Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.
- 07-14-2004, 02:16 PM
Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.
Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaida not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future.
Story Continues Below
These chilling allegations appear in "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11: What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You," by Paul L. Williams (Prometheus Books).
Williams claims that al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simulantaneously in U.S. cities.
"They want the most bang for the buck, and that is nuclear," Williams told NewsMax.
"I expect such an attack would come between now and the end of 2005," the author said.
In addition to writing several books on terrorism, Williams, an investigative journalist, has worked as an FBI consultant.
Williams' contention is not far from what U.S. intelligence believes, a source close to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has told NewsMax. The source said Ridge claimed that U.S. intelligence believes terrorists already have smuggled into the U.S. actual atomic devices, as opposed to so-called "dirty nukes" that simply are conventional bombs that help spread radiation.
The Bush administration has warned for years that terrorists pose a nuclear threat to America.
Williams' book presents a review of the increasing spread of nuclear weapons technology, which the author says can be traced to India's nuclear tests in the early 1970s. It accelerated when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
Shortly after the Indian nuclear tests, Pakistan made an all-out effort to join the nuclear club, the author says. Islamabad received help from sympathetic nations, namely China and North Korea.
Williams traces the rampant spread of nuclear bomb development to a leading Pakistani scientist, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Khan, described as an "Islamic extremist," also has been depicted by former CIA chief George Tenet as "the father of Pakistan's nuclear program."
It is believed the Pakistani gained his expertise while working in the Netherlands, where he allegedly stole technology used in uranium reprocessing, a key procedure for building an atomic bomb.
Pakistan successfully detonated two nuclear weapons inside a northern mountain range in the late 1990s.
Khan, arrested by Pakistani police in February under White House pressure, admitted selling nuclear technology to numerous foreign countries, including North Korea and Libya.
Williams reports that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was investigating Khan at the time he was kidnapped and later killed in 2003.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, fearing a backlash from radical Muslims, granted Khan a pardon but restricted his travels.
According to Williams, another beneficiary of Khan's "contacts" was al-Qaida. The author reports that the U.S. got its first "hard" evidence of a connection when it invaded the Afghan capital of Kabul in 2001.
A former al-Qaida safe house was found to be loaded with documents detailing dealings with the Pakistani scientist.
The finding was so serious, says Williams, that Tenet traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow up on the discovery.
Tenet: 'They Are Coming'
Perhaps it was such intelligence that led Tenet to say in October 2002: "The threat environment we face is as bad as it was before September 11. It is serious. They have reconstituted. They are coming after us."
Almost from the moment 9/11 happened, the U.S. has been on a heightened state of alert and worry over the possible use of nuclear weapons. On the day of the attack, President Bush left Florida and began criss-crossing the country in Air Force One in maneuvers consistent with a president preparing for a nuclear attack.
Shortly after Sept. 11, Taliban leader Mullah Omar claimed to the BBC that the main intent of al-Qaida was the "bigger cause," which he described as the "destruction of America."
Asked pointedly if this meant the use of nuclear weapons againt the U.S., he responded: "This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it will fall to the ground."
Omar cryptically suggested that a nuclear plan was already under way at the time of Sept. 11.
He said: "The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented. But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction."
The Russian Connection
The author points out that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 made matters worse:
"The Chechen Mafia reportedly sold twenty nuclear suitcases in Grozny to representatives of Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen [in 1996]. For their weapons, bin Laden paid $30 million in cash and two tons of heroin."
Al-Qaida's leader, says Williams, is a major drug producer and runner in Afghanistan.
"It is the drug money, not the bin Laden family fortune, that is the financial engine for al-Qaida," he points out.
Today, Williams says, more than 40 Russian "nuclear suitcases" cannot be accounted for.
The suitcases are miniaturized tactical nuclear bombs (in some cases weighing less than 40 pounds) that originally were planned by the Cold War-era Kremlin to be detonated inside the U.S. in the event of war.
Most could cause damage equal to or greater than the crude device Washington dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.
The author says some of these weapons still remain stateside in a "sleeper" status controlled by Russian military officials who believe a war with the U.S. "is still possible."
Others, as many as 10, might be under al-Qaida's control, says Williams.
What kind of damage could such a weapon do? The CIA estimates the Russian nuclear suitcases to have an explosive yield approaching 10 kilotons.
Williams, referring to estimates by Theodore Taylor, a prominent American physicist who miniaturized the atomic bomb and visited the site of the World Trade Center in 1993, says a suitcase bomb could "emit intense thermal radiation, creating a fireball with a diameter that would expand to 460 feet. The core of the fireball would reach a maximum temperature of 10 million degrees Celsius ... ." The author says the heat that collapsed the Twin Towers never exceeded 5,000 degrees Celsius.
Had such a bomb been used in 9/11, Williams claims, "The World Trade Center towers, all of Wall Street and the financial district, along with the lower tip of Manhattan up to Gramercy Park and much of midtown, including the theater district, would lie in ruins."
Of those who might survive the blast, 50 percent of the survivors could expect to die at the rate of "250,000 people on any given day," Williams reports.
And how could al-Qaida manage to transport such weapons into the U.S.?
Williams points out that the borders with Mexico and Canada are still dangerously porous and not equipped to detect the smuggling of nuclear materials.
U.S. seaports are even more vulnerable, he argues.
Though New York City would seem to be the No. 1 target of another attack by al-Qaida, Williams points out other U.S. cities have been mentioned in intercepted intelligence chatter.
Among those discussed: Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Miami, Washington and Rappahannock County, Va.
Why a small rural county in Virginia? Williams says it houses the underground command center the White House would use in time of war.
He hastens to add that time "may not be on our side."
"It was eight years between the World Trade Center attacks. Islam preaches patience. They will attack when they want," Williams concluded.
More chilling was the response from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.
One official, speaking on background, told NewsMax: "We have no comment. It is not within our responsibility to track atomic bombs."
- 07-14-2004, 02:31 PM
Well that's just great. Suddenly, joining the troops in Iraq isn't lookin' to bad these days. Hell it might be safer over there...
- 07-14-2004, 04:57 PM
Well that really sucks. The terrorists better expect some hell from the good ol' USA, if they wanna play with nukes than they better expect worse in return.
07-14-2004, 05:55 PM
Nukes won't be used in retaliation unless solid evidence of direct ties to and funding from a foreign nation are established, and even then they most likely wouldn't be used.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
07-14-2004, 10:42 PM
We should let it be know to them if they did hit us with a suit case nuke that we will nuke Mecca.Nukes won't be used in retaliation unless solid evidence of direct ties to and funding from a foreign nation are established, and even then they most likely wouldn't be used.
07-14-2004, 11:02 PM
that would not be a wise course of action.. because then we would have the WHOLE Arab speaking/Muslim population after us.. not just the terrorist groups that we have now..
07-15-2004, 07:58 AM
Gotta say, there's nothing magical about nuclear weapons. Standard explosives work by using unstable chemicals, nukes work by using unstable elements. They're basically standard explosives of extreme power with unique after effects. The type of a bomb a terrorist could probably get their hands on would take out a few city blocks, fallout would be determined by where the wind blows it, literally. Gamma rays are the primary source of heat given off by a nuclear explosion, they're also one of the easiest (relatively speaking) forms of radiation to shield against.Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
Their strategy sort of works against them. Blowing up a nuke at ground level in a city actually helps contain the blast a lot more than an air burst over the city. If they had any brains they'd take it to the top of a building to detonate it. The real danger is if terrorists get their hands on a thermo nuclear device, the most powerful nukes. These use fission bombs to fuse elements, and the case of the bomb itself is made of uranium which achieves fission in the explosion and adds to the blast. These are the powerful ones, the ones we need to watch out for, and the ones the terrorists probably can't get their hands on.
