Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MUSLIM CLERIC INSISTS 20 'SUITCASE NUKES' IN U.S.
News Max.com ^ | Monday, November 19, 2001 GMT | Dave Eberhart

Posted on 11/18/2001 1:38:32 PM PST by codebreaker

A leading Muslim cleric Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA), insists bin Ladens network has bought more than 20 nuclear warheads carried in suitcases.

In 1999 Kabbani first warned the U.S. State Department of bin Laden's impending terrorism.

He told the U.S. Government bin Laden was training suicide bombers in Afghanistan ready to move to any part of the world.

Kabbani said the nuclear weapons, sometimes referred to as "suitcase bombs", were sold by the Russian mafia.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqaedanukes; jihadinamerica; suitcasenukes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-295 next last
To: NeonKnight
Besides, if you were a Russian Nuclear Scientist with access to Nukes, who would you feel safer selling to...Bin-Laden operatives, or US Agents? You are never going to get caught selling to US agents, and you can rest assured that they will never be used.

If the devices were old and in need of a tritium recharge, a Russian in need of some cash would be tempted to sell them to the OBL operatives, "knowing" that the devices were duds and could not be used. It is possible even that the OBL operatives did not identify themselves as such, but rather claimed to be Pakistani agents, trying to scrounge up as much fissile material that they could to recycle into their own bomb program. The Russian might have figured that the Pakistanis already had the bomb anyway, and that by helping them to even up the balance with the Indians he might actually be doing the world a favor.

What he wouldn't have known is that OBL operatives (again possibly claiming to be Pakistani agents) would also be talking to other cash-strapped Russians about purchasing a fresh supply of tritium.

241 posted on 11/19/2001 8:17:39 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: jerseygirl
what exactly was in the suitcase in the locker found in the Philly bus station awhile back---news said C4--no comments since........

I heard a pound of C4 and about 1700 feet of cord explosives (the kind used to demolish bulidings.)
242 posted on 11/19/2001 8:19:08 AM PST by WyldKard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If these are tritium devices the mafioso are laughing their a__es off. Nothing is harder to make or come by.

This is why it is credible to think that they might have actually sold them -- they thought they were taking in a sucker.

Tritium is VERY expensive and very hard to come by. My biggest fear is that Al Qaeda could have cut a deal with Pakistan to represent them as middlemen in obtaining a supply from Russia for Pakistan's nuclear program. Pakistan is trying to build as many nukes as possible as quickly as possible, and tritium is surely a key limiting factor -- perhaps THE limiting factor. Surely Pakistan would like to obtain a supplemental supply and would pay well for it. At the same time, it would be advantageous to use a middleman so that there would be some deniability. If Al Qaeda operated in such a role, it would be very easy for them to skim off a little of the tritium to use for their own purposes. If this happened, we are in deep danger.

243 posted on 11/19/2001 8:24:18 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard
You could be right, in which case these weapons would be highly unpracticle for use by a terrorist organization. Tritium is not an element that you can get at your local NukesRus outlet. I wonder how they did it with those nuclear artillary shells?
244 posted on 11/19/2001 8:26:33 AM PST by Zorobabel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: WyldKard
Of course, it decays out into Helium-3, which is a neutron sink...which is why you have to swap it out every few weeks. Doesn't take much He3 to poison a chain reaction, or so I am led to believe.

Not so frequently as every few weeks, but every few years, yes. Half life is around 10 years or so. I don't believe that they don't need to recharge the SLBMs while they are at sea for months at a time, for example.

If the story implies that these were obtained by OBL no later than 1998, then they might possibly need a recharge by now. My guess is that they had not been recharged for many years when OBL bought them -- those who sold them to him knew that they would be duds. If OBL has procured some relatively fresh tritium within the past 2-3 years, we are in deep danger.

245 posted on 11/19/2001 8:29:36 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: kingh99
Sure we would remove the troops...

and glass over that whole region.

get a grip.

Why don't you get a grip man. That is what OBL wants. Or don't you follow current events.

Dontcha just love how people shoot the messenger on these forums?

