Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Coming Apocalypse?
July 16, 2005 11:30 AM   Subscribe

Coming Apocalypse? In a forthcoming book by Paul L. Williams, Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, And the Coming Apocalypse, Williams alleges that al Qaeda has managed to obtain nuclear weapons from Russia and has already smuggled the WMDs across the Mexican border and into the U.S.
posted by j-urb (85 comments total)

 
According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S.

Why bother with the cost, difficulty, and danger of smuggling in actual nuclear material when you can achieve the same degree of panic simply by leaking your plans to the enemy? Brilliant!
posted by b1tr0t at 11:34 AM on July 16, 2005


Strange link. The fundamentalist Christians usually expect a nuclear holocaust in Jerusalem, initiated by the heathen Muslims, thus fulfilling End Times. This prediction doesn't fit too well into their final solution. Perhaps the WorldNetDaily editor was taking a nap when this article slipped through.
posted by Rothko at 11:40 AM on July 16, 2005


My questions about this story are this:

1. Is this a reliable story/source?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, should the mainstream media report this? Wouldn't this cause a major panic?
3. Or is it our right to know?
posted by thedoctorpants at 11:40 AM on July 16, 2005


They left out that the smuggling was done by Elvis and Bigfoot in a UFO.
posted by warbaby at 11:45 AM on July 16, 2005


Second nuclear weapons post of the day!...Nothing wrong with that of course.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."
I am soooo confused. Who is really evil??

Oh yeah, the doctorpants those were my thoughts precisely when reading article.
posted by state fxn at 11:46 AM on July 16, 2005


Another strange part of the link is its near fanatical obsession with the Mexico-US border and attempts by right-wing militias to secure it with or without government approval. Almost as if the subject matter is led by the site's editorial agenda.
posted by Rothko at 11:47 AM on July 16, 2005


This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
posted by mischief at 11:50 AM on July 16, 2005


(derail)
I have a question to those who are more knowledgeable: Are the people who are pro-securing the US-Mexican border generally anti-Mexican-emigration? I live close to the border so whenever I think of people trumpeting "secure the border!" it translates in my mind to "keep out the Mexican workers!"
(/derail)
posted by state fxn at 11:50 AM on July 16, 2005


2. If the answer to 1 is yes, should the mainstream media report this? Wouldn't this cause a major panic?

The answer to this is, yes, they should and, no, it wouldn't cause a panic.
Do you see any signs of panic? Are you yourself panicking right now? Why should the average citizen panic if you yourself manage to stay calm?
posted by sour cream at 11:52 AM on July 16, 2005


...other average citizens don't read the blue?
posted by state fxn at 11:53 AM on July 16, 2005


According to this, Al Qaeda was invented by the DOJ in order to charge Binladen under RICO laws. As stupid as that sounds, I find it more believable than your post.
posted by 517 at 11:54 AM on July 16, 2005


ah. Sorry. It should read:

...because other average citizens don't read the blue?
posted by state fxn at 11:55 AM on July 16, 2005


My reaction to this is "so fucking what?" I can't do a damn thing about it, and I don't want to live my life in fear.

If the author is not a complete crackpot or sensationalist dreaming up absolute worst case scenarios (and that's a big if), but assuming that, the CIA and NSA and what not would already have this information.

And unlike me, they might actually be able to do something about it. So I'll let them worry about it

Of course, if anyone were ever actually able to do that to America, the horrific damage that was done to America would pale in comparison to the complete chaos that ensued as America plunged fully and completely into abject terror, and destroyed the world.
posted by teece at 11:55 AM on July 16, 2005


Is the guy that was on Coast to Coast with Bill Noory the other day?

sour cream: "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. "
posted by keswick at 11:56 AM on July 16, 2005


Conclusion: more fascism, now! Only theocratic authoritarianism can save us!

posted by mondo dentro at 11:58 AM on July 16, 2005


This story is patently bogus. It's all about the Mexican border. Whomever planted it hopes to whip up enough hysteria to generate public sanction for stronger measures to secure the border.
posted by Faze at 12:02 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief writes "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."

More like THRUSH
posted by BoringPostcards at 12:17 PM on July 16, 2005


I considered posting this, too, but with a little mediating material about Leo Strauss and my tendency to believe that we have an administration that is using terrorism to create a new mythology.

