Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.

Newsmax ^ | July 14, 2005 | Stewart Stogel

[Las Vegas Dave]

A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaida not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future.

These chilling allegations appear in "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11: What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You," by Paul L. Williams (Prometheus Books).

Williams claims that al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simulantaneously in U.S. cities.

"They want the most bang for the buck, and that is nuclear," Williams told NewsMax.

"I expect such an attack would come between now and the end of 2005," the author said.

In addition to writing several books on terrorism, Williams, an investigative journalist, has worked as an FBI consultant.

Williams' contention is not far from what U.S. intelligence believes, a source close to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has told NewsMax. The source said Ridge claimed that U.S. intelligence believes terrorists already have smuggled into the U.S. actual atomic devices, as opposed to so-called "dirty nukes" that simply are conventional bombs that help spread radiation.

The Bush administration has warned for years that terrorists pose a nuclear threat to America.

Williams' book presents a review of the increasing spread of nuclear weapons technology, which the author says can be traced to India's nuclear tests in the early 1970s. It accelerated when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Shortly after the Indian nuclear tests, Pakistan made an all-out effort to join the nuclear club, the author says. Islamabad received help from sympathetic nations, namely China and North Korea.

Williams traces the rampant spread of nuclear bomb development to a leading Pakistani scientist, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Khan, described as an "Islamic extremist," also has been depicted by former CIA chief George Tenet as "the father of Pakistan's nuclear program."

It is believed the Pakistani gained his expertise while working in the Netherlands, where he allegedly stole technology used in uranium reprocessing, a key procedure for building an atomic bomb.

Pakistan successfully detonated two nuclear weapons inside a northern mountain range in the late 1990s.

Khan, arrested by Pakistani police in February under White House pressure, admitted selling nuclear technology to numerous foreign countries, including North Korea and Libya.

Williams reports that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was investigating Khan at the time he was kidnapped and later killed in 2003.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, fearing a backlash from radical Muslims, granted Khan a pardon but restricted his travels.

According to Williams, another beneficiary of Khan's "contacts" was al-Qaida. The author reports that the U.S. got its first "hard" evidence of a connection when it invaded the Afghan capital of Kabul in 2001.

A former al-Qaida safe house was found to be loaded with documents detailing dealings with the Pakistani scientist.

The finding was so serious, says Williams, that Tenet traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow up on the discovery.

Tenet: 'They Are Coming'

Perhaps it was such intelligence that led Tenet to say in October 2002: "The threat environment we face is as bad as it was before September 11. It is serious. They have reconstituted. They are coming after us."

Almost from the moment 9/11 happened, the U.S. has been on a heightened state of alert and worry over the possible use of nuclear weapons. On the day of the attack, President Bush left Florida and began criss-crossing the country in Air Force One in maneuvers consistent with a president preparing for a nuclear attack.

Shortly after Sept. 11, Taliban leader Mullah Omar claimed to the BBC that the main intent of al-Qaida was the "bigger cause," which he described as the "destruction of America."

Asked pointedly if this meant the use of nuclear weapons againt the U.S., he responded: "This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it will fall to the ground."

Omar cryptically suggested that a nuclear plan was already under way at the time of Sept. 11.

He said: "The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented. But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction."

The Russian Connection

The author points out that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 made matters worse:

"The Chechen Mafia reportedly sold twenty nuclear suitcases in Grozny to representatives of Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen [in 1996]. For their weapons, bin Laden paid $30 million in cash and two tons of heroin."

Al-Qaida's leader, says Williams, is a major drug producer and runner in Afghanistan.

"It is the drug money, not the bin Laden family fortune, that is the financial engine for al-Qaida," he points out.

Today, Williams says, more than 40 Russian "nuclear suitcases" cannot be accounted for.

The suitcases are miniaturized tactical nuclear bombs (in some cases weighing less than 40 pounds) that originally were planned by the Cold War-era Kremlin to be detonated inside the U.S. in the event of war.

Most could cause damage equal to or greater than the crude device Washington dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.

The author says some of these weapons still remain stateside in a "sleeper" status controlled by Russian military officials who believe a war with the U.S. "is still possible."

Others, as many as 10, might be under al-Qaida's control, says Williams.

What kind of damage could such a weapon do? The CIA estimates the Russian nuclear suitcases to have an explosive yield approaching 10 kilotons.

Williams, referring to estimates by Theodore Taylor, a prominent American physicist who miniaturized the atomic bomb and visited the site of the World Trade Center in 1993, says a suitcase bomb could "emit intense thermal radiation, creating a fireball with a diameter that would expand to 460 feet. The core of the fireball would reach a maximum temperature of 10 million degrees Celsius ... ." The author says the heat that collapsed the Twin Towers never exceeded 5,000 degrees Celsius.

Had such a bomb been used in 9/11, Williams claims, "The World Trade Center towers, all of Wall Street and the financial district, along with the lower tip of Manhattan up to Gramercy Park and much of midtown, including the theater district, would lie in ruins."

Of those who might survive the blast, 50 percent of the survivors could expect to die at the rate of "250,000 people on any given day," Williams reports.

