggest threat to US security is the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Speaking on the eve of a nuclear security summit in Washington, he said leaders from 40 states should focus on how to secure nuclear material.

He said groups like al-Qaeda would not hesitate to use nuclear devices.

Neither North Korea nor Iran, two states with disputed nuclear ambitions, have been invited to the summit.

The two countries are viewed by the US as violators of the non-proliferation agreement.

Syria was also left off the invitation list because the US believes Damascus has nuclear ambitions, the Associated Press news agency notes.

But the leaders of nuclear states like India, China and Pakistan are among those coming to Washington for the biggest gathering of world leaders in the US capital in decades, says the BBC's Mark Mardell.

While the issue of what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions is not on the agenda, it will be at the centre of many discussions, our North America editor adds.

"The single biggest threat to US security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon," Mr Obama said.

"This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come.

"If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating."

Link to article

I don't know about you guys, but i have a really bad feeling about these quotes. Premonition maybe?

It seems like a large possibility we could be in for a false flag very soon

[edit on 12-4-2010 by mossme89]




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
thats funny cause i pretty much just started a thread about the same thing basically.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
A Nuclear Attack on America

lots of rhetoric all of a sudden about it.. seems curious to me too..



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Well now, Nuclear Terrorism... who do you suppose they are going to blame for that...? EYE RAN prehaps



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
A nuclear attack just doesn't serve their interests as efficiently as an anthrax attack (conditioning the masses to be mass vaccinated/ mass medical countermeasure compliant when the inevitable bird flu and swine flu recombination cover story is unveiled, by the distribution of anthrax vaccine and antibiotic dispensing). The nuclear ruse is pure fear mongering to keep people off balance when the biological attack happens (early May, Los Angeles is my strong guess).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Operation Eagle Horizon (phoenix reference) is May 17 - 19, a training exercise for a simulated nuke attack. Obama has gone from "scheduled" tests/ exercises to "no- notice" tests, cancelling the location of Las Vegas and now to be held at an undisclosed location. Since "they" know that we know about their use of training exercises in conjunction with false flags (due to making exercises "no-notice"), we can assume it will NOT be on those specific dates, but in a timeframe close to it so as to have plausibe cover that they are not correlated. My guess is before, by a week or so.

Also, the fact that Obama has recently stated his stance on not using nukes in retaliation for a bio attack is highly suspicious (makes him look like a real hero and principled guy, eh?).

[edit on 12-4-2010 by jcrash]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Bush talked about nuclear terrorism too.

I doubt there would be a nuclear attack. I think that biological would be more effective in raising fear in people. It can be spread from city to city, whereas nuclear would only be in spot.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
whoa. triple post

[edit on 12-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 12-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
With a porous border like the one we have down south and up north, all threats should be taken seriously. We are able to control the borders of war torn country and 3rd world nations a lot better than our own.

Below is just one of the many possibilities that threaten our national security. Now think about all the time that has passed since 9/11 or even better yet since US has been a target.

Terrorists released from Mexico jail



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
USA promoting nuclear terrorism
Duty-bound to study nuclear terrorism I was astonished when I learned that US company is going to provide Uzbekistan with uranium (www.turkishweekly.net/news/140312/uzbekistan-u-s-can-sign-new-agreement-on-uranium-supply.html). It is supposed that uranium will be used for peaceful purposes, but considering Karimov's contacts with radical islamists he use against his neighbors, there are many variants of how the uranium really will be used, possibility of creating a dirty bomb is considerably high, so USA may provoke a wave of nuclear terrorism, including American land. It's enough to remember citizen of Uzbekistan who wanted to kill Obama, wide-spread units of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in Europe, and other cases where Uzbek terrorists were involved. Nobody can give you guarantees that some of them won't become some sort of nuclear suicide bombers. Taking into account boners in Uzbek security, giving them more uranium is really bad idea...




top topics



 
3

log in

join