Also what would help us is to accelerate nuclear research of all types, including removing the official/unofficial taboo against small nukes. The best way to defeat any technology is to have better technology available to counter it or make the old stuff ineffective. I remember reading recently about new, cleaner nukes that are much more efficient and leave little fallout in an area that needs to be dealt with, once more relatively speaking. Demystifying nukes is a good first step in helping our country deal with such an attack.
07-15-2004, 08:35 AM
heres a little declarative belief....where I turn for comfort when confronted with such thoughts.
I really DON'T think nukes are what we all need to be afraid of.
try reading Psalms 2, An appealing to all of the kings of the earth. it tells of the fate of all the governments.
also, psalms 146: 3-6
VERY PROFOUND and eye opening.
my two cents
07-15-2004, 09:06 AM
http://www.financialsense.com/stormw...2004/0714.htmlOriginally Posted by CDB
I've seen a couple of threads on some site that claim this is the reason that Al Q has been hot to get ahold of crop dusters. If you blow up a suitcase nuke above a city that is a whole different story. I also read a report somewhere that you can identify who produced the nuclear material, that it had a kind of fingerprint to it, so that chinese, russian, american etc could be identified. How would the 'manufacturing' country be held responsible if Al Q was able to obtain one of their device on the black market?
Sometimes there is just too much info out there, it worse then trying to decide if EQ/Tren var would be a good stack
Liberating forces in Afghanistan found a biological weapons lab that was apparently built to produce anthrax, but the rout of the Taliban prevented weapons to be made in that particular lab.
Other sources suggested that five of the 19 labs discovered throughout Afghanistan did test positive for anthrax. More importantly, a â€œwell-placed,â€? U.S. intelligence source said that evidence was found indicating one or more former Russian scientist were helping Al-Qaida to weaponize anthrax.
Other documents seized in Afghanistan showed Al-Qaida conducting research on botulism toxins that had a capacity of killing at least 2,000 people at a time. The DEBKA FILE, an online newsletter that purportedly receives Israeli intelligence input, reported that Iraqi military instructors trained between 150-250 Al-Qaida members in the use of chemical and biological weapons and possibly in the handling of nuclear devices. The training took place in northern Iraq.
Last edited by Jeff; 07-15-2004 at 10:03 AM.
07-15-2004, 10:19 AM
They want the crop dusters to spread radioactive material around with, a poor man's dirty bomb basically. The difference between an air burst and a ground level detonation can be significant depending on the surroundings of ground zero. In a city it's better to be higher up, otherwise a good portion of the blast is wasted and the fallout might not spread as far or in as high an amount.
As for the nuclear finger print, it exists. By looking at what elements are present in the fallout, different isotopes and their ratios etc, it's possible to not only link it with a plant but sometimes with a specific reactor. It's a handy tool, knowing where something didn't come from is as valuable as knowing where it came from.
07-15-2004, 01:09 PM
We would have to do something. Aside from Israel most of the middle east doesn't like us and probably would be after us if they had the technology. The problem is Al Quada doesn't have a structure of a country.What we know is that their religion is their motivation for everything they do. By telling them any nuclear attack on us will result in the United States nuking their holy land could act as a deterrent.that would not be a wise course of action.. because then we would have the WHOLE Arab speaking/Muslim population after us.. not just the terrorist groups that we have now..
We have all ready made some major mistakes in the after math of 9-11. Boarder security is my main concern. If 10,000 people a day cross the southern boarder how hard is it going to be for 10 guys with suite cases to get in if they aren't already?
07-15-2004, 01:29 PM
Exactly, that's why Bush said we would not make a distinction between a terrorist and a county harboring or giving aid to terrorists.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
07-15-2004, 01:38 PM
wow nice timefrime. From now til end of 2005. I dont like all these theoretical BS stories that people put out. There is no need to be afraid of Al Qaida. The government is doing everything it legally can, plus a lot of things that are illegal. I understand keeping the American public informed, but the stuff they spew out is so broad and worthless that alls it does is keep people in a constant state of fear. I personally think 9/11 was a lucky shot in the dark. The FBI played its cards wrong, INS fell asleep and the people on the planes thought they were just being hijacked. I think just the general awarness people have gained since 9/11 makes such dramatic attacks less likely.
