Chertoff warns of nuclear terror

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 8/1/05 | WorldNetDaily.com

[verity]

Let's have a division of labor: I'll worry about cancer and you worry about nukes. ;-)

[Man50D]

I never would have posted the thread if I wanted to "squirm away" from the subject. Michael Chertoff, not Joseph Farah is the subject of the thread. Securing the borders is one option. We should also profile based on common characteristics of past terrorists that include:

1.Muslim
2. Males
3. Age range 17-40 years of age.

This is criminal profiling, not racial profiling . That type of profiling assumes all people of one race are guilty absent any facts. The parameters can be adjusted if the characteristics change. Another suggestion is to report anyone who is wearing a coat during the hot weather. That just a few ideas.

[Man50D]

Precisely! If you can find one person who isn't credible who makes a statement of fact, that fact is automatically proven untrue.

You misunderstand my point. That is my fault for not explaining myself clearly so I'll rephrase my point. You make several assumptions.

1. You accuse Joseph Farah of not being credible but don't provide specific examples to cite a pattern of deception or inaccuracy.
2. Your accusation assumes someone who has not been credible in the past could never be credible in the future.
3. You assume anyone who is deemed not credible automatically invalidates the credibility of any credible person who independently reaches the same conclusion.

[Man50D]

True enough. I suspect that if any one of us were getting the President's morning intel briefings and threat assessments, we would all be either totally grey-haired, or bald from pulling our hair out.

I believe the politically correct terms are a person whose hair lacks pigmentation and folically challenged. Careful with your terms. Someone might think your too insensitive to appease the terrorists.

[TBall]

I don't know, if Bill Clinton told me the sky was blue I would have to wonder what his definition of was was.

[Man50D]

So long as he doesn't use is.

[kcvl]

What are they doing to stop these terrorists?

*itching about President Bush's every move! They aren't interested in PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY. They never have been and never will be interested in National Security. They had rather spend the money, time and energy on SOCIAL CHANGES and force us to believe as they do.

Besides, EVERYTHING is the fault of the UNITED STATES, anyway, according to them. We caused the TERRORISTS to hate us. Before that the TERRORISTS were nothing more than freedom loving citizens. /sarcasm

You know "freedom fighters"!

[garybob]

I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.

Last week, Jeff Jocoby wrote an article titled "Failures of Intelligence". In his opening paragraph, he wrote:

Three weeks before the London bombings of July 7, Britain’s Joint Terrorist Analysis Center advised policymakers that ‘‘at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK.’’ That reassuring message from the country’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials, The New York Times reported last week, prompted the British government to lower its terror alert. Less than a month later, 52 people were murdered and 700 wounded when three subway trains and a bus were blown up in the worst act of terrorism the United Kingdom has experienced since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

You haven't a clue as to what the terrorists may or may not be capable of, yet you lightly dismiss the warnings. Although I never was a assigned to a nuclear capable unit, I did receive the training in the so-called "back pack nukes". There's a lot of that training I've forgotten, but one thing I do remember is that if those thugs manage to get their hands on suitcase nukes or nuclear material, it will make 9/11 look tame.

The best option is treat the threat like Y2K. IOW, stay ready to keep from having to get ready.

[Iris7]

Nukes have to happen sometime. This has been obvious all of my life, nearly 60 years. "Fat and Sassy" America is not forever.

[cynwoody]

Let's see ... the ninth is a weekday, a Tuesday, in fact, and also the 60th anniversary of Nagasaki.

[truth_seeker]

" If Islamic terrorists somehow defied the odds and managed to detonate a nuke anywhere on U.S. soil, the whole of the Islamic world would soon be glowing green glass, because if the U.S. did NOT respond that way, we might as well run up the white flag and surrender."

What makes you think we would respond any differently, than we did to 9/11/2001 ?

We zeroed in to the best idea of where the attack originated. We did nothing whatsoever to Saudi Arabia, home country to the majority of the perps.

I have no idea of the real capability of our nuclear arsenal, in terms of maximum kill power, if directed at major population centers.

Let's assume one nuclear device was exploded in the US, killing 500,000. Let's further assume it is learned it came in via Mexico and that the perps were from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morroco.

Would we retaliate against those four nations (Mexico included) for providing the birthplaces and transit route?

Hitting Holy sites is certain to widen the entire war, with little to no "military" target benefit.

Any place you bomb, you still need ground troops to occupy and control.

Blowing up petroleum related installations shuts down the world's economy, but even if we spared them, locals might well blow them up.

The alternative is a more localized "police" action like Afghanistan, which I recall has a population around 17 million. We don't control everything there.

And our present Army and Marines are too few, to handle much more on-the-ground occupation.

The best course of action looking forward from today, is mainly preventative.

Clamp down the borders drastically. Admit no muslims, period, for any reason.
Expell virtually all non-citizen muslims.
Begin Homeland de-islamification of every citizen and legal resident muslim, like we did in Germany after WWII. That means each individual is scrutinized.
Detain anybody in the slightest suspect; like Internment.
Warn every nation in the world to do likewise, under huge threats.
Begin draft, and go to full world war mobilization mode.

[jpsb]

"Many people were skeptical because" .... our borders are wide open, nobody home, nobody cares, gangs, criminals, terrorist all get a free ticket in, so as long as the borders stay wide open they I am pretty sure the feds are not worried about terrorist in the usa.

[The Red Zone]

Fat and sassy will give way -- to angry as h*ll.

[SaintDismas]

Even I'm afraid what such an attack will precipitate as our response. >>>>

What are you thinking will happen? Something along the lines of what Tancredo said?

[thefactor]

although the threat should be taken seriously, most of the fallout from a nuclear device detonated in the US will be purely psychological. there will most likely not be enough radiation to kill too many people. they would take more people with a large conventional bomb and that is what they are looking to do.

[Man50D]

although the threat should be taken seriously, most of the fallout from a nuclear device detonated in the US will be purely psychological. there will most likely not be enough radiation to kill too many people. they would take more people with a large conventional bomb and that is what they are looking to do.

Do you have specific knowledge of how many kilotons a terrorist may use in a nuclear bomb? Are you a with an intelligence or law enforcement agency that is privy to this information? Do you have a source inside one of these agencies who is relaying the information to you?

Your statement is merely conjecture barring anyone of the above circumstances.

[thefactor]

well, good thing i am part of a law inforcement agency that is trained by the department of homeland security in these matters. wouldn't want to be full of conjecture...

[Man50D]

well, good thing i am part of a law inforcement agency that is trained by the department of homeland security in these matters. wouldn't want to be full of conjecture...

In that case I trust your opinion since you probably know more than most. There are people who make general statements based on only assumptions. Consequently I have a healthy dose of skepticism and that's why I asked the questions. Thanks for the information.

[MagnoliaB]

When I read articles like this, I think of the message from al-Qaeda Oct. 2004:

"Allah willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about Sept. 11."

I think the only reason we haven't been attacked again since 9/11 is because the next attack has to be much greater. If it's not they will lose face among their followers. Suicide bombers blowing themselves up in US shopping malls is not all that impressive after 9/11. A next attack will have to be all or nothing.