Newspaper: Al-Qaida Has Suitcase Nukes

[:) Smiley]

This may actually be a good thing if they have nukes. Since they know if they use it, their country's gonna be turned into a big smoking hole, they'll be reluctant to use it except as a last resort. Likewise, the US will be less inclined to invade left and right. It'd be M.A.D. cold-war style.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think America would lose it's allies if it got nuked, whatever the response (at least, short of turning the entire Muslim world into glow-in-the-dark-stained glass). I think the thinking would be more like "oh ****, they can NUKE us oh **** oh **** oh ****" and then a yellow stain on their crotch (incidentially, this would be the reaction of most Americans ).

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
President Bush/FDR did not plan the wars the U.S. was involved in that's not necessarily the job of the leader. IMO, the best leaders are the ones who can gather the talent and make them work for you.

Indeed, good leaders can gather talent. Great ones, however, add in their own.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't think America would lose it's allies if it got nuked, whatever the response (at least, short of turning the entire Muslim world into glow-in-the-dark-stained glass). I think the thinking would be more like "oh ****, they can NUKE us oh **** oh **** oh ****" and then a yellow stain on their crotch (incidentially, this would be the reaction of most Americans ).

Unfortunately, I think most Americans would have the Muslims nuked. Even a few months after 9/11, a majority of Americans thought nukes should be used against the 'terrorists'. Some people, unfortunately, are criminally stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

I said the ENTIRE Muslim world. Most of us (including me) would probably be content with Mecca and Medina.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
I said the ENTIRE Muslim world. Most of us (including me) would probably be content with Mecca and Medina.

Should I...



or

[Pax]

Skywalker,
1. Let's nuke Jerusalem to show the muslims we mean business. That is one of their holy cities.
2. Put the nuke down and step away from the baby.

[Kuciwalker]

1. Let's nuke Jerusalem to show the muslims we mean business. That is one of their holy cities.

Nah, Jerusalem is in Israel and is holy to other religions too. However, if necessary we could just deny muslims access Mecca and Medina are purely muslim

2. Put the nuke down and step away from the baby.

[Pax]

Originally posted by skywalker
[q]Nah, Jerusalem is in Israel and is holy to other religions too. However, if necessary we could just deny muslims access Mecca and Medina are purely muslim

That's the point. Besides, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same god. So by attacking the places on the basis of religion you're declaring war on your god.
Good luck and please don't stand next to me

[notyoueither]

MAD is based on the possibility and the consequences of the reaction being far too horrible to even think about taking the action.

It is entirely possible to imagine that even terrorists would be detered if they thought the reaction would hurt something too near and dear to them.

A nuke used anywhere in NATO would provoke a reaction that even OBL would not like to contemplate.

[Sava]

Originally posted by obstructor


Sorry - didn`t notice the fact it is foreign - but it is still stupid.

Mass destruction weapons can`t be found on every corner despite what you government thinks.

I respect a bit of paranoia but this si too much.

And about the fact I am Croatia -
well I am form country that suffered much more casulties than you September 11 in recent war, and I am not paranoid about the fact that Ultraradicals, in our former enemy state, have won 28 percent of the votes on general elections solely on program that includes creating Great Serbia and butchering Croats and Moslems.

Not a bit afraid or paranoid.

maybe you {EXPLATIVES] shouldn't have flown the Usteche (nazi collaborators) flag again... never again...

[Gatekeeper]

In the end, I tend to agree with those who postulate that if al-Qaida possessed suitcase nukes, they would've used them by now. If not America, then in Europe. Since neither has happened, al-Qaida's bite is likely limited to more conventional means. Sept. 11, 2001, was their, ah, high-water point. It's been draining ever since.

Nonetheless, it can't hurt to keep one's eyes, ears and other senses open for stuff like this. Just don't put tinfoil on your head. It really doesn't stop the aliens from reading your mind.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

Despite what Eli said, if any city is going to get nuked, it's Tel Aviv. That would either lead to the destruction of most of the Middle East or the effective destruction of Israel, since the Israeli government would have to accept that it could no longer protect its citizens and would no doubt be the prime target for future attacks.

But AFAIK OBL has not attempted to attack Israel and the risk of nuclear retaliation would be too much I feel.

New York or Washington? Perhaps. But why would OBL want another terrorist attack? He got what he wanted - the US attacking and occupying Muslim countries, so that he could get at them. He's been quite clear about this - what he wants is exactly what happened to the Soviets - but this time to the US.

He wants to make the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan so politically unpopular at home that the US will eventually have to withdraw and will no longer be able to intervene in the Middle East due to domestic pressure. He saw what happened in Somalia after all.

If the US cannot intervene directly in the Middle East, then he wins since he will have effectively engineered the defeat of the world's only superpower and will immediately become a new Nasser-like figure. And more importantly, the Saudi regime loses its main supporter.

I haven't said this before, but OBL must jump for joy every time he hears US conservatives talk about abandoning the Saudi government, because the opposition are mainly Islamists like himself.

[notyoueither]

Except he isn't dealing with just the US in Afghanistan, he is dealing with NATO.

In Iraq, it is just a matter of time til he is dealing with the UN.

Getting the US of of SA removes one of his biggest means of gaining recruits and money. The infidel is no longer within the throw of a rock from the holy of holy places.

He should fear that he miscalculated.

[Pax]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Except he isn't dealing with just the US in Afghanistan, he is dealing with NATO.

In Iraq, it is just a matter of time til he is dealing with the UN.

Getting the US of of SA removes one of his biggest means of gaining recruits and money. The infidel is no longer within the throw of a rock from the holy of holy places.

He should fear that he miscalculated.