07-15-2004, 03:11 PM
That's generally the most productive place to keep a populace, from a government standpoint that is. The stuff is ridiculously broad. I remember one talking head saying Al Qeda was 90% ready to attack us again. 90% of what? Manpower? Equipment? How easy was it to attain the 90% readiness, how hard will the remaining 10% be to get? It's pure nonsense.Originally Posted by DougMan
People fail to mention that terrorists have hated the US since the creation of Israel, and have been actively targeting us for more than a decade, and on 9/11 landed their first major blow. Not indicative of the most effective organization.I personally think 9/11 was a lucky shot in the dark. The FBI played its cards wrong, INS fell asleep and the people on the planes thought they were just being hijacked. I think just the general awarness people have gained since 9/11 makes such dramatic attacks less likely.
07-15-2004, 08:51 PM
I agree, I know most people would be against nuking major Arab cities like Mecca and Tehran, but how could you not take drastic action when your innocent people are being slaughtered by a bunch of cowards ? For example, what if Iran gets nukes, then they give one or more suitcases to Al-Quaida or Hezbollah, then we get hit with dirty bombs. If something like would happen, I'd go after them in a ruthless fashion.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
I may be wrong, but it's my opinion.
07-15-2004, 10:26 PM
Taking drastic action is stupid if it's directed at the wrong people. The milkman kills your wife, do you beat the mailman to death just to make a point? No. Not only would your actions be wrong, they'd be criminal. Nuclear weapons are not made to go after the type of enemy we are facing at this point in time.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
Iran will not give nuclear weapons to Al Queda. They are openly seeking recognition as a nuclear power and won't jeopordize that by doing something so stupid. We should fear those who are seeking nuclear technology and hiding their progress, not those doing so openly. Nor,to be blunt should we oppose their entry into "the nuclear club." It's futile to try and prevent the spread of technology. The danger lies mostly in former Russian countries where chaos and nukes have been mixed up for a while, and unfriendly regimes that are still trying to hide their nuclear programs.
07-15-2004, 11:04 PM
[QUote = Rouge Drone]
I believe the American should be far more concerenced with the both the increasing power of American Law Enforcement and in the military influence on civilians than in a the threat of foreign terrorists. People fail to realize that as more resources are dedicated to counter-terrorism, there are less for domestic crime fighting and that a diminishing of civil rights with efforts to quiet resoned dissent are too high a price to pay to feel secure. These are the scare and squeeze tactics of repression. Rights diminish over time, and one day people wake up and realize a dictatorship has gained control, that's the historical precedent men like Jefferson warned against.
I agree with this totally. I think the national debt and law enforcement are a lot more likely to czo you problems in the near future then terrorists. But what fun is to worry about that? The American public is already used to the national debt and law enforcement would never bother you personally. Sadly, I dont even ponder this issues except around election time because I have neither money nor power.
07-16-2004, 10:37 AM
Some reviews of the book:
Among the credits for author Paul L. Williams listed on the back cover of Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror, is his role as â€œconsultant on international terrorism and organized crimeâ€? for the FBI. It is difficult to determine the type or quality of consultation Williams offers the FBI. Judging by the content of Al Qaeda, Williams seems to have done little more than compile newspaper clipping files and fact sheets from the FBI.
Though the devices were designed only to be operated by Soviet SPETZNAZ personnel, or special forces, al-Qaida scientists came up with a way of hot-wiring the bombs to the bodies of would-be martyrs, according to the book.
Suitcase nukes are not really suitcases at all, but suitcase-size nuclear devices. The weapons can be fired from grenade or rocket launchers or detonated by timers. A bomb placed in the center of a metropolitan area would be capable of instantly killing hundreds of thousands and exposing millions of others to lethal radiation.
A truly poor book that literally is cut and pasted from either on-line sources or other texts. Many factual errors, and unfortunately, not a single footnote in the entire book. Anyone who has more than a passing interest about Al Qaeda should go on to far better works on the subject.