So thanks 517 for linking to the Power of Nightmares. I want to see this and had no idea it was available. I should have checked.

However the plan mentioned certainly seems sensible )from an insanely vengeful and nihilistic perspective).
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 12:21 PM on July 16, 2005


Keswick, yes he was on Coast to Coast. I am an east coast insomniac and hear this show too often.

And, Faze, he wasn't all about the Mexican border. He expressed concerns over shipping and certain airports that have a high involvement with crime families, such as the Philadelphia airport. If there's an alternate agenda here it's not restricted to the U.S. Mexico border.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 12:26 PM on July 16, 2005


According to this, Al Qaeda was invented by the DOJ in order to charge Binladen under RICO laws. As stupid as that sounds, I find it more believable than your post.

It sounds no less stupid than the post.

I watched The Power of Nightmares the other day was struck by how it seemed to allege al-Qaeda was some kind of fantasy construct created by Western leaders, yet al-Qaeda agents have claimed credit for, or are linked to, bombing after bombing in Iraq, and even the recent London bombings have confirmed connections to al-Qaeda. Frankly I don't believe TPoN any more than I do the CIA.

Via The Scotsman:
AS INVESTIGATIONS continued yesterday into the extent of the links between al-Qaeda and last week's attacks, intelligence officials in Pakistan confirmed that one of the bombers did visit a radical religious school run by a banned terrorist organisation.

One official said that while in Pakistan, Tanweer is believed to have visited the 60-acre LeT complex - called Markaz Taiba - which includes a mosque, religious school, housing and farmland. The short nature of the visit is thought to indicate that he went to meet someone or receive instructions.

But yesterday Mohammed Azam, who is in charge of the complex, denied that Tanweer had ever been there. "This is a pack of lies," he said. "They want to malign Islam. They want to target the religion of Islam and Muslims."


Yes. It's the fault of the non-Muslim infidels. Always. It's the fault of the British gov't. It's the fault of the US gov't for 'outing' an al-Qaeda agent. It's the fault of US soldiers for giving candy to kids. There are no such thing as sleeper cells. The war is on Islam.

And on.

And on.
posted by dhoyt at 12:29 PM on July 16, 2005


That is sooo awsome. They put together a scare-story that assembles all the various boogie-men used to keep American voter's nervous and pliable. Let's see, a base of Drug War with a healthy few pinches of Mexicans plus a light seasoning of Youth Gangs all deglazed with Terroristic, Nihilist Arabs and former Communists. Only fascism can save us now!

What a bogus load of crap.

Kingfisher: Yes, this is the newest mythology used by certain powers to retain control. This is far from a new strategy, hell it's as old as government, but this is the latest incarnation.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:32 PM on July 16, 2005


Was Lou Dobbs a source on this?
posted by nyterrant at 12:36 PM on July 16, 2005


i heard this guy on michael savage the other night. ugh.
posted by glenwood at 12:41 PM on July 16, 2005


how it seemed to allege al-Qaeda was some kind of fantasy construct created by Western leaders, yet al-Qaeda agents have claimed credit for, or are linked to, bombing after bombing in Iraq, and even the recent London bombings have confirmed connections to al-Qaeda.

Yeah, but consider that if you're a disaffected Muslim young man, you can be al Qaeda by simply saying you're al Qaeda; the main critique of the U.S's tactics in the war on terror is the thinking behind it, like we're going to bust into some safe house somewhere and find a comprehensive list of members, like al-Qaeda is the fucking Boy Scouts or something.

Even if it was constructed by Western leaders, it's taken on a life of its own.
posted by kgasmart at 12:44 PM on July 16, 2005


Seems to me that its just obvious that there are Soviet era nukes on US soil. What is the cost of a reliable ICBM? Millions. What is the cost of smuggling in a nuke, given high tech support like coded radios, satellite imagery and mini-submarines? Hundreds of thousands? It would be stupid not to have done it.
posted by StickyCarpet at 12:48 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief writes "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."

More like THRUSH


I'd say more like K.A.O.S.
posted by telstar at 12:57 PM on July 16, 2005


who knew that suitcase nukes used both uranium and plutonium? al qaeda has clearly won the technology war by creating bombs that don't even exist.
posted by spiderwire at 1:01 PM on July 16, 2005


Sorry about that, Chief.
posted by warbaby at 1:03 PM on July 16, 2005


It's the fault of the non-Muslim infidels...[more dismissive language about western critics]...

