Could Terrorists Build a Nuclear Bomb?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p07s02-wosc.html

Now the question begs to be answered - are there others like him and if so, how many, and of course, al Qaeda has enough money to buy nuclear secrets and scientists - even from an Iranian government or an unemployed Russian nuclear scientist - and Russia has unaccounted-for nukes. Where are they?

The first suggested date in the "chatter" for al-Qaeda's "American Hiroshima" is on August 6, 2005 - the 60th anniversary date of our first nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

And I do believe Tom Tancredo's comments re: this couldn't have come at a better time.

Of course, a President couldn't make similar comments and get by with it, but a lowly Congressman can and can drive the point home effectively. </font>[/QUOTE]If we truley connected all the dots concerning the terrorists I suspect we'd all be called conspiracy theorists. Most of the time the dots run all the way back to the CIA, MI5, MI6, the Russian FSB, secret operations, ex police, ex military, and government. Their is no need for order if you don't have chaos. Problem reaction solution.

 

What to do in case of a Nuclear Attack:

http://www.ki4u.com/guide.htm

Remembering the fallout shelter craze in the 1950s and 1960s....history seems to repeat itself. (sigh)

There is NO WAY I'm getting into our crawl space. Zip! Nada! Zilch! First sign of a spider and my heart would fail anyway.

 

After the first bombing of the WTC, people said, "It can never happen again."

When the Oklahoma Federal Building exploded - everyone's first thought was that it was the terrorists, but when the truth came out, people shrugged it off and laughed at those who were nervous.

They called people who were worried about terrorists repeating their attacks silly, and they made jokes about conspiracy buffs then too.

We've just seen them attack London, and Spain, and yet - there are still people saying we're worried about nothing? I don't understand what it takes to make you worried? Does it have to be your own backyard?

 

Scott,

I don't know much about the Nazi's, I was speaking of those fighting the Nazi's.

That said, I disagree with you regarding the communication and orders from above and the terrorists. Papers were found during the raids following September 11th that indicated the men who carried that out had been carefully instructed in what to do. They had lists reminding them to make sure their wills, passports, tickets, etc., were in order. They had "packing lists" telling them what to carry and what to wear. Someone was telling them what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.

 

If you have not read the 9-11 Commission's Report you should. Pay special attention to the section about the first WTC bombing in 1993, and the information gleaned from it.

It tells how terrorists entered the country on passports from Pakistan and Egypt, one of them requesting political assylum. How they were lead, in the US, by a Shiek. How they were trained, and their plans made at a terrorist training camp on the Afghanistand-Pakistan Border. Their training included how to build bombs, and came complete with a "terrorist kit" that had bomb-making manuals, operations guideance, video tapes advocating terrorist attacks against the us, and false identification documents.

This isn't the "untrained madman" we wish it was.

 

I highly suspect that none of the people posting here have read the 9-11 report. TS you are right. It IS very easy to sit back and claim things we they dont do their homework.

I think you are already there buddy.

That is good, because the LAST THING I would ever want would be to be included in the hell bound Islamic world.

Maybe so, but they didnt appear terrible stable on October 12, 2001 nor today. Futile commentary.

You will have to pardon me while I file you away as a juvenile because only someone who was an adult during the first Gulf War would know that our presence on their holy (whatever) lands was asked for. Yep, THATS RIGHT daisy - the Saudi Arabian government invited us to be there and in fact built several amazing and beautiful places that only American troops can go. So I guess your next breath of hot air will sound something like..."well you shouldnt have gone" or something equally dumb.

You dont think at all, THAT is plain to see. Whatever you believe right now is sure to change because people like you are a dime a dozen, these are the same people that will be beating on the door of heaven after the Father has closed it, and He will not know you.

You apologize for too many things such as standing up for one's self. And you think it is just and fair when people that live alongside you get mowed down by some crazy kooks with a bomb or box cutter.

My next question to you would be (if I really cared to hear you answer) is that if someone like Timothy McVeigh got on a plane from Baghdad International that was traveling to Jordan and rammed it into one of the 145 palaces Saddam has built for himself, would you be saying that people on the plane deserved it because a long time ago, they were fighting Americans in Kuwait?

One good thing about trends, is they change. Next year Daisy will sport the new black which is really blue, and be a follower of Mormonism. Whatever. You seem to be one hedging her bets instead of sticking to what you believe in. How trendy. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

Daisy -

It was not George Bush or the War that alienated the Islamic world. The attacks against the United States targets were going on a long time before that happened.

Twenty-four bases set up and taking orders from one man sounds very stable to me. Seems to me the US military works in a similiar fashion, bases all over the world, a few men giving orders.

