Warnings and rumors about an al-Qaeda "dirty bomb" and other nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks are nothing new, of course. What is noteworthy here is the urgency of the behind-the-scenes discussions and the confirmation these cables provide of the scope of the threat. "World 'on brink of nuclear 9/11' as Al Qaeda plans large 'dirty' bomb," from the Daily Mail, February 2 (thanks to Twostellas):
Al Qaeda is attempting to stockpile 'dirty' radioactive explosives that could be used to target British troops or for a larger urban attack, it has emerged.
New diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks show that U.S. intelligence personnel have been informed of terrorist attempts to acquire dangerous amounts of uranium and plutonium.
The cables warn of a large trafficking operation of chemical weapons material and threats of a 'nuclear 9/11' unless the West intervenes swiftly.
Security chiefs briefed a Nato meeting in January 2009 that Al Qaeda was planning a programme of 'dirty radioactive improvised explosive devices (IEDs)'.
The IEDs could be used against coalition forces in Afghanistan but would also contaminate the surrounding land with nuclear waste for years to come. [...]
U.S. officials were warned by an Indian national security adviser that terrorist organisations now 'have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb'.
British officials have also expressed fears of covert weapons development in Pakistan.
A leaked document regarding official defence discussions in 2009 highlighted 'deep concerns' that a rogue scientist could 'gradually smuggle enough material' out of the Pakistani nuclear programme to construct a weapon.
Documents sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies also reveal the growth of nuclear smuggling rings, with radioactive materials trafficked across Europe, Africa and the Middle East....
The bigger the crime perpetrated against humanity, the faster and further along the learning curve to understanding Islam's real agenda humanity will travel.
I hate to say it, I really do, but a 'dirty bomb', thousands of deaths and the consequent political fall-out might be just what the world needs to make everyone wake up to the every present danger of Islam.
well there is always pre-emptive action but the west doesn't have politicians with balls.
The more death and the more horrific the death...the better Islam likes it...
No surprise that these dirtbags are now working on a "dirty bomb"! ...boy islam & company are just so evil.
What do you expect? The U.S. keeps giving billions to the terrorist nation of Pakistan (which has doubled its nuclear arsenal with the aid money) without EVER demanding that A Q Khan, the brazen purveyor of nuclear technology to the Islamic nations, be handed over to the U.S. authorities for illegal proliferation; Khan is blithely free to hawk his wares (and expertise) to Al-Qaeda, which is being protected by the Paki ISI. The Americans are breathtakingly stupid!
If a nuclear 9/11 happens, there will be a massive uprising of Americans - with guns - against the government. Obama or whatever traitor there might be in the White House will most certainly be impeached and replaced by a US president that has the courage to pull the trigger.
You've nuked one of our cities? Say bye-bye to Medina!
See? Poor little Allah is defenseless!
You nuke another city? Mecca is next!
Still believe in the desert god of death? Any terrorist nuclear attack will be followed by a mushroom cloud over a random metropolis in a Muslim majority country.
I hope it will not come to this.
It's refreshing how many more people online see to be aware of Islam this year than anytime before. We have to thank brave people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, and Sam Harris for this!
People - Watch the TV program "V."
The "Visitors" are all about the invading Muslims, al-taqiyya, and PC Leftists muzzling our freedom of speech about Islam.
Islam..... The devils' best mate!
The Telegraph had a similar version of this story on its website. This story is like the Sun's Page 3 Girls: attractive, but not newsworthy.
Why would an enemy spend the time and resources necessary to create a dirty bomb, but then use it against an handful of troops in Afghanistan? No, they would use it in London, NYC, Chicago, Frankfurt, etc. The British press often has moronic stories like this which make one wonder if the reporter heard a tidbit and expanded it using his imagination to make a publishing deadline.
I can almost bet that the material for the dirty bomb will come from that "fort of Islam", "the land of the pure", commonly known as Pakistan!!!For all we know al-Qaeda may even get a regular mini-nuclear bomb from Pakistan. There are a lot of Pakistanis who will consider it as their privilege to help out Mo/allah to qualify them to enter jannat whoreland!!! A Muslims is only concerned about his fictitious after life in jannat or burning hell, the real present life be damned to achieve it!!
My brother is a firm believer that the daily conversation between Israel and the countries that would destroy her includes the mention of Medina and Mecca; that if you do anything to us, we'll nuke them both. Count us as firm believers that we must do all we can to fight the islamic onslaught.
Nykos wrote:
If a nuclear 9/11 happens, there will be a massive uprising of Americans - with guns - against the government. Obama or whatever traitor there might be in the White House will most certainly be impeached and replaced by a US president that has the courage to pull the trigger.