I can't be sure, and I know that idiocy does not favor any particular political inclination, but I think the majority of people who are critical of the west know quite well that al Qaeda is a real threat. But if you want to solve a difficult problem, especially one that is life-threatening, you have to clearly identify all of its moving parts first.

Not understanding how western policies and behaviors have lead to the threat we now face is as gross an error as denying that certain sexual practices are associated with the spread of AIDS.

So, wassup, dhoyt? You like having your head in the sand, or what?

posted by mondo dentro at 1:06 PM on July 16, 2005


I suggest a pre-emptive strike against Mexican street gangs. It's well known that several California cities harbor these dangerous insurgents. We will have to put those cities under martial law, and declair all low rider muscle cars and pneumatic suspension kits illegal.
posted by nervousfritz at 1:09 PM on July 16, 2005


Al Qaeda should nuke Ann Coulters hometown. Just to get even.
posted by homodigitalis at 1:12 PM on July 16, 2005


On a realistic sidenote: if you already have a nuke in the US - why wait to use it. Every day increases the chance of being discovered. You don't wanna loose such a trump card?
posted by homodigitalis at 1:16 PM on July 16, 2005


"...locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War."

I always read that Nuclear Weapons required maintenance, and it would seem that the smaller weapons required more frequent maintenance.

So even if there were Soviet Nuclear weapons physically located in the US during the Cold War, who's been fiddling with them since then to insure they are operational?
posted by Mutant at 1:21 PM on July 16, 2005


Why the Greys, of course.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:32 PM on July 16, 2005


...who's been fiddling with them since then to insure they are operational?

Why obviously, it was the decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts...[in]...what amounts to a fifth column.

posted by mondo dentro at 1:33 PM on July 16, 2005


In this chaotic world, the only realistic option is to intervene!
The existential threat of a nuclear holocaust has been replaced by that of the pervasive insecurity of global terrorism. The dangerous order of the cold war has been replaced by the unpredictable chaos wrought by the suicide bomber. In the clash of ideas with liberal democracy, communism has given way to extreme Islamism.
but what if you combine the two? i think i've seen this movie :D
posted by kliuless at 1:35 PM on July 16, 2005


Whenever I hear about this stuff, I think of Brazil and how it just keeps becoming less of a parody.
posted by 517 at 1:48 PM on July 16, 2005


And it just sells because, you know you're going TO DIE VIOLENTLY if you don't read the book !

On a tangent: did you forget about your nucular shelter ? Have you cleaned your bioweapon suit ? Is your condom really HIV proof ? Did you know chineses are communists in disguise ? What are the white supremacist and NRA doing ? Is Michael Jackson really a paedophile ? Who's protecting the children from pornography ? What are the religious zealots planning ?
posted by elpapacito at 1:53 PM on July 16, 2005


is Rush Limbaugh involved in the execution of this?
posted by commonmedia at 1:56 PM on July 16, 2005


Hate to break it to you, kids, but such a headline is (of course) just infomercial inna 2005 stylee. As for when this horrible thing might happen - well, you need to pay $9.95 to find out that bit of key info.

Just check out the "follow-up".

Peace sells, but who's buying? No...

...Fear sells, and many will buy.

Just stash any hardcopy editions of the newsletter alongside your duct tape, bottled water and plastic sheeting. Will definitely make for good smug 'Told You So' reading after the apocalypse.
posted by objet at 2:06 PM on July 16, 2005


So they're just waiting for the Democrats to win an election to detonate the bomb? That's fucking low. Luckily, we got a while.
posted by Busithoth at 2:07 PM on July 16, 2005


hmmm... sounds like we might need some covert CIA operatives experienced in WMDs to investigate this.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:22 PM on July 16, 2005


sorry, snarkiness aside, but does anyone take worldnetdaily seriously as a "credible" news source?
posted by scalespace at 2:35 PM on July 16, 2005


I watched The Power of Nightmares the other day was struck by how it seemed to allege al-Qaeda was some kind of fantasy construct created by Western leaders

That's almost a 100% correct statement, dhoyt. There is no Arab terrorist organization that calls itself al Qaeda.

