AlQaida nukes already in the U.S.

world net daily ^ | July 11, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[eastforker]

Jack already did the Mexican scenario,but, that was with drug dealers.Now, if he can find Abdul in Venezueala, plotting with Chavez, that might get interesting. SA IMHO is going to be our next great struggle against terrorism. Along with the Chinese using SA as a proxy.

[DarthVader]

"As it stands, use of their Hiroshima Option will result in a smoking, radioactive ruin where Mecca currently stands."

More than that. See every terrorist harboring nation reduced to ashes and 1/3 of the earth's population annihilated by our retaliation.

[DB]

First, if they had them, they'd use them.

Maybe they'll get one, but I don't believe it has happened yet.

Second, if someone had nuclear weapons and wanted to bring them into this country, the Mexican border protected or not would have little impact on their success getting them in.

We're an open country with huge borders and coastal areas. Too many ways in that are virtually undetectable for those with resources.

Anyway, why go to all that trouble? A nuke in the bottom of an oil tanker in any harbor USA and the deed is done. That's just the hard cold reality of it. We have to take them out before they have the chance to take us out.

[doosee]

I spent some time in Mexico recently and the feedback I got was Muslims arent welcome there. They dont want the mosques and the hatred in that country. That doesnt mean some arent there, but most Latinos aspire to "move" to the US and dont want to blow it up. But money can move mountains.

[Man50D]

Does anyone seriously think Al Qaeda has had nukes in the USA for five years and not used them while we invaded

The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and waited patiently eight years before their next attack.They have demonstrated they are willing to wait more than five years to attack.

If someone had publicly stated on 9/10/01 that some time in the near future a group of terrorists would hijack several planes and use them as WMD's by targeting the World Trade Center Towers, The Pentagon and the U.S. Capital(Plane crashed in PA) the reaction would be the same amount of skepticism being posted in this thread. Obviously myself nor anyone else can prove if this story is accurate but given our porous borders it amazes me so many people can outright dismiss at least the possibility regardless of who sends the message. That kind of denial would be exactly what I would want if I was a terrorist.

[DB]

If a nuke goes off in a US city - nuking Mecca and/or Medina is not nearly enough in response. There better darn well be smoking glass craters all over the middle east and beyond within hours of the event. At that point playing nice is out.

[DB]

One needs evidence.

Otherwise it is just scaremongering to make money.

Where's the evidence?

[television is just wrong]

OTM, other than Mexicans are being spotted on our borders daily. check out illegal Immigration websites.

It is a big concern.

[Always Right]

Joseph Farah is a very reckless and sloppy reporter. I put more faith in tabloid reports of aliens landing in President Bush's brain.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

If true, then AQ are truly the henchmen of KR. Not only would a stunt like this allow the most aggressive neocons free hand in dealing with Islamofacism, it would dramatically shift the U.S. Demographic red. Virtually all dense population centers in the U.S. are blue, nuking them kills appeasers.

Remember former SecDef Cohen, hardly a neocon, was saying after 9/11 that nukes were not off the table (Saddam, "The American People need to be reasonable." Dirty Harry, "I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it.")

The president would turn to Pakhistan's PM/dictator du jour and say, "You have 30 days to hand me Osama's head on a pike or Islamabad is a glassy parking lot." To the Saudis, "Close down the terror breeding ponds or you're now New Texas."

[Joe Boucher]

I'm not disputing your reply, just aking how you may know what routine maintenance is needed other then say a new energiger battery?

[Man50D]

The operative phrase in my post is

at least the possibility

. You maybe correct but then again what evidence could anyone show that would convince the American public who is on the outside looking in. Most individuals have no way of proving there is or isn't WMD's of any kind in the U.S. So it is reasonable to assume there is always a possibility. No one had any evidence terrorists would attack us on 9/11/01 in such a manner but it happened. The prudent reaction would be to verify Farah's statements with other sources just as a person seeks a second or third opinion for medical advice and not automatically rule out the possibility.

[dinodino]

I believe the tritium has to be refreshed. They don't exactly sell that stuff at the Ace Hardware...

[Rebelbase]

[millefleur]

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.


But the borders are STILL OPEN!!!!!

[GermanBusiness]

[invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hunted them down and killed 2/3 of their leadership? What are they waiting for? Us to do something to make them really, really mad?]

Actually, yes. I moved away from New York City one month after the 9-11 attacks when an AP wire report mentioned a nuke in Manhattan and, within 10 minutes, made the wire report disappear. It spooked me. Since then I've seen Bush playing "chicken" with the enemy...basically fighting them according to rules laid out in advance so there would be no misunderstanding.

First: Bush announced a war that would last many years. Why did he do that? On September 12th, a lot of us were thinking that the slaughtering of 40 Saudi clerics and Prince Najef wouldn't take more than a week. I was thinking "What gives?" Then I realized: we were really in a cold war with a nuclear power. We would have to fight this war as a string of conventional battles where the direct leadership of the other side was never actually threatened. Just as we fought in Vietnam against the Kremlin, we ended up fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq against Rijad and Mecca.

Bush asked Al Qaeda to prove their manhood by fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan. I remember thinking "this means that they can have a nuke in Manhattan but not risk a nuclear exchange that would take Mecca out when they might actually win in Afghanistan against us...especially if the American left had lots of anti-war protests.

