Do you believe Al-Qaida would use a nuke if it could?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Do you believe Al-Qaida would use a nuke if it could?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4339942#4339954

This poll was inspired by the thread contained in the above link.

[Hawkeye-X]

1. The question you should ask - does Al Quaeda still exist?

It's a CIA front.

[Pavulon]

2. The CIA changed the NY skyline?(nt)

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Who did change the NY skyline?

Airplane "passengers" whose names weren't even on passenger manifests, or were still alive after the attacks?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

[Dunedain]

101. Do you see this at the bottom of your link?

editors blog note

[ZombieHorde]

3. Why do you believe Al Qaida is a CIA front? nt

[Bucky]

8. Because they are bad and the CIA is bad and all bad things are connected to each other

in the simple mind.

[dflprincess]

21. Because in the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"

a CIA official says that Al-Qaeda was a fabrication created so that leaders of it could be charged in abstenia under the RICO statues as running a criminal organization.

Even if you're inclinded not to agree with this assertion, it's an interesting documentary on how useful it is to keep the public frightened.

[ShortnFiery]

93. Here's the link to view this documentary via Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. Well, it's a fact that the Bush Crime Family founded the CIA.

It's also a fact that the Bush Crime Family have a long association with both the Bin Laden family and the Saudi royal family. And it is a fact that the CIA appointed their agent Tim Osman (also known as Osama Bin Laden) to lead the Mujahadeen resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and that group became "Al Qaeda".

As for all these so called "Al Qaeda" franchises in places like Iraq and Yemen, those are completely fictional.

[SDuderstadt]

25. You need to tell Tim Weiner this...

in his book, "Legacy of Ashes", he contradicts your claim, dude.

This is just you parading more of your ignorance on the subject.

[wildbilln864]

85. one man eh!?

now c'mon sdude!

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Bush Crime Family connections to Saudis.

Bush Crime Family connections to CIA.

Afghanistan 'jihadists' connections to CIA.

Afghanistan 'jihadists' connections to Saudis.

PNAC document declaring need for a Pearl Harbor like event to enable plan for New American Century.

Theft of election starting that century.

Pearl Harbor like event connected to Saudi jihadists shortly after stolen election.

All a coinkydink.

[ZombieHorde]

74. Al Qaeda started in the 80's though. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

77. That would be the 'jihadist' connection to the CIA.

The connection is the Afghan-USSR war where our CIA sponsored the development, training, and arming of jihadist groups in Pakistan and the border region of Afghanistan to fight the Soviet occupation forces. Those jihadists included what would become bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization.

None of this is even particularly secret. Or tinfoil. It is all just sitting there, like a huge un-popped zit on your nose, a big honking whitehead ready to burst. And everyone just pretends it aint so.

[ZombieHorde]

78. Your claim, and the claim Al Qeada is not real, are two very different claims. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

90. not really.

The claim that al qaeda does not exist is mostly a claim that al qaeda is a front for the cia. I think that claim is a bit strong. There was in 2001 a commonality of interest between muslim extremist militants and the neocon faction of the governing elites of our nation. That common interest expressed itself as the attack on NYC and DC and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. What the relationship is now between the Saudi royals, the neocon faction, and the sunni jihadists is a good question. Nine years and at least one trillion dollars later it remains puzzling that bin Laden is not captured.

[Capn Sunshine]

13. funny, I don't know any Al quaeda in MY CIA front

It's just the same bunch of clueless citizens posting online in a dark room that it has always been.

[notesdev]

15. I tend to agree

After a trillion dollars goes out the door and we still don't have the ringleader, it's time to ask WTF is really going on here.

I'm really having a hard time coming up with an explanation that better fits the facts. Until someone can come up with something more plausible, I'm of a mind to believe "Al-Qaida" is a vehicle for false flag events intended to scare us all into compliance with an ever-expanding security state.

[G_j]

23. "time to ask WTF is really going on here." ??

calm down now and take your meds..


:sarcasm:

but yes, I agree with you

[Uben]

4. That's like asking if Dick Cheney would lie. nt

nt

[Bluebear]

5. I'm sure Rudy Ghouliani says "yes'!

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. So would some of the more extreme nutcase Americans, I suspect.

[Birthmark]

7. If they could, they'd probably make us disappear...

...into the twelfth dimension. But they can't. Neither can they use nukes. At most, they could attack with a "dirty bomb." So the question is pointless.