Rather, there are many rag-tag groups of terrorists that may or may not have passed through a Bin Laden training camp and that may or may not claim a (very loose) affiliation with Bin Laden and that may or may not have similar goals.

The problem is terrorism among Islamic militants in general. There is no list of al Qaeda swat commandos that we can kill, along with the top al Qaeda "leadership" which would result in an end of terrorism.

The Wester fixation of a worldwide network of terrorist operating some kind of a central command system and acting as a sort of shadow rogue nation is fantasy. And it is currently the Western thinking about Islamic Terrorism, sadly.
posted by teece at 2:42 PM on July 16, 2005


You can't bomb in here! This is the war country!
posted by clyde at 2:49 PM on July 16, 2005


homodigitalis' point is dead on. This story is obviously bollocks: If you are a terrorist and manage to get a nuke or nukes onto USA soil you immediately drive that baby to a major city and set it off. Immediately. Every day you sit on it increases the probability of getting caught.

There is no need to wait around for the "right time" if you have a nuke. Even a baby nuke would cause incredible amounts of shock and horror far out of proportion to the actual damage caused. (I'm assuming that the only nukes a terrorist could possibly get are baby suitcase nukes and not megaton city busters).

Another point: Every day you sit on a nuke decreases the chance that the thing will actually explode. Nukes are like that sour cream in your fridge; they have expiration dates. And every day past the expiration date increases the chance of pushing the button looking for a big boom and getting nothing but some disgusting curdled milk.
posted by Justinian at 2:56 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."

BoringPostcards More like THRUSH

telstar I'd say more like K.A.O.S.

C'mon guys, we all know that it's COBRA!

sorry man
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:04 PM on July 16, 2005


As soon as I see "worldnetdaily.com" in the URL, I pretty much lose my impression that there is much to gain by reading the linked piece... same goes for "freerepublic.com", "newsmax.com", "cnsnews.com", "foxnews.com", etc.
posted by clevershark at 3:19 PM on July 16, 2005


Well, if there's anyone who ought to know about bombing the U.S., I suppose it's Paul Williams.
posted by numlok at 3:28 PM on July 16, 2005


But there was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
posted by bigbigdog at 3:32 PM on July 16, 2005


sorry, snarkiness aside, but does anyone take worldnetdaily seriously as a "credible" news source?

Are you saying that countless reports that "jesus is a-comin'" are somehow suspect?
posted by telstar at 3:32 PM on July 16, 2005


It is true that a bomb, once brought into the U.S., would be detonated within 72 hours, and it wouldn't be some asshat website that let us know of the fact (sorry, internets).
posted by Busithoth at 3:33 PM on July 16, 2005


Do W(M)D pages still feature "floor-humping guy"? I don't see him, but it might be because I'm adblocking that pic.
posted by clevershark at 3:43 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief: "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
BoringPostcards: More like THRUSH
telstar: I'd say more like K.A.O.S.
PurplePorpoise: C'mon guys, we all know that it's COBRA!

I think we can rule out G.R.O.S.S.
posted by keswick at 3:44 PM on July 16, 2005


You don't wanna loose such a trump card?
Who cares about nukes? The biggest menace facing our civilization is using the word "loose" instead of "lose".
posted by Joeforking at 3:56 PM on July 16, 2005


Look, this isn't THAT big a deal. Osama's gonna call GW up on the red video phone, and once we pay him the ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUAH AHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

He'll tell us where to collect the nukes.
posted by stenseng at 3:59 PM on July 16, 2005


Rather, there are many rag-tag groups of terrorists that may or may not have passed through a Bin Laden training camp and that may or may not claim a (very loose) affiliation with Bin Laden and that may or may not have similar goals.

Sure, but personally I thought that TPoN was a little glib & irresponsible in their portrayal of al-Qaeda as 'fantasy'. Depending on how you read it, that can lead one to believe al-Qaeda/bin Laden/militant Muslims the world aren't much of a threat, which of course flies in the face of the near-daily suicide bombings & murder plots credited to worldwide terrorist agents with very similar agendas. Incidents like London remind us these agents are not going away no matter what rubric the media or administration gives them, whether they call themselves al-Qaeda or The Flintstones, whether they are networked or not.

