– “…A Russian detonation in August of 2019 offers a blast that most closely resembles the Beirut explosion, and many believe the Russian example is a low-yield nuclear weapon. The official story on this is that a weapons depot accidentally blew up, similar to the story out of Beirut. The two explosions are quite similar when you look at the initial blast and cloud, the secondary massive blast, and the enormous shockwave that followed”
3 Other Massive Explosions That Left Us Wondering When Tactical Nukes Will Make Their Debut
The world has been watching footage of the massive explosion in Beirut’s main city port yesterday, causing widespread speculation as to whether or not this was a covert military operation employing some new generation of tactical small-yield nuclear weapons.
So far, all indications seem to be that this blast was the result of fatal mishandling of hazardous materials, and no faction has stepped up to take responsibility for this as an attack.
The videos are down right terrifying.
The official story is that a fire in a fireworks factory ignited a six year old cache of ammonium nitrate that was improperly stored in the area, causing the massive blast. In this video, you can clearly see fireworks:
The blast was utterly devastating, and others are convinced this was a nuclear weapon. We don’t think so, but here are both sides.
While people try to guess what could have really happened, it’s important to remember that small-yield nukes have been developed and are part of the next generation of warfare. NPR reported in January that new low-yield nukes were already being deployed on American submarines:
“The U.S. has begun deploying a new type of low-yield nuclear warhead aboard some ballistic missile submarines, according to a report by an independent monitor.
When the USS Tennessee, an Ohio-class submarine, went on patrol in the final weeks of 2019, it carried “one or two” of the new weapons, according to a post by the Federation of American Scientists.” [Source]
In January of 2019, The Guardian reported on the Pentagon’s announcement that new warheads were being combat-readied as part of Trump’s ‘nuclear posture review.’
The new weapon, the W76-2, is a modification of the existing Trident warhead. Stephen Young, a senior Washington representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said its yield had most likely been cut by taking away one stage from the original two-stage, W76 thermonuclear device.
“As best we can tell, the only requirement is to replace the existing secondary, or second stage, with a dummy version, which is what they do every time they test fly a missile,” Young said, adding that the amount of tritium, a hydrogen isotope, may also be adjusted. The result would be to reduce its explosive power from 100 kilotons of TNT, to about five – approximately a third of the force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. [Source]
To many experts, the explosion in Beirut yesterday does not appear to be a weapon, never-the-less, because low-yield nukes do exist and are deployed, it will only be a matter of time before they are used on someone.
In fact, there are several instances in recent years that many believe are examples of low-yield nukes being used in conflicts in the Middle East in Yemen and Syria.
Footage of these two events is, again, terrifying. The scale and scope of the blasts is utterly incomprehensible, and in neither of these situations has there been an admission by any warring factions of the use of tactical nukes. The official story on these is that both were massive conventional bombs.
This one from Homs Syria in 2013.
And this one from Yemen in 2015.
It is believed by some that low-yield tactical nukes are being used in the Middle East, although no regime is willing to admit to it. Instead, we are left to speculate, comparing footage of blasts from different situations. We do know that the US, Russia, China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are all nuclear powers, and given the current state of arms proliferation and international sales, who knows what these forces have in their arsenals?
Finally, a look at a Russian detonation in August of 2019 offers a blast that most closely resembles the Beirut explosion, and many believe the Russian example is a low-yield nuclear weapon. The official story on this is that a weapons depot accidentally blew up, similar to the story out of Beirut. The two explosions are quite similar when you look at the initial blast and cloud, the secondary massive blast, and the enormous shockwave that followed.
Vic Bishop is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. He is an observer of people, animals, nature, and he loves to ponder the connection and relationship between them all. A believer in always striving to becoming self-sufficient and free from the matrix, please track him down on Facebook.
3 thoughts on “REALPOLITIK: 3 Other Massive Explosions That Left Us Wondering When Tactical Nukes Will Make Their Debut”
Shock and Awe!
Humans have weapons at their disposal that are more destructive than these – but to actually use them (in an everyday situation) would expose the truth.
As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel “pure,” anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one’s intention, or niyya.
In a recent article titled “Sodomy ‘For the sake of Islam’,” Raymond Ibrahim, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, reported that Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, who plotted to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef in 2009 with a bomb hidden in his rectum, had apparently relied on a fatwa by an obscure cleric permitting sodomy to “widen” his anus to accommodate the explosives.
Benjamin Doherty of The Electronic Intifada website denounced the Ibrahim article, claiming that he fell for a vulgar hoax.
The Middle East Forum has looked both into this criticism and Mr. Ibrahim’s rebuttal. We find no evidence to substantiate the charges and, accordingly, the Forum stands by Mr Ibrahim.
________________________________________
Not only did the original “underwear bomber” Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior “feigned repentance for his jihadi views” — but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to “widen” his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.
A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an:
“innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives.”
Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for “martyrdom and the virgins of paradise,” one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, “Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?”
After praising Allah, the sheikh’s fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,
However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.
Two important and complementary points emerge from this view:
(1) that jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and
(2) that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam’s leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one’s intention, or niyya.
From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called “martyrdom.”
Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. So important is the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans—who often spent half their lives on the battlefield—were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.
More recently, these ideas appeared in a different form during Egypt’s elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad and justified anything—including cheating, which was deemed “obligatory”—to empower Islam.
According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort might seem to us.
Ironically, this mentality, prevalent throughout the Islamic world, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.
Shock and Awe!
Humans have weapons at their disposal that are more destructive than these – but to actually use them (in an everyday situation) would expose the truth.
Reblogged this on Alexanders' Blog.
ISIS TO RECRUIT SODOMITES AS POTENTIAL BOMBERS
Sodomy “For the Sake of Islam”
by Raymond Ibrahim
July 12, 2012 at 4:30 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3158/islam-sodomy
As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel “pure,” anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one’s intention, or niyya.
In a recent article titled “Sodomy ‘For the sake of Islam’,” Raymond Ibrahim, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, reported that Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, who plotted to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef in 2009 with a bomb hidden in his rectum, had apparently relied on a fatwa by an obscure cleric permitting sodomy to “widen” his anus to accommodate the explosives.
Benjamin Doherty of The Electronic Intifada website denounced the Ibrahim article, claiming that he fell for a vulgar hoax.
The Middle East Forum has looked both into this criticism and Mr. Ibrahim’s rebuttal. We find no evidence to substantiate the charges and, accordingly, the Forum stands by Mr Ibrahim.
________________________________________
Not only did the original “underwear bomber” Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior “feigned repentance for his jihadi views” — but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to “widen” his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.
A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an:
“innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives.”
Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for “martyrdom and the virgins of paradise,” one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, “Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?”
After praising Allah, the sheikh’s fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,
However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.
Two important and complementary points emerge from this view:
(1) that jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and
(2) that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam’s leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one’s intention, or niyya.
From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called “martyrdom.”
Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. So important is the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans—who often spent half their lives on the battlefield—were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.
More recently, these ideas appeared in a different form during Egypt’s elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad and justified anything—including cheating, which was deemed “obligatory”—to empower Islam.
According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort might seem to us.
Ironically, this mentality, prevalent throughout the Islamic world, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.