November 15, 2001

1:40 PM

"What do you mean by the destruction of America?"
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. Mullah Mohammed Omar, in an interview with the BBC. To me this is not a threat at all, but a prophecy. (Also interesting is the distinction between extremism and conservatism, getting rid of freeloaders.)
posted by rschram (26 comments total)

"Nothing in zee world can stop me now!"
You've must excuse me -- I couldn't think of anything other than this classic line from Doctor Who. Actually the entire interview scared the bejesus out of me this morning -- the audio version is particularly chilling -- Mullah Omar shouts loudly and forcefully whilst a BBC translator speaks the words HAL-like dispassionately over the top with an air of authority. Omar believes that these things will come to pass and there is nothing more frightening than a man with this kind of conviction bent on terror.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:05 PM on November 15, 2001

The real matter is the extinction of America

Morally, I cannot fathom how condemning the U.S. for bombing Afghanistan, when it was painfully made clear any (inevitable)civilian casualties were deeply regretted, can be done in the same breath as calling for the extinction of America. You kinda wonder what the Mullah would say if the U.S. had called for the extinction of Afghanistan. The extinction of all life on the planet?
This interview deserves to be read, if only to understand that, while the West had very little(I'd say too little)against Taliban-led Afghanistan until the WTC attacks, the Taliban felt quite differently, to say the least, about the "evil" West.
I now understand why they were recognized by one state in the world - Pakistan - who withdrew their support the moment the Taliban insisted they'd rather subject their own country and people to bombing than allow a foreign national, Saudi citizen Bin Laden, to be handed over, to answer the charges brought against him.

P.S. The linked transcription does not begin to convey the cold, confident and sneering tone of the Mullah,
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:12 PM on November 15, 2001

I had a vision that Allah wills the violent death of Mullah Mohammed Omar as a lesson to all dellusional pseudo-religious people.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:24 PM on November 15, 2001

From a CNN.com chat with Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc.:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you think that the Taliban are laying a trap for the allied forces by retreating so easily?

BERGEN: I am concerned that Osama bin Laden may have baited a trap of some kind and is willing to die in some kind of final battle in his holy war.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you think bin Laden has nuclear dirty bombs already here?

BERGEN: I think that he has the capability for that kind of thing. I'm not sure it's here, but I think he has acquired the capability for that. I think it may be inside Afghanistan.
posted by tranquileye at 2:27 PM on November 15, 2001

Shudder....
posted by feelinglistless at 2:32 PM on November 15, 2001

BERGEN: I think that he has the capability for that kind of thing. I'm not sure it's here, but I think he has acquired the capability for that. I think it may be inside Afghanistan.

As with a television weatherman, there's an incentive to warn of possible bad conditions and play up the probabilities of such (ratings; and everyone is relieved, rather than upset if he's wrong). That said, it wouldn't surprise me if you hear "Geiger counter readings are currently..." as part of the evening news sometime in the next year. Very scary.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:36 PM on November 15, 2001

The cold confident sneer comes from having nukelets up his sleeve. Suitcase nukes bring new meaning to the term "American Tourister".
posted by BentPenguin at 2:48 PM on November 15, 2001

I'm not concerned. He's a terrorist, and so his words are all part of a larger plan to cause people to feel terror.

The most devestating time to use a nuke would have been pre-9/11, when security wasn't so tight. He's bluffing.
posted by jragon at 2:52 PM on November 15, 2001

Shudder....
posted by feelinglistless at 3:02 PM on November 15, 2001

The most devastating time to use a nuke would have been pre-9/11, when security wasn't so tight. He's bluffing.


Actually, from a PR perspective, the most devastating time would be after; AFTER security was on high alert. Moreover, once the technology is acquired to build a nuclear device, there really is fairly little security. Lots of those containers you see on ships coming into the port of New York or San Francisco, or Los Angeles could have a bomb in it. Pleasant dreams.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:14 PM on November 15, 2001

Actually detecting nuclear material is very possible. From what I understand we have black vans with detectors roaming major citys and airplanes scanning for hot zones in Afghanistan. Checking incoming ships and planes for rads would probably make a lot of sense too.
posted by stbalbach at 3:32 PM on November 15, 2001

Just as an aside, serious nuclear weapons require maintenance. Regular maintenance performed by skilled personnel. Any small nuke acquired by the afghanis would have to have been stolen from an ex-USSR source, which would mean that it was an older device (and thus not maintained).

A suitcase nuke is an absurd scenario from the get-go. Now mere radiation weapons (as discussed earlier) are a whole different matter, and much more likely -- but there's a drawback: since they don't go critical, you need a hell of a lot of standard explosives to distribute your "warhead" over the surrounding terrain.

Like an entire cargo-container full of ammonium nitrate & diesel. Cheap, pretty effective, but also pretty damn big and hard to smuggle. Not impossible, mind you, but damn hard, plus your weapon would be shooting radiation in all directions unless you lined the container with lead (making it even heavier and more difficult to smuggle). A nutcase with a box cutter is a whole lot easier to get into the country, and just about as effective.
posted by aramaic at 3:34 PM on November 15, 2001

"This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help."

As an athiest, I find that comment positively heart-warming.
posted by mrbula at 4:00 PM on November 15, 2001

It's truly the quandary of the pragmatic to ascertain how serious and thus how really scary threats like this are.