If Bush's visions of al-Qaeda rings of Neocon fantasy, I'd say TPoN has progressive-wetdream tendencies.
posted by dhoyt at 4:01 PM on July 16, 2005


/patiently awaits wicked cool low-rider ICBM with plush interior
posted by yerfatma at 4:06 PM on July 16, 2005


If Osama had nukes, why weren't they used on 9/11 ?

If they had nukes, why would they launch 9/11 the way they did, instead of just waiting until all the nuke puzzle pieces were in place, they nuke us?

If they had nukes, why not use them a week ago in London?

Sounds like neo-con boogey-man hype to scare us citizens...
posted by stevejensen at 4:25 PM on July 16, 2005


If you made it this far down... it must be good.


Some of these answers sound like you are convincing yourselves that everything will be alright. A lot of this sounds like reasonable assumptions. But it still doesn't answer the question...Is this a reliable source? What about the Congressman who is looking into it? Why does he feel this story has merit? Should the mainstream media cover this if it is reliable?... or will it cause a panic? I'm not trembling, sour cream, because I am not living in the US anymore... I escaped in a hot air balloon after GW got re-elected. I was one of the lucky ones. God bless the poor bastards still there.
posted by thedoctorpants at 4:48 PM on July 16, 2005


thedoctorpants writes "What about the Congressman who is looking into it? Why does he feel this story has merit?"

There's no IQ test that determines eligibility to become a Congressman. For all we know said Congressman is cut from the same cloth as the guy who runs W(M)D... in fact that same publication is endorsing him for President in 2008 (!), which is not all that surprising when one considers his consistently right-wing stand on, well, just about every issue. In fact the highest-ranked interview with him (when you google his name) is for an interview on Right-Wing News.

Evidently Mr. Tancredo is no more credible than the W(M)D as a publication.
posted by clevershark at 5:02 PM on July 16, 2005


which of course flies in the face of the near-daily suicide bombings & murder plots credited to worldwide terrorist agents with very similar agendas
Most of which are occurring in Flypaperland, safely away from the truly civilized nations. We can argue all day whether there would be as much terrorism going on it we hadn't gone into Iraq, because those arguing that Operation Iraq and Iruin is making us safer have had their brains hardwired.

I'm old enough to remember "suitcase nuke terrorist" plots on old TV shows like "Hawaii Five-O" and "Mission: Impossible" in the '70s. I remain deeply deply relieved that no such act occurred during the five-to-ten years after the Soviet Union's collapse, and certainly agree that the window of opportunity for it has passed... (Say it so people can understand it, wendell) If it was ever gonna happen, it would've happened back in the '90s.

And they predicted jetpacks and all we got was the Segway.

Of course, "Hawaii Five-O" and "Mission: Impossible" are running in reruns on UHF TV here in Los Angeles. Williams should run commercials for the book during those shows... (and thedoctorpants, that's as close to the MSM as he deserves to get - and please remember, getting elected to Congress in Colorado has no relationship with any kind of credibility). But if Karl Rove is looking for another useful distraction...
posted by wendell at 5:02 PM on July 16, 2005


...and what clevershark said.
...and make that "deeply DEEPLY" - no endorsement from Johnny Depp should be implied.
posted by wendell at 5:05 PM on July 16, 2005


There's an interesting anaysis of Osama's Armageddon Arithmetic given in a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco by Graham Allison.posted by Dunvegan at 5:12 PM on July 16, 2005


Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm just glad we've got such a stalwart, brave figure as W in the white house to protect us all, the dependable right-wing media to keep us fully informed at all hours of the day seven days a week, patriotic 'muricans like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to exhort us to ever greater patriotic fervor and right wingers everywhere to remain ever vigalant against those who are not white, god-fearin' 'muricans like the rest of us. God Bless 'Murica ! ! !
Oh, and I've got my nook-leer bomb shelter, how 'bout you?
'Course I ain't gonna need it or nuthin, 'cause with GW runnin' the show and Porter Goss headin' the See Eye Aye, why they're just gonna round all them thar Tally-Ban up at the last minute just like they do in a Tom Clancy novel, and how much ya'all wanna bet there's gonna be a bunch Greenpeace lovin' tofu-eatin' hemp wearin' hippies helpin' them mooselims out too ! ! !
posted by mk1gti at 5:18 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief: "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
BoringPostcards: More like THRUSH
telstar: I'd say more like K.A.O.S.
PurplePorpoise: C'mon guys, we all know that it's COBRA!
keswick: I think we can rule out G.R.O.S.S.