[scarletwoman]

9. Using WHAT as a delivery system?

Seriously. Say Al Qaeda gets their hands on a nuclear bomb -- then what? Does Al Qaeda have an air force?

I guess I'm just not a very good consumer of fear-based bullshit propaganda.

sw

[Capn Sunshine]

14. that's a funny question.

Let's assume they get their hands on a nuclear weapon. By "Air Force" you imply that it has to drop from a plane to go boom?

Dude, you can set off a nuke in a rubber raft floating down the Detroit River from Canada.

Or in a fishing boat in the Potomac.

Planes are just another delivery system.

[scarletwoman]

17. The most devastating and far-reaching destructive effects of a nuclear bomb occur

from mid-air detonation. A ground level explosion from a nuclear device small enough to be carried on a rubber raft or a fishing boat would produce a very limited radius of radiation.

Destructive, yes, like all bombs are, but certainly not Hiroshima-level destructive.

In any case, I just don't think it's a very realistic possibility.

[Statistical]

27. While airburst causes most damage a ground burst cause a magnitude more fallout.

You are thinking to complex.

Almost a billion shipping containers enter US ports every year and 99% of them aren't checked. Even if they are checked they are checked in the offloading process.

A nuclear device in a shipping container that detonates in a port (say at docks in port of San Diego) could cause catastrophic damage.

If you want to be a pure asshole surround the bomb with a couple tons of Coblat-60 or Strontium-90 to make cleanup a nightmare.

[Tesha]

68. How hard do folks figure it is to steal a Cessna?

And how big and heavy do folks think a modern nuke is?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

(The nuke is the thing on the front end. It's the same explosive
as was used in our SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition)
"Backpack Bomb" demolition explosive.) That was a puny one,
of course, only good for wiping out a few city blocks.

Here's a bus-load of more-modern devices:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87

At 475 kilotons, each one of those reentry vehicles is a city killer with
about 35 or so times the power of the Hiroshima weapon.

Tesha

[Tesha]

69. At 475 Kilotons (shown just above), even a ground blast will be "enough". (NT)

[SidDithers]

32. From Canada?...

Yeah, 'cause we let everyone tool around with their nuclear weapons in Canada.

Sid

[Xithras]

105. Even if you wanted to airburst, it wouldn't be that difficult in a larger city.

Load it into a van with a cargo ramp, put wheels under it. Drive the bomb to a random skyscraper and wheel the bomb into the elevator of your choice. If anyone objects, shoot them. When the elevator hits the top floor, push the "boom" button.

Even going up a few hundred feet is enough to substantially increase the blast radius. And most buildings don't have much security on their elevators.

[ZombieHorde]

19. They wouldn't an airforce.

Detonating it on top of a skyscraper in a major city would be devastating.

[Swede]

48. A cargo carrier docked in New York City.

One megaton blast,millions dead.

[wuushew]

61. Who builds and deploys megaton class weapons anymore?

Reduce you yield by an order of magnitude then we can talk.

[Swede]

62. The same folks that would put it in a cargo vessel.

I was being conservative with the yield. Why not 50 megatons? Or are American scientists magicians that now one else can duplicate?

[hack89]

81. A shipping container on a cargo ship

right in the middle of NY harbor.

[Bucky]

10. Assuming they didn't explode it first fighting over who got the honor of wearing the vest

Irony alert, kids. A suitcase nuke is actually too big to fit in a suitcase. It's more like the size of a very large backpack, weighs about 100 lbs, and only carries a fraction of the charge that a real nuke has. But yes, these Middle Eastern teabaggers would blow one up in, literally, a New York minute.

[Bluebear]

11. "these Middle Eastern teabaggers" - Ah, I thought they had branched out internationally?

[ZombieHorde]

22. Funny. nt

[stray cat]

12. Do you think terrorist extremists practice terrorism? Or that Tim McVeigh was a nice guy?

[lunatica]

16. Anybody who uses suicide to kill their enemies will definitely use nukes

The only thing that stops anyone from using nuclear weapons is that their will to survive is stronger than their hatred of the other. Retaliation would be a sure thing. But if you're willing to kill yourself in order to kill your enemy then what's to stop them?

[old mark]

20. I have no doubt they would. I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise. nt

[closeupready]

60. Because just as with the Soviets, they have targets of value which

they wouldn't want to lose. Therefore, I find it extremely unbelievable that they would consider it beyond making threats.