We can find, within our own western ranks, scary rightwingers who utter like horrifying remarks. Yet we're able to place them in a "bark but no particular bite" category. As "How the fuck does he think he's going to pull it off anyway?" I'll worry once I finally see a bonafide display of his stentorian priapism.

But post 9/11, we've seen it happen -- therefore we "know" Islamic fundamentalists have the "power" to do just about anything they want. They can kill at will.

It would be more safe to assume actually, that they can verbally terrorize at will. With our senses still ratcheted up, many of us are willing to believe anything these people say, who at present have shown they can wield the power to change every one of our lives. Of course not to discount the possibility that these motherfuckers can conceivably get their hands on weapons like this. Deploying them is a whole 'nother game.

That said. I want to believe that these are the words of an angry, powerless, faith-tried, megalomaniacal zealot -- unable to wield any considerable control even in his own home. These are men who never had the luxury of Children's Television Workshop, moms who read Clifford books to them, libraries that held functions for kids where they'd take you out on warm, summer days to see images in billowy clouds. We must always keep in mind that these Taliban are doubtless very emotionally deprived, sad, sad souls.
posted by crasspastor at 4:10 PM on November 15, 2001

You kinda wonder what the Mullah would say if the U.S. had called for the extinction of Afghanistan.

Well, Paul Wolfowitz talked of "ending states" that sponsored terrorism before he got slapped down by Colin Powell and the White House. But even he's a millinutjob compared to the Mullah.
posted by holgate at 4:18 PM on November 15, 2001

To me, his interview shows why we HAVE to destroy the Taleban and OBL. They want nothing more than the total absolute destruction of all things Western. They will not stop until we are dead (or they are.) It's like "the Terminator..."He absolutly will not stop until you are dead!"

Who could disagree with war with them when they blind hatred is so obvious and it's so plain they are out for our utter destruction and that is all that will satisfy them?

There are no "civilians" in their war. They will never think what they are doing is wrong. Ever. There are no Taleban pacifists.
posted by aacheson at 4:22 PM on November 15, 2001

To me this is not a threat at all, but a prophecy.

To me, it's hallucination.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:38 PM on November 15, 2001

Do you think we have the political will to keep up the fight in Afghanistan after loosing 1000 American troops and a similar number of British forces in a nuclear explosion in Kabul? Or do you think we end up pulling out like we did out of Somalia?

This (dirty nuke set off inside Afghanistan) seems like the most likely scenario to me...
posted by daver at 5:01 PM on November 15, 2001

daver - I think you'd see a bit of both. We'd pull our troops out of the immediate area, but not to stop the conflict - only to clear a blast area for a tactical nuke of our own to end this mess once and for all.
posted by schlyer at 5:27 PM on November 15, 2001

only to clear a blast area for a tactical nuke of our own to end this mess once and for all.

What would that really do beyond a fairly small geographic area?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:30 PM on November 15, 2001

There are no "civilians" in their war. They will never think what they are doing is wrong. Ever. There are no Taleban pacifists.

I think you're half right. No, there are no Taliban pacifists. Yes, there are civilians in this war.
posted by jragon at 6:43 PM on November 15, 2001

Who could disagree with war with them when they blind hatred is so obvious and it's so plain they are out for our utter destruction and that is all that will satisfy them?

By this reasoning, one would support a war (carpet bombing, special forces, collateral damage -- the works) against white supremacists in the US. It's just not that simple.
posted by sudama at 7:20 PM on November 15, 2001

only to clear a blast area for a tactical nuke of our own to end this mess once and for all.

erm... don't you mean strategic? a tactical nuke in afghanistan wouldn't really do much outside a single populated area. The W-88 (trident warhead) is just such a device. OTOH, a more appropriate weapon for use in the hills and plains (especially the plains) of afghanistan is the Mk-53(Y1) thermonuclear free-fall bomb, which weighs in at 9Mt and is part of the US enduring stockpile.

if you're going to be enough of an idiot to justify the use of nuclear weapons, you might as well go all the way.
posted by phalkin at 7:37 PM on November 15, 2001

phalkin - Chill the insults. Tactical nukes are a weapon of war as are any other. No one advocated or "justified" the use of nuclear weapons; it was simply hypothesized as a possible response to the use of said against us. Arrogant assumption of what is right (on your part) is simply idle insulting.

Furthermore, if the Taliban and Al Queda only wish destruction (as has been stated by them), and the only response is total destruction of them (as has been theorized here) then what is idiotic about the use of nukes? If you're going to insult others about what you see as idiotic, please clarify the intelligence of your own position first.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:20 PM on November 15, 2001

By this reasoning, one would support a war...against white supremacists in the US.

Do you think, for *one* second, that the gov't wouldn't be shooting every militia-nutjob they could get their hands on if some Christian Identity freaks blew up WTC?

They'd be dragging them through the streets in chains, and everyone would be cheering.

Your criticism may still be correct, but you need a better counterpoint -- because there would be a war against White Supremacists in the US if they committed these sorts of acts. Heck, the gov't shoots 'em already for fairly minor things, in comparison!
posted by aramaic at 9:53 PM on November 15, 2001

Not a counterpoint, just a point.
posted by sudama at 11:02 PM on November 15, 2001