My money's on C.H.U.M.P.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:34 PM on July 16, 2005


Damn, b1tr0t, you nailed it. Also, when are you going to post a picture of your wang?
posted by Plinko at 5:38 PM on July 16, 2005


mischief: "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
BoringPostcards: More like THRUSH
telstar: I'd say more like K.A.O.S.
PurplePorpoise: C'mon guys, we all know that it's COBRA!
My money's on C.H.U.M.P.

keswick: I think we can rule out G.R.O.S.S.

... and our man Flint already took out Galaxy. ZOWIE!
posted by mischief at 5:46 PM on July 16, 2005


I'm with mondo dentro, StickyCarpet and thdoctorpants, to a degree. Even supposing Williams and Worldnet are complete crackpots, the scenario is plausible. I mean the "USA-hating M.E. terrorist group attacks USA with smuggled-in WMD" scenario, not necessarily the particulars in the article.

However, I'm much reassured by the fact that there have been no airliners shot down. Think about it: surface to air missiles are readily available on the world market - undoubtedly far easier to obtain than working, portable nukes. And if there is much radiation-detection going on at cargo ports, SAMs are probably easier to smuggle in, too. And if they were smuggled in, they'd probably have been used by now. Thus, the WMD danger is still way out there.
posted by jam_pony at 6:17 PM on July 16, 2005


Plinko - I hope you aren't at work right now.
posted by b1tr0t at 6:48 PM on July 16, 2005


my shoe phone is ringing.
posted by quonsar at 7:28 PM on July 16, 2005


dhoyt
Sure, but personally I thought that TPoN was a little glib & irresponsible in their portrayal of al-Qaeda as 'fantasy'. Depending on how you read it, that can lead one to believe al-Qaeda/bin Laden/militant Muslims the world aren't much of a threat,

Only if someone misreads it, I think it was clear enough that such a misreading is quite shameful. The doco assumes the viewer has enough intelligence to make sensible interpretations. (Eg, Likewise as it plots the rise of neocon influence, the ommission of almost all but the most closely related factors of history could easily make it sound like a bunch of people decided to change the world, and went ahead and did just that, just like that, when of course it was nothing of the sort.) The tight focus on X to the exclusion of all other factors does not imply that other factors had nothing to do with it, merely that it's not part of the doco, and the viewer is assumed to get this.

When the doco talks about how there is no such thing as the common perceived vast global terrorist organisation, and then people interpret this to mean it's saying there are no terrorists, or no Al Qaeda, I think that reflects poorly on the people misinterpreting, not the doco. It seemed pretty clear to me what the doco was saying. Other criticisms can be made, but that one's pretty weak IMO.

Note also that it was made for a British audience. The difference between how an average british doco and an average US doco imparts information can be pretty vast. Perhaps it's unfair of me to look down on people misreading if they're used to the US style of doco.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:33 PM on July 16, 2005


This needs to hit the mainstream news so I can buy (then sell) geiger counters at immense profit :-)

/Don't look at me like that - our role models in the Whitehouse profit from the fear of terror, so should we :)
posted by -harlequin- at 7:36 PM on July 16, 2005


What, not sharks with head-mounted "lasers"?
posted by c13 at 7:49 PM on July 16, 2005


that can lead one to believe al-Qaeda/bin Laden/militant Muslims the world aren't much of a threat

Also, the London bombings suggests that al-Qaeda/bin Laden/militant Muslims aren't much of a threat - if you're safely within British or US borders, there has bever been a year yet in which death by terrorist wasn't one of the rarest and most exotic ways of dying there is.
That doesn't downplay how evil it is to kill innocent people, just like how it doesn't downplay the evilness of murder to question the priorities of someone who spends all their money on building a safe-room in their house when they already live in a safe suburb, when they commut an hour to work each day without wearing a seatbelt. People just suck when it comes to risk assesment. From a risk-assesment point of view, the Pentagon thinks even global warming is a much bigger threat than al Qaeda, yet government spending makes it look the exact opposite.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:50 PM on July 16, 2005


I'm with -harlequin-, where can I invest in companies that profit from the paranoid fantasies spun by a few that frighten the many? There's money to be made here folks, money to be invested, reaped and used for getting out of this sinking ship!
posted by mk1gti at 11:12 PM on July 16, 2005


I mean, seriously... World Net Daily?? Come on.
posted by psmealey at 11:23 PM on July 16, 2005


Invest in duct tape, plastic sheeting, oil futures.