And how could al-Qaida manage to transport such weapons into the U.S.?

Williams points out that the borders with Mexico and Canada are still dangerously porous and not equipped to detect the smuggling of nuclear materials.

U.S. seaports are even more vulnerable, he argues.

Though New York City would seem to be the No. 1 target of another attack by al-Qaida, Williams points out other U.S. cities have been mentioned in intercepted intelligence chatter.

Among those discussed: Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, Washington and Rappahannock County, Va.

Why a small rural county in Virginia? Williams says it houses the underground command center the White House would use in time of war.

He hastens to add that time "may not be on our side."

"It was eight years between the World Trade Center attacks. Islam preaches patience. They will attack when they want," Williams concluded.

More chilling was the response from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

One official, speaking on background, told NewsMax: "We have no comment. It is not within our responsibility to track atomic bombs."

< snip >

[marron]

had AlQueda already smuggled nukes into the states, they would have used them by now.

Thats my belief. If they had them, they would have used them during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They would have used them prior to the '04 elections.

They would not have suffered the losses they have suffered if they had a nuclear response in their hip pocket.

[numberonepal]

Thank you. I'm glad I didn't have to type that.

[nwctwx]

Permanent Link

al Qaida's WMD Fatwa: Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd

Until May 2003, al Qaeda did not have sufficient Islamic grounding on which to convincingly justify a WMD attack. In that month, however, a young Saudi cleric named Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd published "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels."

...

The study is lucidly written, comprehensive, and well-documented justification and authorization for using weapons of mass destruction against infidels-in this case, against the United States.

...

Without Question, Shaykh al-Fahd wrote, the "Proscription [of weapons of mass destruction] Belongs to God Almighty, and to None Other Than He, such as Humans."

Shaykh al-Fahd begins by describing the term "weapons of mass destruction" as an "inexact term," claiming that chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that killed a thousand people would be called by the West "internationally banned weapons," whereas the use of "high explosive bombs weighing seven tons apiece and [that] killed three thousand or more" would be called "internationally permissible weapons." On that basis, he dismisses the WMD-armed West's treaties and regulations banning WMD proliferation as mere attempts to scare others and protect itself. "Thus it is evident," he wrote, "that [the Western nations] do not wish to protect humanity by these terms, as they assert; rather, they want to protect themselves and monopolize such weapons on the pretext of banning them internationally."

...

"All these terms have no standing in Islamic law, because God Almighty has reserved judgment and legislation to Himself...This is a matter so obvious to Muslims that it needs no demonstration...In judging these weapons one looks only to the Koran, the Sunnah [i.e., the sayings and traditions of the Prophet], and the statements of Muslim scholars."

Summary of al-Fahd's Fatwa:

• Shaykh al-Fahd first cites three examples from the Koran in which God says that Muslims may respond reciprocally for attacks made on them. "Anyone who considers America's aggressions against Muslims and their lands during the past decades," al-Fahd wrote, "will conclude that striking her is permissible merely on the rule of treating as one has been treated. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their weapons and come up with a figure of nearly 10 million."

• Shaykh al-Fahd next argues that large civilian casualties are acceptable if they result from an attack meant to defeat an enemy, and not an attack aimed only at killing the innocent. "The messenger of God [the Prophet Muhammad]," al-Fahd wrote, "commanded an attack on the enemy. In many traditions, he attacked others...He was not prevented from this by what we know, namely that he knew that women and children would not be safe from harm. He allowed the attack because the intent of the attackers was not to harm them...Thus the situation in this regard is that if those engaged in jihad establish that the evil of the infidels can be repelled only by attacking them at night with weapons of mass destruction, they may be used even if they annihilate the infidels."

• Shaykh al-Fahd concludes by addressing the issue of whether Muslims can kill other Muslims in pursuing jihad in God's name. He says that, indeed, the lives of Muslims are considered sacred and there is no permission from God to wantonly kill another Muslim. But, al-Fahd maintains, "If we accept the argument unrestrictedly, we should entirely suspend jihad, for no infidel land is devoid of Muslims. As long as jihad has been commanded...and it can be carried out only in this way [i.e., with Muslims being killed in attacks by Muslims], it is permitted." God allows this, al-Fahd explains, "so that the enemy cannot force us to abandon jihad by imprisoning a Muslim among them."

Excerpts from, Imperial Hubris , by Michael Scheuer: Pages 154-156

[kingu]

1) If any group had nuclear weapons, Israel would be a smoldering hole in the ground. Two, perhaps three nukes, would take out the majority of Israel's central population. They're backlash would virtually destroy anything remaining of Israel when the international community isolates them for retaliating.

2) Suitcase nukes are like our backpack nukes - build it, blow it up, store a couple, but otherwise they weren't built. If either side had a handful at any point, I'd be shocked.

3) Any 'suitcase nukes' that terrorists have gotten their hands on are likely elaborate scams to steal their money. Something that is all too common, especially when the terrorists tried to buy from the mobs in Russia. As Bin Ladin if he feels he got his money's worth for all the weapons his group bought - only one quarter of the rocket launchers functioned, and most of the rocket propelled grenades were duds as well.