[old mark]

67. They don't want to gain ground - just to kill people, the more the better. nt

[closeupready]

96. I'm sorry, but that is just such a stupid thing to say. Sheeze.

Even the Bush State Department didn't advance that argument.

There is a method to the madness they unleash.

[WeekendWarrior]

24. I don't believe in Al-Qaida, period.

Just another made-up boogie man.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Why do you believe Al-Qaida is made up? What evidence convinced you? nt

[WeekendWarrior]

28. This, for one:

"BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. "

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

[SDuderstadt]

29. Dude...

Remember the embassy bombings during the Clinton administration? That was al Qaeda.

[tkmorris]

33. They were certainly terrorists who don't like the US

Who says they were Al Qaeda? The Dude?

[WeekendWarrior]

66. So says who?

[Ter]

103. I have never seen you in any thread

Unless it's debunking conspiracies.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Good for you....

here's a cookie!

[ShortnFiery]

38. Yes, we used to fear Commies, now the "evil ones" are omnipresent al Qaeda.

Saying that they are decentralized and EVERY-DAMN-WHERE only gives Governments THE POWER to treat all it's citizens as potential terrorists.

How f**king convenient? :grr:

[Echo In Light]

41. If a nuke is ever detonated over a populated area elements of the US govt/military will be behind it

[Silent3]

46. You're already certain of that before such a thing happens?

You probably are that certain, sadly, and won't let a little thing like facts about a real event get in your way.

Any fact that disagrees with your pre-ordained conclusion will be judged a fabrication of the corporate media, any slightest inconsistency, coincidence, or unanswered question will be taken as the "smoking gun", and every denial by those you've already judged guilty will taken as denial and a cover-up.

Thinking like that is the only defense these is against letting "them" fool you, right?

[Echo In Light]

47. Yes, phony war 100% - 9/11 was their way of implementing PNAC plans

... coupled w/the fact that the US is a leading outlaw superpower w/a very long track record to gage speculations upon

[Silent3]

49. So you know, absolutely know, that not just in the past...

...but in the future too that it's utterly, completely impossible for anyone other than the US government to set off a nuke that kills Americans?

[Echo In Light]

50. LOL...going on likelihood. Plus the US is already the only country to use em against civilians

[Silent3]

51. And your own judgment of "likelihood" trumps all.

"Plus the US is already the only country to use em against civilians"

So the two attacks at the end of WW2, over 50 years ago, establish such a huge, binding precedent that they must be considered a HUGE factor in determining who might be guilty of setting off a nuke next?

I'll bet a meteor could slam into a city (not just an American city) and you'd probably be dead certain that it REALLY was a nuke, set off by the US government (which is just the puppet of some bigger THEM), and you'd be with the people pouring over the pictures declaring every stray pixel you didn't understand a sure sign that the so-called meteor was just faked, laughing bitterly to yourself how the "sheeple" fall for it.

Come to think of it, the Tunguska event was probably just the US, having already made huge secret strides in nuclear development, preemptively striking the Soviet Union before it even existed!!!

[Echo In Light]

52. Given the history of US war atrocities, corporate pirates & war criminal Pentagon sociopaths, yes.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Echo In Light]

54. Gee...and to think I didn't resort to calling you names. Looks like I hit a nerve.

[Silent3]

56. Yes, everything is a sign you're right. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

64. There seems to be evidence Al Qaeda existed before the Bush administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/05/world/us-indictment-detonated-an-explosive-device.html?scp=2&sq=Al+Qaeda&st=nyt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8135393

[Echo In Light]

39. +1000...this poll is like asking if people believe in the Easter Bunny

[Hosnon]

57. You can't be serious. nt.

[Dr Morbius]

30. OK, assuming there is such an organization as al Qaida...

...and assuming this is indeed a terrorist organization out to destroy the United States for assisting and supporting dictators in the middle east, there's little doubt such an organization would LOVE to get their hands on a nuke.

I think they'd have a hell of a time smuggling it into the United States, so I expect they'd use it somewhere else. And it doesn't matter that it wouldn't kill as many people as a briefcase bomb than it would if exploded a few thousand feet in the air; it would create a cloud of radioactivity and would unsettle people much more than 9/11 ever could. The objective of terrorists, let's recall, is to terrorize. To frighten, intimidate. What could be more intimidating than a loose nuke?

No, no. If there's an al Qaida, they certainly would love to get their hands on a nuke. No doubt. Which brings us to the question of whether or not there really is an al Qaida, and frankly, I don't think our government is sufficiently competent to invent such a fiction and keep the invention part of it secret. I believe there is an al Qaida, not because I believe my government wouldn't lie about such a thing. Rather, because I believe my government isn't smart enough to successfully lie about such a thing.

And I would prefer not to allow any nuclear material to fall into the hands of religious extremists on whatever side, in whatever nation. That means the Westboro Baptist Church and al Qaida and a whole lot besides.

[Statistical]

42. "I think they'd have a hell of a time smuggling it into the United States"

Thousands of metric tons of drugs enter the country ever year.
So do million of illegal immigrants.

Almost a billion shipping containers enter the US ports. Nobody is checking them 10km offshore. Only a tiny fraction are even checked and those that are checked are done so when offloaded.

Lots of cargo ships leave from unfriendly ports (Yemen, Qatar, whole host of African nations) where corruption is rapmant and security lax.

Cargo container + nuclear device + some lead shielding + suicide operator + (optional) couple tons of Colbalt-60 or Strontium-90

Ports enters harbor and docks and port. If it is detected operator detonates device as ground burst. If not it can be moved to an optional location.

The only thing preventing a nuclear attack on US soil is their inability to acquire a nuclear weapon. Homeland Security is a joke in terms of preventing a nuclear attack.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I believe that nuclear terrorism has a high enough probability to merit concern

Al Qaida is so decentralized these days that it's hard to really tell what is and what isn't Al Qaida anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Decentralized = gives permission for Governments to treat US ALL as Potential Terrorists.

NO THANK YOU!

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-panopticon_state.jpg

[gleaner]

35. I said yes....

Terrorists will use pretty much any weapon that they can get. That is the whole point of the exercise. To try to horrify and bludgeon people into a state where they cannot function. The IRA did it by blowing up school buses with regular explosives.

[ShortnFiery]

36. I believe we need to secure the NUKES and stop the amorphous FEAR-MONGERING. eom

[Echo In Light]

40. +1 ... Secure, and then dismantle, permanently

[Prometheus Bound]

43. Define/identify/explain Al-Qaida.

And 'evildoers' will not cut it.

[ZombieHorde]

45. From Oxford Islamic studies...

The base. Militant organization formed circa 1986 by Osama bin Laden to channel fighters and funds for the Afghan resistance movement. Became a vehicle for the declaration of international military struggle against governments and Western representatives and institutions in the Muslim world, America, and other parts of the West. Influenced by the fundamentalist worldview and militant piety of seventh-century Kharijis, Wahhabism, and contemporary Egyptian extremist movements. Allied with the Taliban regime of Afghanistan; the alliance became a base for a network of organizations and cells throughout the Muslim world. Transnational in identity and recruitment; global in ideology, strategy, targets, economic transactions, and network of organizations. Embraces extremist militant views that are rejected by mainstream Muslims.

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1909?_hi=27&_pos=4

[Prometheus Bound]

79. Doesn't help me.

Strangely, it leaves out US and Pakistani allies in line 1.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Seems like you already have a definition in mind. nt

[Prometheus Bound]

86. I have no idea. And I don't think anyone else does either.

[ZombieHorde]

87. Why don't you think no one has any idea what Al Qaeda is? nt

[Prometheus Bound]

88. Well, for example look at your preferred description. What does it mean? Who is it?

Sorry, ZombieHorde, this was supposed to respond to your post #87

Your description in bold. My comments in normal font.

The base. Basically meaningless. I once read that Bin Laden called their Afghanistan training camp the base when they were allied and funded by the U.S. He said that's where the name came from.

Militant organization formed circa 1986 by Osama bin Laden to channel fighters and funds for the Afghan resistance movement. Allied with and supported by the U.S.

Became a vehicle for the declaration of international military struggle against governments and Western representatives and institutions in the Muslim world, America, and other parts of the West. But in the eighties it was a vehicle in alliance with the US against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.

Influenced by the fundamentalist worldview and militant piety of seventh-century Kharijis, Wahhabism, and contemporary Egyptian extremist movements. That doesn't really help identify them for me.

Allied with the Taliban regime of Afghanistan; the alliance became a base for a network of organizations and cells throughout the Muslim world. This is a bit over the top. Alliance? Some were allowed to stay in Afghanistan just as some were allowed to stay in the US. OK, they did help the Taliban push out the Soviets, but again, they were in an alliance with the US then as well. What proof is there that this base in Afghanistan is really the same organisation in Iraq and elsewhere? Just because the US military and reporters choose to call all these bad guys al-qaeda?

Transnational in identity and recruitment; So they could be anyone

global in ideology, strategy, targets, economic transactions, and network of organizations.So they could be anyone.

Embraces extremist militant views that are rejected by mainstream Muslims. ok, but who are they?

It's just not very helpful in identifying who Al-qaeda is. Maybe because there really is no such organisation. Well, not maybe.

[protocol rv]

44. Al Qaida recruiting in Latin America

Al Qaida has been known to recruit in Latin America. They look for guys who can pass as Mexicans. Maybe one idea is to take a human body and put the bomb inside, then send the body in a batch of illegal aliens going into the USA. Then they can put the body in a coffin, and send it to the target.

[Whisp]

55. first I'd have to believe that there really is an Al-Qaida

as described by the cia and bush and the media.

[closeupready]

58. Not really. Tancredo is/was a lunatic, but

they'd have to consider that in the face of such a huge offensive, the response would be equally huge times two, along the lines of what he said.

[bergie321]

59. No.

Not enough profit in a nuclear attack. "Al Qaeda" only attacks enough to annoy us and ensure that we continue blindly spending trillions of dollars to "protect" ourselves.

[LanternWaste]

65. If there was a nuclear attack perpetrated by AQ...

If there was a nuclear attack perpetrated by AQ, wouldn't it follow that U.S. military readiness and preparedness (hence, money funneled to the DOD) would increase also?

[slackmaster]

63. Yes, the Islamic Bomb

:nuke:

[Dorian Gray]

70. Hell yes.

[depakid]

71. Not if the result was the annihilation Mecca in return

[ZombieHorde]

75. That might be the best recruitment tool they ever had. nt

[depakid]

89. Might also serve notice that Medina would be flattened next

There's a reason why mutually assured destruction was a successful strategy.

[LeftishBrit]

72. Yes- they are fanatical and don't care about saving their own skins.

That's one main reason I worry about the number of nukes around, and any further proliferation. Even if leaders remain sane enough not to drop them, one day they could get into the hands of Al Quaeda or some other fanatical group who don't care if they die for their cause. Or, of course, they could get set off accidentally - but that's for another post.

[Hepburn]

76. So...how would they deliver it?

:shrug:

[hack89]

84. Shipping container on a cargo ship. nt

[Echo In Light]

95. How would they obtain it and have the know-how to detonate it w/o INSIDE HELP?

That's the key: which elements of the US govt/military are going to MAKE SURE 'they' have it and know what to do w/it

[tom_paine]

82. OTHER: Only if the CIA needed another "New Pearl Harbor" to move Bushification along

But I doubt they'll need to do that. After all, Obama isn't even slowing them down, thus paving the way for the next, more brutally totalitarian (but still, kinder and gentler and more plausibly deniable), Bushification.

[ShortnFiery]

91. For Sure! No need to fasten your seat belts, it's a smooth ride into full-on fascism.

Thanks for the velvet glove - I've never felt so good while being financially screwed. :silly:

[Echo In Light]

94. +1 ... it's likely to occur

[Warren Stupidity]

98. Yeah he drove right on by that corner, didn't he?

Our guy didn't even slow down.

[hunter]

83. I'll bet they'd piss in my mailbox too.

Damn them!

[ShortnFiery]

92. Holy Sh*t! There's ONE in my nutty buddy?!?

The definition of who qualifies as an "al Qaeda" is so amorphous, soon ONE AND ALL will be suspect.

Damn, al Qaeda and the terrorists are like *ELVIS* ... They're EVERY damn WHERE! :crazy:

"And the blue people have al Qaeda in them TOO!" :silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsVHnosRGLI

[Shell Beau]

97. Without question or thought, they'd nuke us in a heartbeat.

[Kalun D]

99. Al-Qaida Is Not Real

It's a fabrication of the MIMC to terrorize uneducated Americans into fear and war

the chances of getting killed by a "terrorist" are 100 times as rare as lighting

The real threats are pharmaceutical drugs, fluoride in the water, aspartame in the food, heart attack, cancer, people driving with cell phones.

[LeftishBrit]

100. Fluoride in the water?????

I agree about cancer, heart disease and dangerous drivers being much more likely to kill you; but if you seriously think fluoride in the water is a threat, there must have been something else in the water near you!

[grantcart]

102. Actually I think that AQ is more interested in the easier to construct

and detonate 'dirty bomb'

[mmonk]

104. There are different groups, not an organizational tight al Qaida.