246 posted on 11/19/2001 8:33:36 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: meridia
PLEASE tell me you're right, to wit: the nukes are NOT in the USA. I hope you are right. When I read my husband the lead article in this thread, he said the same thing you did. He's always contended that they used up all their weaponry on 911, and that there'll be NO further terrorist attacks on American soil for a very very very long time, if ever.

They used up a few box cutters and nineteen out of who-knows-how-many hundreds or thousands of fanatical Islamic zealots. The key to both conventional and unconventional warfare is SUSTAINED ATTACK. Even a blitzkrieg only works if the initial shock is followed up in a sustained way.

No, 9/11 was only the opening salvo. It is extremely naive, wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Sorry to break the news to you about your husband. ;-)

247 posted on 11/19/2001 8:37:04 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
Why haven't they already been used? I can think of at least four reasons why they would be waiting to use them -- all four may be coming up within the next 10 days!

There are plenty of reasons why OBL would use his nuclear arsenal last. We discussed them in a thread titled: "Why Bin Laden Would Use Nuclear Weapons Last" Whatever the next date of terror is to be you can be sure that it is coming. Notice that the administration is always very careful to say that the action that we have undertaken in Afghanistan will NOT "stop what is in the can" or "stop what is in the pipe." Those operations have been planned for many years, financed and are already underway. The operatives will stick to their schedules no matter what happens in Afghanistan or to OBL.

Another thing. If you want to know whether or not the Administration thinks that OBL has nuclear capability don't watch their lips: "We don't believe he does at this time" Watch their actions. They never allow Cheney and Bush in the same city at the same time. What do people think this is to prevent? To keep them from reading the same Antrhax mail?

248 posted on 11/19/2001 8:41:20 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
Not so frequently as every few weeks, but every few years, yes. Half life is around 10 years or so. I don't believe that they don't need to recharge the SLBMs while they are at sea for months at a time, for example.

What I was always lead to believe was that while you could get away with years on a large warhead, or hydrogen bomb (seven years or so.) It was closer to weeks for a suitcase nuke because there are such small sizes involved...that the He3 produced in just a few weeks worth of decay is enough to risk compromising the chain reaction. Of course, I could be wrong, too...
249 posted on 11/19/2001 8:54:49 AM PST by WyldKard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: ecru
how much damage can a suitcase nuke do? Are we talking taking a whole city out? or a few blocks? I wonder how far radiation would spread...hmmm...

Total, WTC or Hiroshima-style destruction, and 75-100% casualties, perhaps a few blocks up to 1/2 mile.

Substantial (50-75%) building losses due to fire & structural damage (i.e., quite a few buildings may have to be condemned, torn down and rebuilt), and 50-75% casualties, perhaps a 1/2-1 mile radius.

Considerable (25-50%) building losses due to fire & structural damage (i.e., extensive repairs required to most buildings), and 25-50% casualties, perhaps a 1 - 2 mile radius.

Most buildings survive with only minor damage (windows), 5-20% casualties limited mostly to those caught out in the open, perhaps a 2-3 mile radius.

Minor structural damage and small percentage of casualties (many cases of eyesight damage or loss, for example) in a 3-10 mile radius.

Some people get sick, and a small but elevated percentage eventually die due to radiation sickness, cancer, etc., downwind of ground zero.

Remember that quite a few of the buildings nearby that are not demolished by the blast will be finished off by fire. No city has a sufficiently large fire department to respond to all the fires that will be set off by a nuclear detonation anywhere within its borders. This can include wood frame houses up to a mile or more from ground zero, although the fact that with terrorists it would almost surely be a ground burst works to limit this effect.

250 posted on 11/19/2001 8:58:45 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
You know what is the HARDEST thing for me, in discussions such as this? It's that I seriously do not believe myself capable of understanding the THOUGHT PROCESS vis a vis the motivations & goals of the terrorists.... and so... how can I ever *predict* their next action, as all their actions are so antithetical to me?

Frankly, it is sheer COGNITIVE DISSONANCE for me to deal with the RAW HATRED and murderous glee and love of DEATH that I see exhibited in these barbaric savages.