Investing in foreign currency, like the Iraqi Dinar (which, before the invasion, was 1ID=3USD, is now at an exchange rate of 1UDS=1471ID) would be a bad choice.
But I heard that the 'new' Iraqi Dinar was linked to the US Dollar during the CPA govt., so, what gives?
posted by Balisong at 12:11 AM on July 17, 2005


But if Karl Rove is looking for another useful distraction...

now that's frightening!
posted by dinsdale at 1:23 AM on July 17, 2005


This reminds me of JFK, the movie.

I'm sure Al Qaeda would like nothing better than to procure nukes, but as others have said if they had smuggled suitcase nukes into the US we'd be fighting each other over a can of beans and it would be nuclear winter. Waiting for "the right time"? Um, wouldn't the right time be when we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq?

All sarcasm aside, I do think eventually they'll get their hands on a nuclear device. If I were in charge every former Eastern Bloc and Pakistani nuclear scientist would be living in a mansion in Hawaii.
posted by Devils Slide at 5:51 AM on July 17, 2005


Speaking of Tancredo: living in Colorado, I get to see his shenanigans a bit more often.

Let me say this: he is completely worthless on this issue. Tancredo has one issue, and one issue only: illegal immigration. He pursues it with the glee of a man who hates just a wee bit to easy.

The only reason he would be "investigating" this is because of his preconceived biases about Mexican immigrants being the greatest threat the US faces, and the fervent hope that he could find something on this so people will listen to him on his pet issue.
posted by teece at 9:41 AM on July 17, 2005


The Brits call 'em "muzzies," not "mooselims." It's to them I dedicate this Mary's lamb update:

Buzzie muzzie had a bomb
It's blast was quite a blow --
It made the children sit quite calm
To watch the London show.

Ozzie Maland
San Diego
posted by ozziemaland at 11:18 AM on July 17, 2005


Statistically speaking, terrorism isn't a threat to anyone. Even if you live in Israel you're far more likely to die in a car wreck. That doesn't stop people from driving like asshats. In the U.S. you're much more likely to choke to death or die by lightning strike, or tornado.
posted by jefeweiss at 12:05 PM on July 17, 2005


In theory, every border should be controlled well enough that no nuclear weapons can be smuggled across and into the U.S., so I can't argue that point.

On the other hand, I wonder if the author would be okay with just making sure "illegals" didn't get into the nation with parts of a nuclear weapon (or any other items that might constitute a danger to public safety). My guess is "probably not." So it seems to me that, as others have pointed out, his claims simply serve the purpose of forwarding his real agenda.

If the author of this book had compelling evidence that there were WMD in the US, I would rather think that he would want to provide it to, oh, say the FBI and DHS.

Publishing this data in a book and going on the talk-show circuit is hardly the way to go to prevent a terror attack with such weapons. In fact, if it were me I'd want to lie low, seeing as if I had this evidence I would be a prime target for assassination by Al Qaida, who doubtless would not want Operation American Hiroshima to be compromised.

The threat of nuclear terrorism is concievable, no doubt about that. As a society, we should take every reasonable measure to prevent such an event. But there are limits to how far we should go, and how worried we should be. Article like this are simply exercises in scare-mongering (and exploiting public anxiety for $$$).
posted by moonbiter at 2:37 AM on July 18, 2005


Let me get this straight. Russian, Mexican and South American mobsters act completely against their own self interest to aid an organization, that if successful, would eliminate the largest market of illicit drugs, IE the US, and thus destroy 60% of their own profits? And not only that the same mob would aid to power a group that would, through religious fervor, eradicate all prostitution and narcotics, if they were successful in dominating the world thus destroying the other 40% of Mob profits?

Ok. Suuuuuuure.
posted by tkchrist at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2005


« Older Peer to Patent (PtoP): A Modest Proposal...  |  False Terrorist Organizations.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments