"Stan Goff". Ex-Special Forces Writes On Possibility Of Bush Using Tactical Nukes

truebeliever · #1 07-15-2005, 12:08 AM

Ruppert has fast made himself obselete and irrelivent with his infantile attachment to the "Peak Oil" scam.

Stan Goff however still has a modicum of respect particularly with regards military matters.

The only options left for Bush and Co are do nothing and continue to "nip" away with half assed terrorist attacks which get more badly done each time and risk more exposure - a limited bombing campaign after some sort of staged event on Iran - use tactical nukes on Iran and others...openly. To get away with this they will need a staged EVENT of some magnitude...perhaps the sinking of a Carrier in the Mid East with 5000 dead sailors.

The U.S has NO capacity to invade anyone. PERIOD. End of discussion. To continue to flounce about with an invasion of Iran and even Syria is a complete distraction.

We have heard from the "experts" for three years! that a draft was "just around the corner".

Tactical nukes are their ONLY option of attack and I believe there most likely.

In this I agree with Stan Goff.

This is just an exerpt. You will have to be a special "Ruppertarian" to get the full story.
---------------------------------------------------
Central to my analysis of the "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," and the concomitant leaks from the Pentagon that the war in Iraq has undermined the two-war doctrine, is my belief that - while the Bush administration would like nothing more than to impose martial law - their ability to do so, and even to see through their current debacle in Southwest Asia, may already be disappearing around the corner of no return. The real danger, from my viewpoint, is that with failure to achieve their desired objectives in Iraq, the reckless incompetence of this lame duck administration may lead them to consider the unthinkable - tactical nuclear strikes against "adversaries" in a period when conventional military power is rendering itself obsolete. -SG]

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070805_global_battlefield_summary.shtml
---------------------------------------------------
I'm sure he's changed his opinion on the London bombings by now.

igwt · #2 07-15-2005, 02:08 AM

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam

http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

Dreak · #3 07-15-2005, 10:31 AM

I have to dissagree with ya TB.

There is no way that Nukes are gonna start flying because a carrier is sunk m8.

No way in hell will the US nuke anyone after an "attack" .. unless its from Soviet nuke subs..

US will gather the support of all Nations after such a massive attack ( if a military target is sunk no matter how many lives lost its not the same if someone Nuked N.Y. instead of some planes ) now..if N.Y. was Nuked..then we would be living in a Totally different world right now.

When Bush said " with us or against us " I think after New York had been nuked, that would mean totally "you help us or fuk you and your horseman".."Sorry for that fallout world..but US wont take that..so help us..or were gonna be like Isreal..mess with us..were gonna nuke you."

Its hard being the Big Boy on the block..but hey..Look at Isreal.

Ill post that on another Thread...

truebeliever · #4 07-15-2005, 06:45 PM

Tactical Nukes were undoubtably used during the Afghanistan operation circa 2001.

All the hogwash about the "Daisy Cutter" Fuel/Air Bomb crapola repeated adinfunatim with GROSSLY exagerated discriptions of its effects (ie:HUGE explosive power) was a cover for deep penetration tactical nukes.

The Daisy Cutter works best when used against WELL dug in troops in that it will "burn" the oxygen in a wide area suffocating infantry. It has secondary blast effects on living things due to the vaccuum it creates.

It does not, as in conventional explosives, have a intense blast wave and yet that is exactly what they were infering in the massive media effort to tell us that the Taliban were going to all die from the AWESOME "Daisy Cutter"...

I read on the net briefly, of local tribesmen exhibiting all the signs of radiation sickness including bleeding gums, rectal bleeding vomiting etc...

It was an excellent article which people should look into...do a search. I might try and retrieve it as well.

I believe you are mistaken that Bush and Co would NOT use tactical nukes, at least the "bunker buster" types on Iran.

They have proven themselves ruthless enough.

There are ample discussion papers and NSC documents detailing how the U.S MUST NOT look too "reasonable" and "stable" to an adversary as this would promote challenges to U.S hegemony in the world. An unbalanced and unpredictable nature was vital so as to keep the barbarians in line.

Hence what we see today.

I have written previously that it would be unlikely that "they" would commit another terrorist act on the scale of 9-11 on U.S soil after the HUGE grassroots backlash via the net, exposing the whole shebang. I believe it is now possible. However, with all the "talk" circulating from "official" sources regarding "suitcase" bombs, I believe it is a deliberate distraction.

An "offshore" covert op would give the benefits of decreased exposure by the conspiricy nuts who exposed the last scam, a clean crime scene ie: sunk Carrier, and a more easily identifiable culprit ie: Iran.

As the Garrison character in JFK states..."you all gotta think like the CIA, white is black and black is white".

Get in their minds. Read history. They are human and are as predictable as a fox near a hen house.

truebeliever · #5 07-15-2005, 06:51 PM

Also, we saw not to long ago the sinking of a Carrier off the U.S coast with the express purpose of "investigating survivability".

From what?

What would be the best measure of survivability of an Aircraft Carrier in todays world?

Obtain or build from scratch a replica of the venerated "Sunburn" missiles Iran has purchased by the hundreds from China?

Would'nt that or a similar test be best?

Instead we had the "test", as explosives placed at various "vital points" in the huge belly of the beast.

Hmmmm...

Dreak · #6 07-16-2005, 06:57 AM

Sorry m8 I misunderstood you..

Quote:

I believe you are mistaken that Bush and Co would NOT use tactical nukes, at least the "bunker buster" types on Iran.

I thought you were talking about Real Nukes..you know..missles-a-flying, mushroom clouds filling the landscape.

bunker busters..yea I can see that. Minimal Eradiated areas.

Lets say for argument that a Nuke went off in L.A. and we "found" it to be "Iran" that did it..

I still dont see us Nuking the hell out of any nation, for whatever reason, unless its an all out WW III. Just my opinion ..

truebeliever · #7 07-16-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

I still dont see us Nuking the hell out of any nation, for whatever reason, unless its an all out WW III. Just my opinion ..

Be careful what you wish for.

Dreak · #8 07-16-2005, 08:21 AM

I wish it wouldnt happen...

But I looking at what is going on around the world I think we are inevitably Close :-?

truebeliever · #9 07-16-2005, 08:34 AM

I think there's some hope. The London bombing has proved a disaster for the Globalists.

Dreak · #10 07-16-2005, 10:07 AM

Aye..but Im still very skeptical about the whole London Bombing thing..

It looks like swiss-cheese to me. It just seems way to easy to have basically every reporting agency putting alot of resource into the bombings.

How easy it is to punch holes in the alleged findings.

How easy it is to create an alternative Truth with all the so called "facts".

Looking to me like another diversion.

I dont think the CO. (as you speak of) is THAT stupid or inept. I dont think it was a spontanious action.

If indeed it was scripted as some suggest, then the producer is either a clown or a genious.

Look over here cause I need to do something over there without you looking.

hmm..Is it that we are looking in the wrong place ?