Hamad Mir - "Terrorists will Use Nukes in America if U.S. Bombs Iran!"

Terrorism Press COnference ^ | 4-28-06 | Bob J

[Bob J]

In a just concluded debate and press conference, author and FBI Consultant Paul Williams and Jeff Epstein of "America's Truth Forum" reveal they have been advised by Pakistani journalist and Bin Laden biographer Hamid Amir that Al-Qaeda will use smuggled nukes against the US if the US takes military action against Iran.

Amir established his credentials by correctly predicting that Egypt would be hit by terrorist action a full two weeks prior to the events of last week. Amir, a Pakistani journalist, has been in contact with high ranking Al-Qaeda officials for several years.

The debate (between Richard Miniter and Paul Williams) and press conference were webcast LIVE by Rightalk.com. Audio files of both events will be available for downloading by this afternoon.

[Colorado Doug]

If they were that stupid, we wouldn't have two big buildings down.

I have to disagree. They lost a huge amount of their funding, two countries and tens of thousands of their lives for their trouble and have had Uncle Sam breathing down their sorry necks ever since. No, they are not smart. Any fool can destroy, what have they built?

[JasonC]

Oh. A Pakistani journalist says so. Must be true then, right? Anyone survey Pakistani journalists on who perpetrated 9-11? Really trustworthy source, that.

[Colorado Doug]

The best we could do is nuke what we think is Al Qaeda's hideout...which is in Pakistan.

No, that's not the best we could do. We could finally take the gloves off and not have to worry about public opinion while we mopped up the streets with dead Islamists. Why, I'll bet we could even get away with putting panties on their miserable heads.

[Southack]

"I think we should go out and fight against Islam -- that evil and false and oppressive religion and make it illiegal the whole world over. Destroying Islam is the same thing as destroying Nazism. With both they were a form of *government*. That's the way it is with Islam. With Nazism, it had it's religious components, too -- and we destroyed it. Islam has no separation of religion from the state government. With them, it's *one and the same thing*. So, we are destroying an evil and repressive regime that crosses several political boundaries. The *nation* that needs to get *smashed* (as you put it) is the "Nation of Islam" as they themselves refer to it. I say let's completely destroy the "Nation of Islam" and get rid of that evil and repressive regime. Otherwise, they will be doing something to get rid of us -- and severely cripple us, as a nation."

First, you need to learn your history. The Nazis were Fascists. There were 3 major Fascist nations in WW2: Italy, Germany, and Spain. There were of course several minor Fascist nations of little count.

Of those 3 Fascist nations, the U.S. destroyed 1 (Germany), turned 1 into an ally during the war via diplomacy (Italy), and kept the other neutral during the war as well as made it a NATO ally after the war (Spain).

For your analogy of total war against the Nazis to be applied to Islam today, some elements (perhaps even nations) of Islam would have to be destroyed militarily, others turned into allies, and the rest kept neutral in the global conflict...yet this is clearly not what you propose.

You propose the wholesale destruction of Islam even though Turkey is our NATO ally, Montenegro has Islamic troops fighting on our side in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait provide friendly ports and troop bases, etc.

Hamid Kharzai is a diehard pro-American Muslim. He is leading an entirely pro-U.S. government in Afghanistan. He replaced the Northern Alliance's Massood, a long-term U.S. ally dating back to Afghanistan's war against the Soviets circa 1979/1980...and who fought the Taliban without us until we joined the game late.

In short, you'd backstab our allies and turn 1.6 Billion people against us for no good reason save that you are afraid of your own shadow.

You'd bring about the very war that Osama Bin Laden desires...of religion versus religion. You agree with his goal.

Frankly, that makes you an enemy of the U.S.

[grey_whiskers]

You appear to not know how central the destruction of Mecca is to the moslem apocalypse.

Wait until the annual pilgrimage, and then at the height of the ceremonies, carpet bomb that big ole' black rock and its environs with C-5 galaxy transports carrying pigs. :-)

WE wouldn't have destroyed Mecca. Just defiled it a little...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Really? By whom? Homeland Security? The CIA? FBI? The Border Patrol? Port security?

Who else?

"And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you kids!"

Ruh-Roh!

[grey_whiskers]

Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).