I know that "expert military talking heads" have also claimed that OBL would have used nukes on 911 IF he had them....

I cannot say anything like THAT with assurity and certainty myself, as truly, these al-Qaeda goons are so divorced and contrary to anything I personally know - excepting perhaps, casual reading about clinical psychopathology and many years ago I read a whole slew of books about cults.

The post of mine that you reference shows that although I am very accustomed to the VIEW that OBL could not possibly have nukes ready to boom in this beautiful country... that I nonetheless remain open to the possibility, as there is, I feel, NO way to rationally predict the future actions of a mad "holyman" who is a madhi-WANNABEE - and who am I to delve into his apocalyptic messianic PSYCHOSIS..... ? [_grin_]

251 posted on 11/19/2001 9:02:54 AM PST by meridia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
I don't believe that they don't need to recharge the SLBMs while they are at sea for months at a time, for example.

SLBMs can carry larger warheads, which don't need as much (or perhaps any -- I don't know the details beyond what is obvious to anyone familiar with nuclear physics, and wouldn't say if I did) tritium kick-starting.

252 posted on 11/19/2001 9:04:49 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
If these devices are indeed in place in the USA then they
will be detonated. No amount of backing down or apologizing
will change that. In fact, if U.S. should deign to negotiate or
back down in the face of threats then it is made more sure
that the alleged suitcases would be detonated because U.S.
would be signaling that there is a lack of will to retaliate
in kind, thus rendering far more valuable to the enemy
the destruction resultant.
253 posted on 11/19/2001 9:10:15 AM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meridia
MUSLIM CLERIC INSISTS 20 'SUITCASE NUKES' IN U.S.

U.S. Nuclear Cleric Insists 20,000 "Non-suitcase Nukes" ready for action in ________, ________,________,________, and ________!!

254 posted on 11/19/2001 9:12:32 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
This can include wood frame houses up to a mile or more from ground zero, although the fact that with terrorists it would almost surely be a ground burst works to limit this effect.

Funny you should say this. I was just outside taking a smoke break when I looked up and saw a small single engine plane making its way from our local commuter airport. I thought to myself. Wouln't it be easy to maximize the destruction by detonating a nuclear device above the intended target using a small plane? Espescially given these terrorist fascination with airplanes.

Out of curiosity what could we expect from a .5 - 2 kiloton AIRBURST over the intended target? Could we expect an electromagnetic pulse? If so how much damage would the pulse do and how far in every direction would it travel?

255 posted on 11/19/2001 9:25:56 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
I dont doubt the possibility of these suitcase nukes being purchased by Muslim extremists but if they were in the United States then they would've already been detonated or discovered.......why would these Extremists wait for the Taliban to fall or for U.S. intelligence to shake down the Muslim community before using them?

No...

...they are not in the United States.

Naughty.. Naughty.. You are superimposing Western thinking and logic onto a Mid Eastern terrorist organization. No. They will maintain operational security. If they have been planning such a terrorist attack (and there is every reason to believe that they are) they will wait until the predetermined time. They will not give in to the temptation to strike ahead of schedule.

256 posted on 11/19/2001 9:56:06 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Gasshog
bin Ladens network has bought more than 20 nuclear warheads carried in suitcases.

And that is why they had to hijack planes to crash into the WTC, right?

Yawn.

More faulty logic. Why crash planes into the WTC? Why not? If you have the capability to strike at your enemy without revealing your hole card then why not do so?

257 posted on 11/19/2001 10:00:11 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Here's another earlier article about scholar Kabbani who warned long ago about militant Islamism.

Wall Street Journal article about Sheik Kabbani

258 posted on 11/19/2001 10:13:26 AM PST by meridia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeEveryman
If there were 20 suitcase nukes in the good ole' USA they would pick up signatures on Interspectral Thermal Imaging satellites equipped with GammaCams....In addition, local agencies would pick up the signatures with radiation detection pagers....

Unfortunately this is not true. You don't understand the technology or the physics.

259 posted on 11/19/2001 10:36:30 AM PST by hang 'em
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #260 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-295 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson