Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Earl.Of.Trumps

ISIS Threatens Nuke Attack of Israel

148 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps

For everyone that worries because the U.S. is not involving itself in Iraq, Israel will take care of this.

Israel has a right to exist, (and for that matter, before we get into a debate, I believe Palestine does as well) and has a right of self-defense.

With that being said, now that ISIS has made this claim, will Iran suddenly support them? I say that in jest but I'm curious, whose hate is stronger... Sunni vs Shi'ite or Sunni vs Israel or Shi'ite vs Israel.

That is a $million question!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

1) They're lying. At least for now. They wouldn't be so stupid as to announce things like this before hand (well, most are that stupid, but overall, there has to be someone a bit smarter calling the shots). They're playing to the camera as a circus show of strength.

That could very well be true. I think about it. However, there are some forms of WoMD they had been threatening to use long ago, and they did finally get that substance. So, you never know.

2) They can threaten Israel all they want to. Once it is confirmed that they can carry out any of their threats, Israel will roll right over them with efficiency, brutality, and finality. It's always cute to see Israeli tanks plowing through the smoking wrecks that tried to do their country harm.

And that will be the end of the ISIS. And whoever is bankrolling them.

Could be right! But Israel/West said that many moons ago when they rendered the PLO impotent. You have had many many groups come along afterward like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, et al.

In other words, either way, Israel's war is not ended and never will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Unless the nuke fairy showed up I don't see this as a creditable threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Building a nuclear device isn't all that difficult...it's getting the fissionable material that's tricky. Also, having the capacity to deploy the weapon isn't all that easy either. I'm not at all convinced that ISIS has a nuclear weapon...most likely just bravado.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Actually, they may have just shot themselves ... or rather, the Palestinians .. in the foot.

When these nutters shout out their bloodthirsty, threatening mouthfoamings, they often don't seem to understand that the West actually LISTENS to their words (which is more than they do themselves), and react accordingly.

Hence, a threat of Nuclear weapons has been made against Israel. One method of using such a weapon would be to smuggle it into Israel. Hence Israel now has carte-blanche to tighten up border checks (including coastal interceptions) to include neutron scanners etc etc. The life of the Palestinians transiting the border each day just got harder, and all because some ISIS idiot couldn't RESIST shooting his mouth off.

Well done chaps !

You don't think Israel has to step up border checks to detect a nuclear bomb, do you? LOL!

It's being carried by the green guy that glows in the dark lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

This story has been floating around for well over 12 hours now and yet ... not one single mainstream news outlet is running it. The folks that are running are the likes of:

TribulationNow

DailyStormer

godlikeproductions

endtimeheadlines

Nuff said?

This is hyperbole and has no credible source.

No, enough is NOT said. Tell us what you think that all means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

They don't have brains at all. I doubt that they have nuclear weapons but what i am afraid of is that possibly you can buy damn nuke if you have enough money and this group does have money ( robbed so many countries and Iraq banks too lately ). Can we say that no one who owns them nukes would sell them?

Anyway - no brains because nuclear strike at that area would contaminate extremely large territory.

Well, not exactly.

Of the nuke readied countries we *know* of, Pakistan is the only possibility. However, there may be shadowy groups that could have gotten the experts that could help them build a bomb.

Dr. A. Q. Khan, Pakistan's father of their nuke bomb was fired by Pakistan government for questionable activities outside their country. Many believe he gave away his "guide to better nuke building".

Ya never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

The ISIS might have a tougher time when they more into more tightly-controlled Shia areas of Iraq. Part of their initial success stems from the fact that their opponents were Sunni and, aside from being poorly trained and commanded, sympathized with the ISIS. The Shia will be more motivated than the others, if not any better trained. Remember, ISIS don't have much training, either, they're relying on shock and the unwillingness of their victims to fight back. Of course, the Iranians will meddle as much as they can, as well. That's only going to serve to make this bloodier when the Shia parts of Iraq begin to fight back.

But, again, as for threatening Israel...that can only hurt them, not help them. A very unwise move on their part. Sometimes you don't always want the attention you think you need.

It won't contaminate that large of an area--depending on the bomb to be used; and they won't be getting their hands on anything truly big as they don't need to. Besides, if they are fanatical enough, they will not care. As long as their perceived enemies suffer, nothing else matters. If anything, Jerusalem won't be the target of a nuclear attack; Tel Aviv will be the primary target. These Islamists, like all of their ilk, want Jerusalem, it's the jewel and taking it they can claim some sort of religious victory. They don't want it destroyed.

Again, all depending on the mental stability of the bad guys involved. They haven't shown much strategic sense by announcing their intentions, real or not.

I also doubt Pakistan will sell nuclear weapons to any terrorist group, at least not at this time. Too much of a chance that it will be used against them instead of against Israel. Besides, if it can be proven Pakistan did provide the weapon, their little toy country is forfeit and they know it.

I enjoyed reading the whole thing, many good points in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libstaK

No, enough is NOT said. Tell us what you think that all means.

What I think it means is that this is rumour, not fact. If the likes of CNN, BBC,NBC, Fox News, Reuters or Al Jazeera are not running it just to name a few international News Agencies - then the story has not been deemed credible by any of them - face it we are talking about possible nucleur strikes. The fact that the groups who are running it all have a bias toward believing the worst and in some cases salivating over the prospect of armageddon, suggests that there is little to no fact checking taking part on their side, they are already well known to run stories without either the expertise or more importantly the will to fact check them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Yeah, I concur. Innocents are always going to be hurt when it comes to Islamic terror. And any sort of nuke, whether it is a small, tactical one, or a big city-stomping one, isn't a good thing for those kinds of monsters to have.

Not to mention, a US stealth bomber dropping a load of bombs on an Iraqi wedding party :blush:

sorry, couldn't resist lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

What I think it means is that this is rumour, not fact. If the likes of CNN, BBC,NBC, Fox News, Reuters or Al Jazeera are not running it just to name a few international News Agencies - then the story has not been deemed credible by any of them - face it we are talking about possible nucleur strikes. The fact that the groups who are running it all have a bias toward believing the worst and in some cases salivating over the prospect of armageddon, suggests that there is little to no fact checking taking part on their side, they are already well known to run stories without either the expertise or more importantly the will to fact check them.

Oh, I understand, I wanted him/her to say it.

There is another possibility, and that is, the MAIN media outlets have agreed to not run with the story, which is terrorizing,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

It seems the former Soviet Union may have lost track of more than 100 suitcase sized nuke bombs.

THE CONTINUING debate over Russia's command and control of its nuclear arsenal intensified on September 7 when retired General Alexander Lebed, former secretary of the Russian Security Council, told the CBS news program "60 Minutes" that he believes more than 100 "suitcase sized" nuclear weapons are unaccounted for.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_09/lebedsept

Also, if you google "loose nukes", the name RUSSIA comes up over and over.

Ya' never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
libstaK

Oh, I understand, I wanted him/her to say it.

There is another possibility, and that is, the MAIN media outlets have agreed to not run with the story, which is terrorizing,

That is possible - they may be waiting on a "heads up" from diplomatic circles before printing anything of it's like, given that it would cause alot of fear. I still err on it being untrue myself, so many have tried to get a hold of nucleur weapons for so many years and then this relatively newcomer shows up and says, Yo dude we got nukes - nope just not that straightforward or easy, ask alqaeda and all the others crazies that have been trying or decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Just noticed the bit where the article says the ISIS are looking forward to attacking Israel and that they think they could take them down in a few years. If they ever do turn their attention to Israel** they're in for a rude shock when they find out how different the Israeli military is compared to the Syrian and Iraqi military.

**I think this is just your typical 'Islamist hates Zionist' talk. While ISIS is doing pretty good now they're still fighting Syria, the Kurds, some Sunni tribes, and the Shias if the Iraqis can find any officers who run at the sight of their own shadow. Plus Iran doesn't like them and Jordan, a stable state with a strong military in the region, is beefing up their border and isn't too keen on the calls to kill their king. Only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Only the king of fool fights a war on six or seven. And the ISIS haven't shown themselves as fool. Bloodthirsty fundies yes, but not fools.

Edited by Corp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

That could very well be true. I think about it. However, there are some forms of WoMD they had been threatening to use long ago, and they did finally get that substance. So, you never know.

Could be right! But Israel/West said that many moons ago when they rendered the PLO impotent. You have had many many groups come along afterward like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, et al.

In other words, either way, Israel's war is not ended and never will be.

You're right. All Israel can do is just take care of the current threats. Then move on to the next one. Maybe someday they'll be allowed to live in peace, but for now, they have to fight for every bit of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Yes it would be a crime against Allah.

So would committing genocide with a nuclear bomb.

Though not entirely accurate, I don't think that means anything to these terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Not to mention, a US stealth bomber dropping a load of bombs on an Iraqi wedding party :blush:

sorry, couldn't resist lol

1) I still haven't been convinced it was true.

2) And if it was, Shiite happens. It was tragic, but it was accidental.

3) This is about a wacked-out Islamic terrorist cell claiming they are going to nuke Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Just learned today, ISIS has a mere 10,000 fighters, 7,000 in Syria, 3,000 in Iraq. That is SO hard to believe but, that's what they say.

What that tells me is this, Iraqi people just don't care who takes them over. That's all, there is no energy or will there. I bet the US could send the Michigan Militia (volunteers) over there and do a better job at stopping ISIS. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

1) I still haven't been convinced it was true.