4) Radiological detectors along our southern highways and byways will catch any nuclear material smuggled in from Mexico. This is the least likely method to sneak such material into the country. Far easier and less likely to be detected if the shipments come in via air cargo.

5) If Al Queda had so many sleepers in the United States (5,000?) they wouldn't need any nuclear weapons or the need to smuggle in much of anything. Most of our weapons stockpiles are guarded by minimal amounts of troops. Same with airplane storage facilities. They could easily overwhelm what little defense there is with a hundred people.

Sorry - this stuff should stay on Coast To Coast AM with the aliens who have an unreasonably large facination with the backsides of human males.

[Quix]

THANKS.

[nwctwx]

How to Stop Nuclear Terror
Graham Allison (Harvard PhD)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83107-p0/graham-allison/how-to-stop-nuclear-terror.html

[TAquinas]

"If there really were 6 suitcase nukes detonated in the US, can you imagine the backlash? Can you imagine what people would demand as payback?"

I think there would be a slight majority consensus (demographics are changing, you know) from the people who would demand to declare war on the terrorists that nuked us.

Ten to twenty years down the road, however, this consensus would be gone because, again, of changing demographics. Time is not on our side unless and until we change our immigration laws and stopped the floodgates of third world illegal aliens.

[TAquinas]

"However, had AlQueda already smuggled nukes into the states, they would have used them by now."

Had al Qaeda truly been in possession of nukes, they would have used them by now against the Jewish state, their mortal enemy.

[TAquinas]

I agree that the threat is so serious that it deserves our utmost attention.

[TAquinas]

"The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.

"The less shielding that you have, the sooner that your electronics and conventional explosives deteriorate from the radiation."

If al Qaeda has nukes they want to use against us, they will not use a useless, non-functioning one, but they would use those nukes that have been maintained and properly functioning. You points are moot.

Either they have functioning nukes or they don't. That is the critical issue.

[nwctwx]

al Qaida actually never really focused on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, until after al Jezeera began using footage from it as propaganda throughout the Arab world ,following the beginning of the al Aqsa Intifada. In a traditional sense, all Jihadists are enemies of the Jews, but the Israeli state was by no means an original reason for al Qaida's existence.

bin Laden originally focused on apostate (those who did not follow Sharia laws) Muslim rulers, then turned his attention on the United States and the west. He has stated that he believes Israel would cease to exist if they no longer had our support, and has only recently committed manpower to building cells in the region surrounding/within Israel.

[Southack]

"Either they have functioning nukes or they don't. That is the critical issue."

It's not that simple. Nukes capable of functioning today aren't necessarily capable of functioning tomorrow.

They decay every day. Their fissionable pits and cores decay. Their atomic triggers decay rapidly. The radiation released from this nuclear decay destroys electronics and makes the conventional explosives in nukes less and less stable.

Each day that goes by also increases the chances of humidity getting into the weapon, turning uranium into uranium oxide and plutonium into plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust that can't go "Boom").

Nor do you see Al Qaeda performing Pakistani-like or India-like atomic tests to determine if their inventory (which they likely don't even have) is still viable.

[photodawg]

Book doesn't come out until September.




Just in time for the morbid remembrances of 911, so more books can be sold.

[photodawg]

However, had AlQueda already smuggled nukes into the states, they would have used them by now.






I'm sure the planes flown into the towers were sitting in the USA many years before they were hijacked and used as weapons. If they have the weapons in the US, it will take time to plan and coordinate their use. They are in no hurry.

[firebrand]

The Blind Boys say don't fear the atom bomb. There's something worse that can befall you.

[photodawg]

You could build the great wall around our borders, deport every muslim, and you would still have the Iranian nuke program and the koreans, ....and the pakistanis........and the russians. The genie is out of the bottle. We need better answers to the nuclear issue.

[TAquinas]

"It's not that simple."

The bottom line is simple. Al Qaeda either has functioning nukes or they don't. If they don't, so much the better. But if they do, this is a serious, serious issue that needs to be addressed and confronted. Sealing the borders to 3rd world illegal, anti-American aliens would be a good start.

The solution to complex issues is more often than not found in the simple, not the complex.

I don't think Al Qaeda is dummy enough to wanting to use malfunctioning or ineffective nukes if they were intent on using them on us.

[TAquinas]

The answer is cultural.

Monocultural and coherent societies are better suited to reaching a consensus and defending themselves than multicultural societies where consensus cannot be reached and each group is for themselves.

[photodawg]

No, because you don't s#$t in your own bed. Israel is holy ground to them, many of their most committed devout followers exist side by side with the Jews. It would be much more appealing to them to eliminate the jewish support mechanism by destroying the hated American allies of the Jewish state first. Then deal with Israel without destroying themselves in the process. You notice only the young expendable zealots become suicide bombers, the leadership always trys to escape to fight again.

[Eastbound]

Well maybe it's just time to round up every muzzie in the country and isolate them together somewhere where they will be safe from the bomb. They'll be glad we did.

FAIL SAFE! It'll work!