Then Bush telegraphed the Iraq War a year in advance. He played chicken with the enemy in Saudi Arabia. He gave them a chance to organize a left wing cold war against America that would "hold us back". Bush got our allies to hold us back on purpose and then give "insurgents" the idea that they could turn Iraq into another Vietnam. It may have been more than just the Flypaper Effect Bush was after.

The way to stop a nuke from exploding is to always give the enemy reason to believe that they can win another way and that they are winning the other way. America's left wing seems to be helping Al Qaeda decide that America can be defeated from within, without a nuclear exchange.

I don't see Bush doing what needs to be done in Syria and Iran now that they have crossed the line with the London bombings. This says to me: they have nukes in US cities. Otherwise, we would liberate those two countries. The London bombings show me that the other side feels comfortable with bringing small bombings to England because they have drawn a line in the sand that we cannot cross in retaliation. The London bombings show me that a new Cold War has begun. We are only allowed to retaliate with subway bombings of our own (which we will not do) but I understand that they will no longer tolerate anymore regime changes. We can do nothing about the London bombings but treat it as a criminial investigation. If the investigation shows Syrian connections, our own government will downplay these findings or bury them.

I don't get any idea at all that nukes are NOT in American cities. I am NOT living in an American city until the government tells me the truth about what THEY know.

One reason why I would like to see war in Iran is precisely so that I know they don't have nukes in the USA.

Where, for instance, are Jenna and Barbara Bush living? If one of them is in Manhattan, then I would admit to being wrong about this. I want to be wrong here.

[taxed2death]

CIA secrets and the Hollywood connection

Actor-director Forest Whitaker is finding himself caught up in an intrigue he never expected nor can possibly deal with. While in Minnesota shooting his new film, "The Falconer," he had the crew dig a long canal so that he could shoot a highly dramatic tracking shot that would really offer some emotional force. But, in the process of upturning all this earth, the crew came across a very strange thing indeed. It was a large strongbox of sorts, firmly planted in the ground. After a lot of heaving and huffing they finally managed to get the buried shed open and were shocked at what they found inside.

Turns out it was a cache of weapons, loads of them, as well as an information retrieval system that managed to intercept what Forest Whitaker later learned were CIA communications. Much like the storehouses former KGB higher-up Vasili Mitrokhin has revealed the Soviets were planting all along the midwest.

Shouldn’t have been a problem for Forest if he had just reported the spectacular find to the local authorities. Unfortunately Whitaker apparently viewed some highly explosive materials, materials the CIA really wish he hadn’t. Whitaker was so freaked out he immediately stopped production on the film and left the set for his Holiday Inn in Brainerd. He has not been heard from since.

Authorities speculate Whitaker is in hiding – others speculate those same authorities put him in hiding. Whatever way you look at it, the man who last directed "Hope Floats" appears to have lost all hope. And who knows what he could have seen (it can’t have been much worse than "Hope Floats

[NeonKnight]

Lots of good info on both portable nuclear devices and nuclear land mines here...CNS - "Suitcase Nukes": A Reassessment

A short maintenance schedule is an intriguing feature of portable nuclear devices, which is particularly important from the counterterrorism perspective: If that information is correct, such devices would be useless or have limited utility after only a few years, begging the question of whether terrorists would envision the same purpose for such devices as the Soviet Union. The period between routine maintenance--only six months--might seem very short, but short maintenance periods appear to be a typical feature of all Soviet warheads.

Without detailed knowledge of the design of Soviet warheads, it would be impossible to know which components needed replacement at what time intervals. Two potential candidates are tritium and the neutron generator, which may use radioactive materials that decay over time. It seems possible, for example, that Soviet designers balanced on the threshold, using only just enough plutonium to achieve critical mass and relied on tritium to generate required yield. In that case, even modest degradation of tritium could have resulted in a significant drop of yield. Thus, it would be safe to assume that without proper maintenance, portable nuclear devices might still produce chain reaction, but yield would be minimal, and with time, possibly non-existent.

[mel]

I guess it would take something on that scale before some of the Democrats would not say solve the problem thru diplomacy.

[Mad Mammoth]

Joseph Farah reporting on a report by Joseph Farah.

EXACTLY.

There is no doubt, a big threat of nuclear terrorism not only to the United States, but to our allies, the U.K., Australia, or any nation that has opposed the Islamofascist jihadists.

The only thing bigger than that threat is Joe Farah's massive ego.

He so desperately wants to be a "player", he can taste it.

So which is it Joe?

First, you insist that Iran will detonate an EMP nuke over America to fry our infrastructure, now you're going off about al Qaeda nukes "already" in the U.S.

So which is it? Either, or both?

Oh wait Joe, I know: if I subscribe to your (drum roll please) "G2 INTEL NEWSLETTER", and send you my cash each month, you will keep me informed on ALL of these potential threats, in addition to peppering me with MORE urgings to subscribe to this offer, or that offer, or whatever offer will help eliminate the threat of WorldNetDaily being unable to meet their coffee budget for the month.

There ARE real terrorist threats, no question about it folks, but make no mistake: Farah and his WND crowd are making the most of it, and their objective is to profit from it.

And for that, I say:

Stuff it up your suitcase nuke Joe.