I thought the same thing as a lot of these reviews after reading the article.
07-16-2004, 12:44 PM
If we were doing everything we could we wouldn't have an open boarder with Mexico. The INS did more than just fall asleep. The renewed the terrorists pass ports after 9-11 and we still haven't done much to fix the problem. Several people after 9-11 have smuggled things on air planes that should have been detected as well. There will be another attack.The government is doing everything it legally can, plus a lot of things that are illegal. I understand keeping the American public informed, but the stuff they spew out is so broad and worthless that alls it does is keep people in a constant state of fear. I personally think 9/11 was a lucky shot in the dark. The FBI played its cards wrong, INS fell asleep and the people on the planes thought they were just being hijacked. I think just the general awarness people have gained since 9/11 makes such dramatic attacks less likely.
07-16-2004, 01:17 PM
This is a very bad analogy. The mailman in this instance did not know where the madman lived, that he would kill or wife, or even that he existed. In this situation there are a significant # of people in the middle east who know, harbor, and supply Al Queda operatives. Currently they have nothing to fear because due to popular political climate in the US elected officials will not order retaliations that might harm a large # of innocent civilians. However if policy / political climate changed and we did threaten massive retaliation, citizens of these nations would likely turn over al queda operatives to protect themselves (law of self interest). They would rather someone else die (Al Queda) than themselves (us killing them if Al Queda attacked). Likewise they would rather protect something they care about (Mecca) than something they do not (some random Al Queda Guy). See Thucydides - "The strong do what they will and the weak do what they must" extortion works if you have the power to pull it off. Countries to survive must do what is in their best interests.Originally Posted by CDB
How do you know this? If they thought they could hide the origin of the nuclear material (i.e. they had russian nuclear material that could not be tracked back to Iran) they would likely give it to Al Queda, it would be hard to prove they did it. They could also claim their own material was stolen, or use a scapegoat and execute him.Originally Posted by CDB
I am very well read in this field (college senior in Washington D.C. and spend much of my time being taught by the foremost experts in the field of International Relations) not bragging but want to show that I know what I am talking about. It basically comes down to power politics (read The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer for a good intro to IR). Conflict is natural (see The City of God by St. Augustine, The Prince by Machiavelli, Politics among nations by Hans J. Morgenthau - these books also show the development of IR theory).
If you read the quran you will find that people that read it literally are called to kill anyone who does not (take a look). This is the reason you hear "Jihad" talked about so much on the news. This type of action is as old as humanity. Take a look at Homer's Iliad. What did the greeks do after they conquered Troy? They burned it to the ground, salted the earth, and killed every male in the city. It is basically the only way they could feel safe (people want to avenge their father's death, human nature) and the quran carries on this tradition which was present in most cultures (Asian, Eastern, and pre-christ Western). Life has always been about survival first, and this holds true for nations.
07-16-2004, 03:42 PM
07-16-2004, 05:02 PM
Awesome info cr4, I agree with the philosophy of doing whatever it takes to keep us safe. I personally don't care if we offend Europe, the Middle East etc. as long as it keeps us safe from terrorists.
07-17-2004, 12:59 AM
Correct, however peoples are usually safe as long as there is a foreign power to fear that is not in a vastly superior position. China will keep the US occupied for a long time (yes I know the PH bill sucks, but that does not apply here).Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
This is nice thinking, but it assumes the to societies are compatable. It does not matter so much who is right and wrong, but that both sides think they are right and will not likely change their opinions. Samuel P. Huntington wrote the big paper on this, "CLash of Civiliazations."Originally Posted by Rogue Drone
War between the nations is inevitable as they fight for superiority (yeah there is democratic peace theory but I think it is bunk) and appears in the historic texts of most civilizations (see the story of Babylon in the Old testament for one example).
I personally am not that worried about the middle east (as soon as we get an alternative energy source they are ****ed) having just finished a 20 page paper on how the US is destined to engage China in great power struggle. Basically looked at the historic texts of western and chinese culture, they both lead to the conclusion that there will be a war.
