How To Sabotage Ahmadinejad When He Arrives In Ny

[bradclark1]

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6909

All credit for finding this goes to Fish, who posted this link in another thread tis evening.

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Ha ha, yeah, roight!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?

I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?

I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done.

Indeed people seem very quick to dismiss entire legions of facts in the face of an unpopular banner or unfamiliar source or what have you. Personal moral tendencies aside, what makes sense is more important than which side you should be rooting for.

And whats a reliable source anyway? News networks in America aren't trusted, I keep seeing people say bad stuff about the BBC, governments lie even in the face of blatant proof. Its like being a gold miner on a streambed, sifting for the nuggets of truth.

I'm rather bored with simple sentence answers to dismiss entire suggested realities.

[Skybird]

Two readings from two different camps.

Iranian Press Service: Rafsanjani recommends to attack Israel with nukes, calling nuclear retaliation to Iran as "small damage" only.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ar...ats_141201.htm

A critical comment on using "mini-nukes" (a comment which for the reasons I already gave I do not agree with. What I agree with is that there is a lot of disinformation about how harmless mini-nukes would be - that illusion I do not share, too. It's just that I accept the massive damage and contamination they would do, for to me achieving the mission objective - taking out the nuclear program of Iran - has priority over longtermed humanitarian concerns regarding local population).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=1714

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe yes, maybe not. for me the article is no evidence, but a hint. Any clues maybe, why you reject it so totally?

I can't explain how the nukes got to be on the plane and ended up in Louisiana but that article was putting a whole lot on the VP. Cheney has more power then any VP in history but not that much and he can't start a war. The president is the only one who can release nukes. If the Air Force were given the order to transport nukes somewhere they would have done it. They are not going to refuse an order. If that had of happened the whole Air Force chain of command would have been relieved.
This administration has proved it's not the smartest on the block but they aren't stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
Browse the rest of the site. It's nothing but a whole bunch of conspiracy theories. I'd be one of the first to wag my finger against this administration if I thought it true but unfortunately this site reads like a $0.10 spy novel.

I personally believe that such weapons already have been relocated to bases closer to the operational theatre anyway. At least that is what I would have done.

For at least two decades the U.S. has stored nukes in Israel for the same reasons they were stored in Europe. To have them close in trouble spots if needed. They have no need to transport any, they are already there.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

And whats a reliable source anyway? News networks in America aren't trusted, I keep seeing people say bad stuff about the BBC, governments lie even in the face of blatant proof. Its like being a gold miner on a streambed, sifting for the nuggets of truth.

Show any credible or semi-credible source from anywhere in the world. Thats all I would like. Not some dork conspiracy site whose authors have an great imagination. Look at the rest of the site.

I'm rather bored with simple sentence answers to dismiss entire suggested realities.

I'm not exactly famous for writing multiple paragraphs when one sentence will do. Sorry you were bored with it. The site has no grip on any realities.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Nope. Must be BS. In fact the site is BS.

Is it?

The guy isn't as far as I can see? :hmm:

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in The Village Voice and Wired.
Madsen was a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.[1] He was a communications security analyst with the National Security Agency in the 1980s, and an intelligence officer in the US Navy. He has testified on numerous occasions before the US Congress.
Wayne Madsen edits the Wayne Madsen Report[2] which he describes as following in the tradition of Drew Pearson's and Jack Anderson's famous "Washington Merry-Go-Round" syndicated column and columns by I.F. Stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen

[geetrue]

I love and support my President ... George Bush has been known to do things like this when running for election. Things like what? Things like in just make up a story and circulate it ... that was with his old advisors of course, both of which have moved on.

The message itself was full of forced exposition ... our military words everything in modern say something without saying anything Pentagon talk.

This is a made up issue, but who wants Iran to be scared of an attack? We do ...

On the other hand if I were a general, I'm not of course and I don't even have a nice big easy chair to sit in either, but if I was a general I would not order a USAF B-52 with nuclear tipped missiles into an area that can be dealt with without nukes.

Two carrier task forces, B-2's out of Missouri, submarine launched cruise missiles ... two hours and the war is over without landing troops.

You don't need nukes to do the job leaves a made up story.

After all we are trying to stop a nuclear war, not start one ...

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Fish

Is it?

The guy isn't as far as I can see? :hmm:

He is as far as I can see.:hmm: I'd say he has a few shingles loose.

