jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (40 posts)

110 POUNDS OFCESIUM-137 STOLEN IN KAZAKHSTAN

  1. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    John Paul Leonard stated :"At the end of August 2007, with Bush beating the drums for war on Iran, a highly unusual thing occurred: a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB, the staging ground for bombing runs to the Middle East. Due to the risk of mishaps, it has been against USAF policy for bombers to transport nuclear weapons, since 1968. And one of the six warheads was apparently not recovered. Loose cannon Dick Cheney has been suspected of planning to use this warhead for a false flag attack on a U.S. target , to be followed by a nuclear retaliation timed to accompany Israel's air strikes on Syria on Sept. 6th -as in Brzezinski's scenario."

    A little panoramic view of Kazakhstan states that it is a dictatorship, that it provided transit routes for us in Afghanistan, that it is our puppet...

    Now, knowing what Leonard stated and our lovey-dovey relationship with Kazakhstan and neocons' urge to sacrifice as many Americans for their personal interests, what would be the probability for our CIA to steal (with the agreement of the local government) 110 pounds of cesium-137 under the disguise of Al Qaeda, Nostra, ISIS... and to strike the U.S. or Russia to start a nuclear war?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Zero.  You can start with the statement that there was a "rogue B52", followed by the claim a nuclear missile was never "recovered" from the AFB.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image75
        maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        I should have mentioned an unbiased opinion. Or we can start with a Saudi attack on Sept 11 that ended up with the implication of the Bush government. Who attacked the Twin towers? You still believe it was Bin Laden? Because if it's the case, you can't rationally debate. If you see your government as flawless, can you criticize it and therefore uncover the truth?
        For me, our government behaves according to a logic which consists of sacrificing people in the name of their interests. The Tonkin event, Pearl Harbor, Sept 11, end of August 2007 (hadn't the USAF stop the madness), 2014, 2015, 2016... obey to their logic.
        If you were logic you would ask yourself the right questions. What was a B-52 with 6 warheads doing flying from Minot to Barksdale?
        1986 – The U.S. government declassifies 19,000 pages of documents indicating that between 1946 and 1986, the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington, released thousands of US gallons of radioactive liquids. Many of the people living in the affected area received low doses of radiation from 131I. That's how much our government cares about you!
        Now do you want to reconsider your answer?

        And the icing on the cake was the B-52 (again) on January 23, 1961 near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Are you going to tell me that pilots (especially the ones carrying a pair of 3.8-megaton Mark 39 hydrogen bombs, each of which were 260 times more powerful than Hiroshima)leave any airport without checking the safety of their plane? Fuel gushed out, the right wing suddenly sheered from the plane, it plunged into a tailspin and began to break up.
        It was 3 days after JFK's presidential inauguration, it was the cold war... Given JFK was against war it would have been a nice operation to implicate the Russians.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          No, no.  The comments was concerning a "rogue" B52 that lost an atomic warhead, not all the other stuff that has happened over the years.  Particularly with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do (a defective aircraft leaking fuel for instance) with a hidden CIA plot to nuke the US or Russia.

          Just a "rogue" B52 and a "lost" warhead.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image75
            maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It is your reading of news, mine is different. Cesium is stolen in Kazakhstan, 12 jetliners are stolen in Libya and in both cases we control both countries. Again, islamists will be the guilty ones and we will wage other wars under the guise of legitimacy. In Libya, we created a contained chaos. We are the masters. We divided the country, we seized its wealth, we still organize terrorist attacks to have the world believe that Libya needs us.
            Cesium and jetliners have one goal, terrorist actions and the ONLY ones that dispose of impunity are the U.S.. It is sad but nonetheless true.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              From your quote in the OP:

              "...a "rogue B-52" laden with six nuclear missiles flew from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale AFB..."

              and

              "And one of the six warheads was apparently not recovered"

              and

              "Dick Cheney has been suspected of planning to use this warhead for a false flag attack on a U.S. target" (bolding added)

              If you don't read that as "a rogue B52", how do you read it?  If you don't read that we are missing a warhead, how do you read the second sentence?  And if you don't read that someone is planning an attack using that warhead, how do you read the third?

              1. maxoxam41 profile image75
                maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                While you are debating on the form, I am focusing on the content. I guess you have nothing to say.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Hello, Max. The hallmark of a rational debate is voluntary citations to reasonably credible sources and not your typical refusal to reveal the origins of your anti-American propaganda.
          .
          In late October 2004, the Arabic television channel Al-Jazeera received a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden at its offices in Islamabad.

          “In the videotaped message,” reported NBC News, “bin Laden claims full responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States and warns Americans ‘your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands.’" {1}

          Here are bin Laden’s own words taken from an online English Translation…

          “So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

          “I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

          “And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

          “We had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.”
          {2}

          Is this confession the truth or more government cover up?

          Al Jazeera, not exactly your typical pro-American news outlet was the first to receive this tape and the first to listen to its contents. It would be normal, I expect, for the foremost Arabic television network to respond harshly if western news outlets misquoted bin Laden’s words spoken the tape. As it turns out, they did not complain. In fact, Al Jazeera believes the tape and bin Laden’s admission of guilt are authentic.