07-17-2004, 09:58 AM
well its nice to see you care so much about others !!.I personally am not that worried about the middle east (as soon as we get an alternative energy source they are ****ed)
now what if those middle east countries that are being ****ed by the US decide to join in on china's side thats now almost half the world against you basically the future isnt as rosey as it used to be hence the invasion of iraq to secure oil to prevent america failing quicker as a super power when the house of saud changes hands.having just finished a 20 page paper on how the US is destined to engage China in great power struggle. Basically looked at the historic texts of western and chinese culture, they both lead to the conclusion that there will be a war.
now on the topic of super powers well your forgetting the other soon to be major super power EUROPE, yes like it or not the french will be on course along with the rest of the EU will be in power and given the EU's relationship and pro-democracy stance on the world it will probably find recruiting countries as friends alot easier than the US.
07-17-2004, 10:18 AM
The French and Europe are not our friends. They don't care about American sovereignty or security. In fact they want to usurp American sovereignty. They want the UN to dictate to us what our laws should be and tell us what to do. Bureaucratic socialism isn't part of the United States constitution and neither is being controlled by a foreign power.now on the topic of super powers well your forgetting the other soon to be major super power EUROPE, yes like it or not the french will be on course along with the rest of the EU will be in power and given the EU's relationship and pro-democracy stance on the world it will probably find recruiting countries as friends alot easier than the US.
07-17-2004, 10:26 AM
you forget who is in iraq with you and if europe truly wasnt your friends, they would place economic sanctions on america and more or less cripple it.The French and Europe are not our friends. They don't care about American sovereignty or security. In fact they want to usurp American sovereignty.
wasnt this one of the main reasons why iraq happend because he ignored the UN and now your saying the UN doesnt tell us what to do ?? if you could tell me what exactly is the UN there for that would be great thanksThey want the UN to dictate to us what our laws should be and tell us what to do. Bureaucratic socialism isn't part of the United States constitution and neither is being controlled by a foreign power
07-17-2004, 10:27 AM
Interesting discussion here, nice job bro's!
For the life of me, I also do not understand why we haven't tightened up our borders and sea ports? I forget the exact statistic, but my understanding is that only a small % of ships have their contents examined.
I may be wrong here, and someone correct me if I am, but isn't it true that any nuclear device is detectable? Just for example, if someone was transporting one of these suitcase nukes, do we have the technology through satellites or other means of being able to detect it's whereabouts?
It is a sobering thought to know that al Qaeda, or any group or geo pollitical power, has the intent and is working to destroy America ......... (and this was before our military intervention in Iraq). Given this mindset, I don't understand this phillosophy of wanting to "win the hearts and minds". It's like trying to negotiate with hezbollah..... their stated objective is to kill jews and drive the state off the face of the map. How do we negotiate with someone like that? How does anyone negotiate with a mindset bent on destruction of their enemy?
And while I agree with the mindset of threatening to evaporate mecca and other holy sites that are of great importance to islamic terrorists, I believe we have the problem of our friend and ally Israel being right there.
I'll leave it with this, but quite honestly, I am so sick of hearing reports about these backwards cretins crawling across the globe like cockroaches in their attempts to get biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to detonate and kill us on our own soil, that I would not have any problem whatsoever with the US implementing an attack to turn the middle east into a smoldering cinder pile, be it with conventional or nuclear weapons, provided our friends and allies can be spared. I'm sure scenarios exist. I wouldn't even mind if it meant imposing marshall law here in the U.S. for a year or two, or even longer, to finally do the right thing and purge the upwards of 10 million illegal aliens living among us. Civil rights be damned, until the job is done.
I know this sounds extreme, and even heartless to many. But I think the day IS coming where these ****ers are going to pull off some horrific attack against us, and I'd much rather take the measures NOW that should be taken to protect american life rather than continue to ***** foot around the way we are now, no disrespect intended to the guys and gals who are on the front lines waging the war. But honestly, we have firepower and means of handling the job yet we continue to send our people into harms way to fight the battle on their terms to try and "win the hearts and minds". Our people continue to get killed, and I don't see any evidence at all of us winning any hearts and minds.