I think the efficiency they have shown in carrying out the attacks they have made, getting messages to the world, getting information to their operatives - without Bid Laden ever being found even with the whole world looking for him - shows an extremely stable situation.

 

As the only remaining superpower, the US is very much of this world. Alienating a fair-size, armed and violent chunk of it may not be the wisest step we ever took. We also alienated a good portion of Europe and North America, all in the same step.

Or maybe not.

Argue that one with TexasSky.

Always inciteful, emeraldcityangel.

I thought that was covered by "[their] gripe was as much against the Fahds..." seeing as how the Fahds run the government.

Insult noted to which I'll add: isn't it a bit too easy to make up something and then insult me as if I had said it instead of you?

Another insult noted.

Insult, personal attack and declaration of my damnation all noted.

What is the proper number of things to apologize for? I think I should apologize for each wrong I've done. However, I don't recall not standing up for myself - au contraire - nor do I remember apologizing for not having done so ~~~ but, if I didn't, then I won't, k?

I actually don't think that. Who are you to declare to my face that I do?

I find it disturbing that you imagine such a thing. Are you all right?

Mormonism has been passe for several months now.

What possible basis have you for that strange yet rude remark towards me? I've been steady in my opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I thought it was a bad idea when it first came up and I still think so.

Why are you making up things about me?

 

Which Bush and which War? We had most the world's sympathy and good-will after 9\11. We were in a position to persuade most governments to work together in suppressing terrorists in a truly global effort. We squandered the opportunity.

When I said they did not have a stable base from which to run a nuclear programme, I meant physically stable base. One needs equipment & electricity, engineers & scientists for these things (or so I believe). Being on the move from one hidey hole to another is unstable. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

But to your point, if so much of their strenth depends on one man, one leader why didn't we concentrate on bringing him down (or in)? Bush declared that bin Laden was unimportant.

How much of their organizational structure do we really know and how much is speculation?

 

Opinion.</font>[/QUOTE] You can't be serious.

You think the terrorists might want a society where they turn control over to the people?

That is pretty much on par with how realistic the rest of your response was.

These people don't want to live and let live. They ignored the relief effort we directed at the Muslim victims of tsunami. They ignored our aid to Muslims in the Balkans... They even ignored our lack of response to Muslim genocide of Christians in the Sudan.

They don't want to think good things about us or allow the people within their realm of influence to do so... and they want their realm of influence to grow.

boundaries.

Well, lots of Moslems are dying, if that's a good thing.</font>[/QUOTE] Frankly, I think it is a much better thing than the obvious alternative. Either we can be killing terrorists while they kill those who should have done something about them before we did or else we can play defense and hope that terrorists don't blow up the Rose Bowl and 100K people on New Years Day.

Silence in this case is very much consent... and this moderate majority that supposedly exists among Muslims is nothing if not silent.

 

Daisy,

They don't need a "nuclear program" to build an atomic bomb.

 

Which Bush and which War? We had most the world's sympathy and good-will after 9\11. We were in a position to persuade most governments to work together in suppressing terrorists in a truly global effort. We squandered the opportunity.</font>[/QUOTE] Now THAT is an opinion.

You are assuming that those who helped us with terrorism but not Iraq would have had more staying power without Iraq. There is no tangible reason to believe this at all.

In fact, your argument is defeated by the fact that Islamic terrorism continued in nations that did not help with Iraq.

 

I guess Daisy thinks we should have just allowed Kuwait to fall to Saddam.

 

I know.

Yes, that is my assumption and I disagree that there is no reason to believe that.

Interesting point here - you said that "...[they] helped us with terrorism but not Iraq..."
Does this mean that you do not equate terrorism and Iraq? Or are you just acknowledging that this part of my argument?

[Aside: Are reasons tangible, ever? I guess they could be...for instance, if you pointed to your children and declared, "Those are my reasons!" then you would have tangible reasons, right? But I usually think of reasons as intangible ideas.]

You're saying that my argument (that we lost the goodwill of those who fought alongside us in Afghanistan when we invaded, unprovoked*, Iraq) is falsified because nations which did not join us against in the new war continued to be the target of Islamic terrorists? Could you please explain that a bit further because I'm not following your logic?


*my argument, my framing

 

Why not ask instead of guessing?

 

A few here will discredit the main messenger, about the "American Hiroshima" - but I'm posting this link to the column from today here anyway for those who might be interested:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18986

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 01:15 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Today on the radio I heard that Iran is 10 years to developing a nuclear bomb, moved back from 5. It just doesn't seem likely to me that nomad terrorists would be so much further ahead with no facilities and no actual uranium.

BBC News Report (&lt;--linkie)

 

What do they need to build one?