You've nuked one of our cities? Say bye-bye to Medina!
.............................
I'm sorry, Nykos—for good or ill, I just don't see it. While I do believe that more Americans—and more Westerners in general—are finally starting to wake up to the Jihad threat, I just don't believe most Americans would see it as you say.
There are all too many in the West who are squeamish about our presence in Afghanistan after 9/11 (whether our policies are effective there is another matter).
The idea that most Americans would call for a nuking of Mecca and Medina in the event of a nuclear attack by Al-Qaeda is, I believe, simply incorrect.
That being said, I do believe it would be a great deterrent to Jihad if Muslims thought such terrorist attacks would be met by us in kind...
nykos_22 wrote: "If a nuclear 9/11 happens, there will be a massive uprising of Americans - with guns - against the government . . . You've nuked one of our cities? Say bye-bye to Medina"
Google on "Bonus Marchers" to discover what happened the last time a serious crowd of protesters marched on DC. President Hoover had Generals MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton eliminate the threat by force. And how could Hoover do that, given the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act? It is the law which prevents the Army from intervening in domestic affairs, but it does not apply in DC.
No American president would vaporize Mecca or Medina without proof that residents of those cities were actively involved in the action. And even given that, it would never happen because he would be considered a war criminal by the rest of the world; no more crappy Chinese-made products at Walmart for you and your buddies!
Watched it last night and thought EXACTLY the same thing, particularly when Anna wanted the pope to direct all priests to desist from any "negative talk" about the V's. Sounds ominously familiar. I wonder if there are 57 ships hovering over the earth???????
Ima
It is unlikely that terrorists will be able to produce an effective dirty bomb. If a radioactive liquid was used, you would probably get the best effect, but you wouldn't need a bomb to spread it. You could simply spray it around. A suicide sprayer, because he would certainly die. The use of solid radioactive materials presents real problems. To work, they would have to be ultra fine powders which are dispersed by a blast and possibly spread further by wind or water. And these materials are not easy to grind. They are ultra poisonous. For example, a single milligram of plutonium taken internally is uniformly fatal within a few weeks. And they are hard metals with high melting points. You are not going to vaporize them with any amount of explosives that can be carried by a person. When a standard type of suicide vest is detonated, the explosive propels nuts, bolts, screws and ball bearings outward at almost bullet speed. The metal is not melted to any significant degree although it will be quite hot. The same with uranium and plutonium which have higher melting points. A bomb made with these will throw radioactive shrapnel. Big recoverable pieces. Of course there are better radioactive materials, like polonium, but very little of it is produced and even harder to obtain. I believe that the concept of a radioactive dirty bomb is a hype. You are better off building a real nuke. You don't need the sophisticated explosives and triggers we use in out thermonukes. Two muslims each carrying half a critical mass run at each other. When they meet, kaboom. But it is not perfect. If a muslim can screw something up, he probably will. The biological dirty bomb is a whole other animal.
It you probably see in response to a nuclear 9/11 on American cities a dead-pan silence...chirp...chirp...followed by the president on national TV saying 'We respect Islam. The tiny minorities of extremism did this'...something of that sort.
Bombing Mecca or Medina in response to the nuclear 9/11 would be just a pipe-dream.
For we war not against flesh and blood but against the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world, the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age. Please pray for al-Qaeda, that the Spirit of Truth visit them. Not by power nor by might, but by my Spirit says the LORD. COME ON
LET'S DO IT!!!
This is an eye for an eye fight - Quran 5:45, and I've heard said that US involvement in the mid-east is precisely the war that Ben Laddin and the rest wanted so as to make the faith a martyr and raise awareness to the other 1.57 billion Muslims in the world.
Any use of this kind of thing would have to be strategic so as to make the most damage (economic, tactical, and political) otherwise, all it would do is activate the rest of the globe against who ever detonated it. Just like using the full blown nukes, once you use it, you can't go back and you commit yourself (or what ever cause you use it under) to the fray and then have to ride it out to the demise of one or the other.
If it wasn't a 21st century crusade already, using a dirty bomb would make it one with the only outcome being total declaration of global war, which is a heavy card to play.
The only sensible retaliation is to nuke Mecca and Mendina during the hagi.
The global jihad cannot conquer a nuclear wasteland for Islam. But, if they killed off major cities in the U.S., they could just avoid those diseased areas for a time and use those radioactive areas forever (making them non-Muslim prison camps). If they destroy just one large U.S. city, Obama will make a dhimmi contract with the Muslim Brotherhood, who he is helping to put into governmental power around the globe (e.g., African Union by inaction, Egypt, etc.), the Muslim Brotherhood being the orchestrator of the global jihad.