Meant to be only one example. US bombers have wiped out whole villages before.

2) And if it was, Shiite happens. It was tragic, but it was accidental.

IMO, the US/allies should not be doing things where "accidents" imperil people's lives. NO RESPECT.

It's like the drunk driver that kills 5 in a car accident saying. "shiite happens, man. Sorry"

3) This is about a wacked-out Islamic terrorist cell claiming they are going to nuke Israel.

Oh! you mean we went off topic?? So sorry, Shiite happens, man! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Meant to be only one example. US bombers have wiped out whole villages before.

Well, you're not wrong. But your example really didn't compare to what these terrorists could do with a nuke.

IMO, the US/allies should not be doing things where "accidents" imperil people's lives. NO RESPECT.

It's like the drunk driver that kills 5 in a car accident saying. "shiite happens, man. Sorry"

I understand your comparison. Both are tragic, but the fact that these things happen is just that: they happen. I wish they wouldn't but they do.

But that's war. And in war, there are always needless casualties. It's unavoidable, it's accidental, and it happens.

Again, though, a terrorist cell with a nuke and willing to use a nuke doesn't fall into that category. As far as they are concerned, there are no needless casualties. Everyone that dies was meant to die.

Oh! you mean we went off topic?? So sorry, Shiite happens, man! LOL

Ah, touché! :tu:

By the way, I misspelled the actual word I was typing, it was autocorrected to "Shiite", I chuckled, and so I think that's my new word I'm using in place of "excrement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Just learned today, ISIS has a mere 10,000 fighters, 7,000 in Syria, 3,000 in Iraq. That is SO hard to believe but, that's what they say.

What that tells me is this, Iraqi people just don't care who takes them over. That's all, there is no energy or will there. I bet the US could send the Michigan Militia (volunteers) over there and do a better job at stopping ISIS. :no:

I think the disconnect happens due to not understanding that the Iraqi "people" are actually 3 major diverse groups with different goals. The Sunnis probably are moderately okay with ISIS for now. The Kurds and Shia are panicked. Iraq probably won't survive as a country when this is over. A civil war will break it into 3 (at least) regions or new states. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

[/color]

Well, you're not wrong. But your example really didn't compare to what these terrorists could do with a nuke.

I understand your comparison. Both are tragic, but the fact that these things happen is just that: they happen. I wish they wouldn't but they do.

But that's war. And in war, there are always needless casualties. It's unavoidable, it's accidental, and it happens.

Again, though, a terrorist cell with a nuke and willing to use a nuke doesn't fall into that category. As far as they are concerned, there are no needless casualties. Everyone that dies was meant to die.

Ah, touché! :tu:

By the way, I misspelled the actual word I was typing, it was autocorrected to "Shiite", I chuckled, and so I think that's my new word I'm using in place of "excrement".

you say it is "unavoidable", then you miss my point. It *is* avoidable, just don't wage unjust wars. Simple. And the war waged clearly did not have the justification for war that makes it worth the lives lost, property destroyed, chaos created.

Oh, and I have been using Shiite that way for some time now. And I don't think that is original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

I think the disconnect happens due to not understanding that the Iraqi "people" are actually 3 major diverse groups with different goals. The Sunnis probably are moderately okay with ISIS for now. The Kurds and Shia are panicked. Iraq probably won't survive as a country when this is over. A civil war will break it into 3 (at least) regions or new states. IMO.

Yup. We agree on that!

I wonder if that all was in the plans by the social engineers in Washington/London all along They had to know that such a thing could happen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Yup. We agree on that!

I wonder if that all was in the plans by the social engineers in Washington/London all along They had to know that such a thing could happen

Highly unlikely give that they've spent years and billions trying to stabilize a united country and are still trying to keep Iraq united. If the plan was to divide the nation up they would have done so years ago. They of course knew a civil war might happen but they hoped that Iraq would be able to form a united government without outside hand holding. I don't think anyone expected ISIS to advance so quickly or for the Iraq army to do so poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

WTF is your problem?

you say it is "unavoidable", then you miss my point. It *is* avoidable, just don't wage unjust wars. Simple. And the war waged clearly did not have the justification for war that makes it worth the lives lost, property destroyed, chaos created.

Ok, you're pulling this off topic and inserting your asinine opinion about what was an "unjust" war. Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the ISIS threatening Israel. But, according you to, are you saying that accidental casualties are a fine and happy thing as long as the war is "just"?

Casualties in war, whether unjust or not, happen. That's war. They are unavoidable.

Geez. :td:

Oh, and I have been using Shiite that way for some time now. And I don't think that is original.

I never claimed it was original, just that I stumbled upon it and decided to use it.

Can we move on now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.