Interesting point, the uranium in uranium oxide would still be fissionable, as fission is a nuclear reaction.

My questions would be twofold:

1) Would the presence of oxygen change the energy dependence of the neutron capture cross section, affecting the yield?

1a) Or the difference from that is too small?

2) Would the plutonium "rust" change important factors like density, shape, etc. so that the "implosion" of a "Fat man" would not achieve the desired density, or not achieve it quickly enough, resulting in a lowered yield?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Clean plutonium metal does not burn at room temperature, but the higher temperatures associated with machining plutonium metal have caused numerous fires in the finely-divided plutonium metal machine scraps. Second, the decay of short-lived plutonium-241 in plutonium metal yields americium-241, which emits penetrating gamma radiation."

Great, so you have small particles laden with gamma-emitters, finely dispersed into the air, just right for inhaling.

That would suck.

Cheers!

[Southack]

"Interesting point, the uranium in uranium oxide would still be fissionable, as fission is a nuclear reaction."

Only in the sense that all matter is fissionable to some degree...just not within our technical reach for most of it to go boom.

[Southack]

"1) Would the presence of oxygen change the energy dependence of the neutron capture cross section, affecting the yield? 1a) Or the difference from that is too small? 2) Would the plutonium "rust" change important factors like density, shape, etc. so that the "implosion" of a "Fat man" would not achieve the desired density, or not achieve it quickly enough, resulting in a lowered yield?"

Uranium Oxide (i.e. rust, commonly seen in nature or after rudimentary refining as yellowcake) is typically a neutron absorber...certainly the critical chain reaction speed is changed going from Uranium to Uranium Oxide...not a good thing for a precisely calculated boom.

[Southack]

"Great, so you have small particles laden with gamma-emitters, finely dispersed into the air, just right for inhaling. That would suck."

...And they're pyhrophoric...easily self-igniting in the presence of air and just a little heat...plus, plutonium (and uranium for that matter) is extremely brittle...not exactly metals that one would see machined in Joe Average's Machine Shop on Broad Street.

[El Gato]

Exactly how would they do that?

There's probably lot 's of ways. But just shooting them while they try to deploy their "device" would seem the simplest. Texans have lots of ass kicking practice.

[grey_whiskers]

Thank you for the courteous reply.

Cheers!

[DB]

Why would they use a missile?

Why not just an oil tanker, a freighter or a commercial airliner?

Much easier and much more reliable.

And readily available...

[The_Media_never_lie]

Does anybody think they won't if we don't?

You beat me to it. I think they would if they could.

[1234]

"...there will be nuclear retaliation against any identified source within 90 minutes..."

i keep hearin that isotope ID's can reliably be achieved-U tellin me that based on a lab analysis we'd burn pakistan if some 'splinter group' got its goodies from the pakkies?!

[jstolzen]

About 2-3 months after 9/11, there was an official statement from the White House saying that US policy is to retaliate with nuclear weapons to any WMD attack on the US. (I was relieved to see this come across my cell phone as a News Alert from the AP and thought "good for Dubya"). I personally believe this is a VERY big part of why we never saw a city or two get taken out in a follow up attack. (And, I do believe they have the capability - the USSR's collapse alone almost guarantees it - ANYTHING and EVERYTHING has been/is for sale..you don't think AQ with all of their hundreds of millions of $$s from their drug business could pick up a couple of the "big toys"?!)

Now, if Dubya is in the WH, I'd say this would happen. The Hildabeast - she'd probably invite the bad guys to the Rose Garden for tea.

[Caipirabob]

If we get nuked, America with seethe.

Conservatives will seethe. Liberals will justify. RINOs will compromise...

[Colorado Doug]

So, what are you going to do about the most holy of the holy sites, the Dome of the Rock?

That would be the Jews most holy site, not islam's. Every place mohammad took a pi$$ is a holy site to islam.

[gakrak]

I really doubt this claim.

"reveal they have been advised by Pakistani journalist and Bin Laden biographer Hamid Amir that Al-Qaeda will use smuggled nukes against the US if the US takes military action against Iran."

If they had them, they would have already used them. As we know from 9/11 no provocation is needed by these terrorists. We need to stop Iran before they can use nukes. Amen.