Getting the U.S. out of S.A. would be a win win situation then because that's one of OBL's goals. It's nice when we give in inadvertently then think we've won.



I think we should just call him on his cell and see what we can do to for peace. Talking does not mean we lose or win. This problem is older than OBL and it's going to continue to either we start talking or one side is dead.
think WW1 and 2. Dialogue PEOPLE!!!

[Oerdin]

I've noticed that alot of Arab newspapers run on conjecture and wishful thinking. Because the government controls most of the media the people have gotten used to conspiracy theories and using questionable sources of information.

[The Mad Monk]

I haven't said this before, but OBL must jump for joy every time he hears US conservatives talk about abandoning the Saudi government, because the opposition are mainly Islamists like himself.

Let him.

Abandoning the Saudis does not equate to abandoning the mideast. Quite the opposite, really -- it means we're no longer ignoring the mess they've been allowed to create.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus


Getting the U.S. out of S.A. would be a win win situation then because that's one of OBL's goals. It's nice when we give in inadvertently then think we've won.



I think we should just call him on his cell and see what we can do to for peace. Talking does not mean we lose or win. This problem is older than OBL and it's going to continue to either we start talking or one side is dead.
think WW1 and 2. Dialogue PEOPLE!!!

The Saudis betrayed us, and we're now in the process of getting rid of them. Believe me, this won't be doing OBL any favors.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


To put it quite simply, the US has been acting like an arrogant ass all over the world.

And this changed after Sept. 11 how?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Abandoning the Saudis does not equate to abandoning the mideast. Quite the opposite, really -- it means we're no longer ignoring the mess they've been allowed to create.

Or rather, the mess the US made, with help from others.

[The Mad Monk]

Whatever. We're cleaning it up.

[Dr Strangelove]

I thought that we were invited into Saudi Arabia by the Saudi government? It's not like we had a role in the establishment of the monarchy, we were just a colony when that happpened. It's not like we made their government ultra-conservative, they did that to themselves. Finally, its not like al-Quaida is a staunch supporter of the principles of democracy - they had ample opportunity to establish a democracy in Afghanistan, but they did not. If the US pulls its military missions out of Saudi Arabia do you honestly believe that al-Quiada will fold its tents and disappear into the desert? I will bet you good money that when the US mission leaves S. A. al-Quiada will put forth a new set of demands, probably along the lines of destroying Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What if you were worried the response would be Mecca turned into glowing glass?

Perhaps MAD applies to OBL?

The West being idiotic and immoral enough to actually attack the Holy cities would be the greatest boon for OBL there could ever be- people here worrying about "suitcase bombs" when in fact the only real proliferation threat that has come out has been Pakistani scientist selling nuke secrets- now imagine somoene was beyond moronic enough to attack the HOly cities- well, there goes pakistani nuclear technology and missile technology right into the hands of islamist- oh, and you can kiss most pro-US islamic governments bye bye- probalby the House of saud would fall- into the hands of Islamist- creating eoncomic nightmares..

How exactly does Osama loose from the leaders of the west being so unbelievably undeniably and monumentously moronic enough EVER to do what NYE seems to think the response to an Al qaeda nuclear terrosit attack? Such a response would be the biggest plus for Osama's folk's EVER. You think "remeber the Alamo" was a famous rallying cry?

[The Mad Viking]

More fearmongering / warmongering.

Consider the source:

Dar al-hayat is owned by "Saudi interests" and originally began their broadcasts from London, England.

Gee, do you think the opportunity exists for planting a story?

suitcase nukes.

[GePap]

This discussion keeps coming on: the insane (let me repeat, insane) beliefe that if Islamic terrorist used nukes vs the west, that somehow a valid (or event intelligent) response would be to nuke the HOly cities. First, anyone who thinks that has the same deluded mindset of an Osama Bin Laden about who and what is a valid target in one's "war".

But two, as I said above, nothing, NOTHING, would be more adventagous to Al qaeda than such an act. It would set off a wave of indgination accross the entire muslim world so massive that it would sweep away most pro-western leaders, radicalize any borderline muslims, and wipe away any claim to morality from the west: anyone here that thinks Osama Bin Laden and his folks would be deeply hurt by such ana ct and thus would not act trying to avoid it are the trully deluded ones. Why should they care if the west were to give them thier greatest possible rallying cry? What could move Muslims more than the mass slaughter of people in thier holy cities? Nothing

See, this is what people don't. Since these guys would not be acting with state support, any attack vs a state as retaliaiton would be utterly inappropriate. Which is why if they trully had WMD's, they have NO rational reason to hold them back- they win nothing by doing so.

[Chemical Ollie]

Nutcase Suikes

[Vanguard]

Arab newspapers are not the most reliable sources of information available.

They are frequently not even as good as Fox News.

[The Mad Monk]

Suitcase Nuke stories have been around since at least 1999, though the identity of the "buyer" keeps changing, and occasionally, so does the seller.

One of the more recent stories has the Chechens originally buying the nukes, then selling them to OBL.

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Sava
maybe you {EXPLATIVES] shouldn't have flown the Usteche (nazi collaborators) flag again... never again...

What Usteche [Ustasa] flag? Where have you seen it flown?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
This discussion keeps coming on: the insane (let me repeat, insane) beliefe that if Islamic terrorist used nukes vs the west, that somehow a valid (or event intelligent) response would be to nuke the HOly cities. First, anyone who thinks that has the same deluded mindset of an Osama Bin Laden about who and what is a valid target in one's "war".

I'm not proposing the the US should do so, I am wondering if OBL thinks they might do so, and perhaps that is something that he doesn't want to see happen.

It would explain how he might not use them if he did have them.