World leaders suspect the Bush administration of involvement in the 911 attacks
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/...icle_784.shtml

Libby a Long-Time Mossad Agent
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...ng_time_mo.htm

Imus remarks and prison camps in Africa? What one has to do with the other I don't know.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._post_equa.htm

Bush is gay.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/vi...&t=3&aid=22848

Bush and Blair made up terrorist airline liquid bomb plot.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...6_b_Cooked.htm

[Lurchi]

Originally Posted by geetrue

On the other hand if I were a general, I'm not of course and I don't even have a nice big easy chair to sit in either, but if I was a general I would not order a USAF B-52 with nuclear tipped missiles into an area that can be dealt with without nukes.

Two carrier task forces, B-2's out of Missouri, submarine launched cruise missiles ... two hours and the war is over without landing troops ...

Are you ironic or do you really believe this?
Nice pathos but as Lord Vader said "Don't be too proud of your technological bugbears". I also doubt that the location of all installations are known - the nuclear program is probably decentralized and scattered over the whole country.

I believe that every General/Admiral knows that such an operation is certainly not a matter of just two hours - at least if you desire more than just a nice fireworks for the evening news or the destruction of Iran's military potential. The only way to disrupt Iran's nuclear program by force seems to be a full scale war so you can look beneath every stone afterwards. I doubt that the U.S. or any of it's allies is ready for such an extensive campaign ...

Sadly this could be the only way to save Israel as the logic of MAD which works quite good during the cold war is not compatible with the iranian regime that sees the destruction of it's arch enemy as integral part of its raison d'être.

[Skybird]

I'm afraid he means it serious, Lurchi. Because the same mechanisms that to some people made Iraq look like a three weeks walk in the park, and Afghanistan like a 2 months liberation operation, and Vietnam like an adventure trip of half a year, are at work.

Whenever I hear somebody say "I love my president" instead of something like "I love my country", it sends me shivers down my spine. Even more so if both this somebody and the president say they are just listening to voices in their head.


When it is said there is a nuclear installation in for example Natanz, one should not think that the key installation's coordinates inside this compound are known - and these compounds can have siozes uf many square-miles. It means that the buildings on the surface are known and photographed, and are attributed to the name of the nearby village, which means they are not important. However, the key components are known to be dozens of meters below the surface, and invisible, or even deeper hidden inside mountains. for reasons of simple physics, no matter what kind of bomb and weight you drop from whatever an altitude, it does not pentrate deeper than a.) some scalculate 12 meters, b.) others calculate 20-25 ft into the ground. If the subterranean bunkers are even much deeper, let's say 30 or 40 meters below the ground, thus protected by 20-30 m thick levels of solid geological material, and build by steel_hardened concrete bunkers, than even a MOAB will not do more than shake up some dust inside them, so to speak. This has two consequences:

a.) conventional ammunitions can not do damage to them as long as not being delivered through weak spots like entrances, and if these are long tunnels, even then they are likely to do only minor damage. GPS coordinates of such weak spots are said to be unknown - as reported repeatedly over the last two years.

b.) it means that even a "mini"-nuke penetrating only to a maximum of ca. 12m/20ft before exploding will practically cause massive aerial and surface contamination of major levels. These delivery methods in no way compare to the subterranean nuclear tests of the past, where the devices were delivered to depths up to of several hundred meters, by drilling.

Let nobody have any illusions of what we talk about. This thing, if it is bound to happen, will become an extremely dirty, mean and nasty affair.

I am worried by the pakistani reaction, and their nukes. I dare to ask if maybe one has to deal with the Pakistan nuclear arsenal before attacking Iran. Depending on what reaction from Pakistan you assume, the whole attack-on-Iran story maybe cannot be conducted at all. I am not knowing to what degree locations and protection levels of Pakistani nukes are known, and thus are targets that could be reached.

again, the folly of allowing them nukes now leaves us maybe no other choice than to brutally push them against the wall so that they hardly can breathe and make it clear to them that if they even dare to blink with a single nuke of theirs in case of a war with Iran - their country would be massively nuked and wiped of the map once and forever before the Iran war is over.

Pakistan is another "gaining nukes"-story that at no price should have been allowed to happen while there still was time.

That's what happens when you allow monsters under your bed and do not care, thinking if you ignore them they are not there. They are there, and they become more and more with every night. One day your bed starts shaking, and then you will have the nightmare of your lifetime.

Andn then it cannot be solved anymore by just saying "Scheiße". Maybe you will need to burn your house.

Kill all politicians and all religions - before their stupidity and arrogance kill all of us, saying that it is a fate promised in the scriptures.