07-17-2004, 10:30 AM
just a quik question why do these terrorists want to blow america up ??
07-17-2004, 10:34 AM
07-17-2004, 10:39 AM
Their religion (overall) is different than the majority here in the US (those who are religious here are predominantly Judeo-Christian), their culture is different, they resent our superpower military and economic status, and feel humiliated that they are not in the position of dominance as they once were. They find us to be largely secular, they see the affinity their children have for western culture, and they see it as evil.
EDIT: We've also seen excerpts from the koran that speak of proselytizing the world, and imposing Islam as the dominant religion, even by force if necessary.
....THE marching orders .......
07-17-2004, 10:46 AM
hiphop, when I say ****ed I don't mean "bend over, here we come," I was speaking in terms of relative power, i.e. the middle east will have little. There is nothing to support the alliance you spoke of, it is more likely that area will be the proving ground pre-WWIII like some south american countries were pre-WWII.
The UN is now pointless, there is a reason we don't pay our dues. Basically because voting is done in the assembly, it is run by the arab league and africa, who really just want to bash Israel (they passed 17 resolutions against israel last year or the year before), and the US for being allied w/ israel. The reason the french voted against Iraq is they wanted to flex their political muscle (they look powerful if they can stop the US) but they clearly failed.
Europe won't get their **** together, no common language-culture. For example, ask someone living in germany what they are and they will say "a german," ask someone living in Nebraska what they are and they will say "an american." Their culture is very anti-war anyways, they would never attack (basically pansies now).
China is the real problem because their economy is growning, they have so many people, and they want to attack Taiwan (which we have promised to defend). If everyone in china made 1/4 the money that everyone in the US makes (on average) they would have a much more powerful economy than the US, basically allowing them to outspend us like Regan did to the USSR. This is why neocons/realists HATE the current engagement / open trade policy w/ china. It is based on democratic peace theory which is shaky at best.
07-17-2004, 10:50 AM
Read huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" or "Islam Unveiled" by robert spencer.Originally Posted by hiphop
It really comes down to human nature being flawed though.
As for the nukes, no they cannot be detected by Satellite as far as I know, would be very cool though, especially for me since I live less than 2 miles from the white house, congress, and the pentagon :-/
07-17-2004, 11:04 AM
This is another thing I don't understand. During the Carter administration we felt the affects of the oil embargo. We've had a quarter of a century to develop alternatives to oil, so why haven't any come into mass production?Originally Posted by cr4ytonic
We've all seen and read about various alternatives. The technology would appear to exist. A good friend of mine is a diesel mechanic who assures me that fuel can be made from corn, and he's seen diesel engines run on the stuff, the exhaust smells like french fries.
Without going too far off topic, I can appreciate the concern for not wanting to displace the oil companies and disrupt their stake in the economy. Still, it seems to me that the oil companies could have been given the lead through tax incentives to be the ones to develop and implement a new technology. A quarter of a century........ we put men on the moon in less time, and we COULDN'T come up with an alternative to NOT be dependent on these cockroaches?
I can only conclude 2 things. 1, we were too lazy to do it. I don't really believe that. 2, we have some reason for NOT wanting to do that. If American business can profit from it, the environment can benefit from it, then the answer must lie elsewhere?
I'm guessing that we don't WANT to cut middle eastern arabs out of the loop. Without a market for their oil, what do they have? Nothing.
I conclude, and I admit that I may be dead wrong about this, that we have wanted to keep them in the loop to give them the chance to develop economically and through the growth process, develop some other means of being able to support themselves, and remain vibrant in the world community. What else can it be?
For whatever reason, and probably because of their religion or some who interpret their religion that way, they haven't grown and developed. They're still mideival.