          A later Al-Jazeera article titled Al-Qaeda facts and figures focuses on “Global neo-Jihadi terrorist plots targeted at the West over the last 20 years.” In this piece,  Al-Jazeera lists “9/11/01 attack (2001)” as one of “12 al-Qaeda Core controlled operations.” [Emphasis added] {3}

          Obviously, Max, Al-Jazeera understood bin Laden’s words on the tape they received in Oct 2004 and they believed him.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6363306/
          {2} http://rense.com/general59/full.htm
          {3} http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/emp … 68960.html

          1. rhamson profile image78
            rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            ...."But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind."

            These are the words of the terrorist. This is the explanation for the attacks. This is where the conflict is centered. Yet when I hear people say that "they" attacked us with no provocation I am dumbfounded. Actions have reactions when you wrong someone. Yet we continue to ignore the basis of the argument and insist the reasons for our activities over there are something else. We point at them and say they continue to attack us because they hate us for our freedom  and stupid reasoning's we somehow get behind. We simply cannot look at our own actions and the affect we have on other societies because of our interests. Truth be told we would not be there but for the oil and we would not support Israel if it were not a good distraction from our intents.

            By the way, your post was an excellent and topical reply to the "reasoning's" being offered as facts Quilligrapher.

            1. maxoxam41 profile image75
              maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Back to your doublespeak? You can't say on one hand "heck yeah bomb them... And few days later adopt a rational and tolerant discourse, can you?

              1. rhamson profile image78
                rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                Poppycock! You can certainly respond to violence (the beheadings) with return punishment. I was for going into Afghanistan to mete out the punishment on the Taliban and Al Qaeda for the Twin Towers. But after we devastated them we should have left. Why didn't we leave? Because there is a wealth of precious metals in Afghanistan and Cheney wanted a shot at that Iraqi oil.

                What I have a problem with is letting our troops be drawn into another long never ending war. The impetus is still on the local militias and armies to take control while we bomb the hell out of them from above. Just because someone is against war does not mean they should become an open target. My mother always taught me if someone starts a fight with you and you get hit, make sure you let them know how their beating can stop.

                1. GA Anderson profile image83
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "...Why didn't we leave? Because there is a wealth of precious metals in Afghanistan and Cheney wanted a shot at that Iraqi oil. "

                  As my son would say... Really? Can you back up that, (ridiculous in my view), statement with any kind of facts? What precious metals did we gain from our Afghanistan adventures? What oil Iraqi concessions did Chaney realize?

                  With all the possible rationals for our misadventure in Afghanistan, precious metals and oiul are what top your list?

                  Nuts to that.

                  ps. I will gladly offer an apology if I have shot from the hip and you can provide the proof behind your convivtions.

                  GA

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image75
                    maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    What about oil and gas? What about impeding China to buy natural resources from Afghanistan, from Africa...? It would surprise me if your son had a diametrically opposite opinion from yours. Don't we say like father, like son?

                  2. rhamson profile image78
                    rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    At the time of the invasion by the US the oil was controlled by Saddam Hussein since 1972 when the oil industry was nationalized. The US and UK were determined to gain access to the second largest cache of oil in the world.
                    https://www.globalpolicy.org/political- … -iraq.html

                    "Exxon Oil is selling its 25% of its 60% share of Iraqi oil to China. Exxon’s decision to divest in southern Iraq was partly in response to an ongoing conflict between the Iraqi central authorities in Baghdad and the authorities of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil over control of oil and gas resources."

                    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener … Field.html

                    The US is still buying blacklisted Iraqi oil. For a country that did not have oil on its mind with regards to Iraq we certainly have done a poor job of showing any other conviction.
                    http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_is_bu … 8/Y/M.html

                    As far as Afghanistan the military has known that the precious metals are a real bonus. And I quote "An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys."

                    http://wonkette.com/415964/afghanistan- … ous-metals

                    There were underlying reasons for the invasion.

                    http://globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-wor … -gas/19769

                    I don't know if this is enough but a quick search on the old interweb may help you more than I can.

                2. maxoxam41 profile image75
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  How good of you to fly and help Afghans against the Talibans that we trained and installed! How nice of you to fight against Al Qaeda that WE created.
                  I thought that September 11 was Saddam Hussein? What are you going to invoke to justify his killing? I guess you're lost in the mainstream media narrative...
                  Obviously, for you it was our government reason to kill civilians, our GOOD HEART, now you know what we are about if you still have a doubt.
                  The only reason they are a target is because they are occupying and pilfering their country, wouldn't you behave accordingly?

          2. maxoxam41 profile image75
            maxoxam41posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            NBC, Al-Jazeera? Very independent, aren't they? And since when an Arabic channel has the freedom of broadcasting on the American audiovisual landscape? Probably since the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have the same interests? Why not the national Syrian channel? I'm wondering what kind of propaganda allowed Bachar Al- Assad to have a majority that even Obama didn't have? Or better a Russian source?

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Good evening Max. Your post is very predictable.

              When unable to deny the factual evidence, it is typical to respond with an attack on NBC and Al-Jazeera, which in this case is a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the truth. The entire reply consists of seven unrelated, irrelevant and unanswered questions, a poor substitute for actual and supported information from a verifiable source. More importantly, the fact that there is not one original, coherent declarative statement renders the entire effort empty and meaningless. Time to switch to benefactors who not only supply anti-American propaganda but also can provide reliable and verifiable sources. 
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

 
working