07-17-2004, 11:05 AM
so let me get this straight this is a religious war to stop islam taking over the world !! i think you need ot focus on world politics a little more.Their religion (overall) is different than the majority here in the US (those who are religious here are predominantly Judeo-Christian), their culture is different, they resent our superpower military and economic status, and feel humiliated that they are not in the position of dominance as they once were. They find us to be largely secular, they see the affinity their children have for western culture, and they see it as evil.
EDIT: We've also seen excerpts from the koran that speak of proselytizing the world, and imposing Islam as the dominant religion, even by force if necessary.
....THE marching orders .......
this is nonsense this is like asking n.korea not to intervene while they conquer china knowing full well that they are next on the list !! it would make no sense for them not to get involved.hiphop, when I say ****ed I don't mean "bend over, here we come," I was speaking in terms of relative power, i.e. the middle east will have little. There is nothing to support the alliance you spoke of, it is more likely that area will be the proving ground pre-WWIII like some south american countries were pre-WWII.
LLOOOLLL find me one other country that has veto'd other than the US in favour of israel and i will consider your comment. Also why do you think that they would want to pass a UN resolution on israel ??The UN is now pointless, there is a reason we don't pay our dues. Basically because voting is done in the assembly, it is run by the arab league and africa, who really just want to bash Israel (they passed 17 resolutions against israel last year or the year before), and the US for being allied w/ israel.
countries that voted against iraq in the UN are russia, germany, china etc so i hope this rubbishes this statemen. The UN is pointless when it comes to acting illegally yes because it doesnt support illegal actionsThe reason the french voted against Iraq is they wanted to flex their political muscle (they look powerful if they can stop the US) but they clearly failed.
why do we need to attack a country ???Europe won't get their **** together, no common language-culture. For example, ask someone living in germany what they are and they will say "a german," ask someone living in Nebraska what they are and they will say "an american." Their culture is very anti-war anyways, they would never attack (basically pansies now).
lol now you see where all those countries are going that you ****ed over to china so basically the more countries you **** over the stronger you oppenent becomes and since there is no sign that US foreign policy is goign to change well china's all set really !!China is the real problem because their economy is growning, they have so many people, and they want to attack Taiwan (which we have promised to defend). If everyone in china made 1/4 the money that everyone in the US makes (on average) they would have a much more powerful economy than the US, basically allowing them to outspend us like Regan did to the USSR. This is why neocons/realists HATE the current engagement / open trade policy w/ china. It is based on democratic peace theory which is shaky at best.
07-17-2004, 11:12 AM
The problem with oil is that lots of people are rich from it, and want to keep getting rich from it (money = political power). I don't see any sort of altruism towards the middle east, it has more to do with self interest.
I cant figure out what you are saying in your point-by-point post, it is all over the place.
07-17-2004, 11:15 AM
I think you need to focus on WHAT YOU READ more clearly before you make statements like this.Originally Posted by hiphop
I was replying to your question about why terrorists are attacking the US, NOT why we are at war in Iraq.
If you feel I've misstated the reasons terrorists have attacked us, then by all means, enlighten me.
07-17-2004, 11:15 AM
my basic point is that until american foreign policy changes especially towards the middle east as they have come off the worst there is always going to be terrorism, until you fail to realise this your never going to be safe as a country
07-17-2004, 11:17 AM
What would you like to see changed?Originally Posted by hiphop
07-17-2004, 11:18 AM
well what do you think is wrong with it ??What would you like to see changed?
07-17-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally Posted by cr4ytonic
I agree with you on this, but I also think the oil industry could have been given the lead insofar as tax incentives and cooperation with our government. So they can still be the ones profiting from it, there could be little disruption to the industry in terms of layoffs from re-tooling, etc.
Which is why I think that there likely is some altruism toward the middle east.
I've enjoyed reading your posts btw
Similar Forum Threads
- By IronMagLabs in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 07-30-2009, 01:02 AM
- By Future in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 07-27-2009, 12:32 PM
- By Leggo my Ego in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 15Last Post: 09-21-2006, 11:59 PM
- By VanillaGorilla in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 11-15-2004, 12:38 PM
- By goldylight in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 10-25-2004, 09:06 AM