Comments on: Coming Apocalypse?

Coming Apocalypse?

j-urb — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:30:21 -0800

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.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:34:23 -0800

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!

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:40:37 -0800

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.

By: thedoctorpants

thedoctorpants — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:40:54 -0800

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?

By: warbaby

warbaby — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:45:52 -0800

They left out that the smuggling was done by Elvis and Bigfoot in a UFO.

By: state fxn

state fxn — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:46:49 -0800

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.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:47:31 -0800

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.

By: mischief

mischief — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:50:37 -0800

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

By: state fxn

state fxn — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:50:45 -0800

(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)

By: sour cream

sour cream — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:52:10 -0800

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?

By: state fxn

state fxn — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:53:58 -0800

...other average citizens don't read the blue?

By: 517

517 — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:54:28 -0800

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.

By: state fxn

state fxn — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:55:07 -0800

ah. Sorry. It should read: ...because other average citizens don't read the blue?

By: teece

teece — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:55:20 -0800

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.

By: keswick

keswick — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:56:55 -0800

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. "

By: mondo dentro

mondo dentro — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:58:53 -0800

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

By: Faze

Faze — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:02:53 -0800

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.

By: BoringPostcards

BoringPostcards — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:17:00 -0800

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

By: kingfisher, his musclebound cat

kingfisher, his musclebound cat — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:21:21 -0800

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).

By: kingfisher, his musclebound cat

kingfisher, his musclebound cat — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:26:08 -0800

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.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:29:41 -0800

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.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:32:16 -0800

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.

By: nyterrant

nyterrant — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:36:17 -0800

Was Lou Dobbs a source on this?

By: glenwood

glenwood — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:41:52 -0800

i heard this guy on michael savage the other night. ugh.

By: kgasmart

kgasmart — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:44:53 -0800

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.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:48:43 -0800

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.

By: telstar

telstar — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:57:04 -0800

mischief writes "This reeks of S.P.E.C.T.R.E." More like THRUSH I'd say more like K.A.O.S.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:01:28 -0800

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.

By: warbaby

warbaby — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:03:34 -0800

Sorry about that, Chief.

By: mondo dentro

mondo dentro — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:06:32 -0800

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?

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:09:46 -0800

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.

By: homodigitalis

homodigitalis — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:12:36 -0800

Al Qaeda should nuke Ann Coulters hometown. Just to get even.

By: homodigitalis

homodigitalis — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:16:31 -0800

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?

By: Mutant

Mutant — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:21:56 -0800

"...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?

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:32:01 -0800

Why the Greys, of course.

By: mondo dentro

mondo dentro — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:33:58 -0800

...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.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:35:25 -0800

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

By: 517

517 — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:48:14 -0800

Whenever I hear about this stuff, I think of Brazil and how it just keeps becoming less of a parody.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:53:04 -0800

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 ?

By: commonmedia

commonmedia — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:56:20 -0800

is Rush Limbaugh involved in the execution of this?

By: objet

objet — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:06:10 -0800

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.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:07:04 -0800

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.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:22:08 -0800

hmmm... sounds like we might need some covert CIA operatives experienced in WMDs to investigate this.

By: scalespace

scalespace — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:35:06 -0800

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

By: teece

teece — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:42:15 -0800

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.

By: clyde

clyde — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:49:59 -0800

You can't bomb in here! This is the war country!

By: Justinian

Justinian — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:56:49 -0800

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.

By: PurplePorpoise

PurplePorpoise — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:04:07 -0800

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

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:19:57 -0800

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.

By: numlok

numlok — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:28:50 -0800

Well, if there's anyone who ought to know about bombing the U.S., I suppose it's Paul Williams.

By: bigbigdog

bigbigdog — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:32:00 -0800

But there was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

By: telstar

telstar — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:32:41 -0800

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?

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:33:16 -0800

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).

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:43:51 -0800

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.

By: keswick

keswick — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:44:42 -0800

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.

By: Joeforking

Joeforking — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:56:54 -0800

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".

By: stenseng

stenseng — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:59:58 -0800

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.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:01:43 -0800

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.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:06:55 -0800

/patiently awaits wicked cool low-rider ICBM with plush interior

By: stevejensen

stevejensen — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:25:37 -0800

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...

By: thedoctorpants

thedoctorpants — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:48:22 -0800

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.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:02:07 -0800

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.

By: wendell

wendell — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:02:32 -0800

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...

By: wendell

wendell — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:05:26 -0800

...and what clevershark said. ...and make that "deeply DEEPLY" - no endorsement from Johnny Depp should be implied.

By: Dunvegan

Dunvegan — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:12:00 -0800

There's an interesting anaysis of Osama's Armageddon Arithmetic given in a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco by Graham Allison.

"Four million is the answer to the question of Osama bin Laden's stated objective for America and Americans. His press spokesman, several months after the 9/11 attack, announced on the Al Qaeda web site their objective to kill 4 million Americans, including 2 million children, and to maim an equivalent number. I never understood what this children thing was about, but after the events in Russia at the school, this came back as a bit of an echo. "How does he get this number? He presents the calculus of what he says is required to balance the scales of justice for the deaths and injuries that what he calls the Jewish/Christian crusaders (by this he means Israel and us) have caused to Muslims. He runs the history, he gives the different incidents: Jenin - this is the body count; sanctions against Iraq - this is the body count. He adds it up, says it's 4 million. How many 9/11 attacks would it take to kill 4 million Americans? About 1,400. So you are not going to get there by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings." -- Graham Allison

Former Dean, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Former Pentagon Official; Author, "Nuclear Terrorism"

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:18:06 -0800

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 ! ! !

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:34:46 -0800

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.

By: Plinko

Plinko — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:38:57 -0800

Damn, b1tr0t, you nailed it. Also, when are you going to post a picture of your wang?

By: mischief

mischief — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:46:10 -0800

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!

By: jam_pony

jam_pony — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:17:29 -0800

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.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:48:42 -0800

Plinko - I hope you aren't at work right now.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:28:42 -0800

my shoe phone is ringing.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:33:21 -0800

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.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:36:57 -0800

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 :)

By: c13

c13 — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:49:38 -0800

What, not sharks with head-mounted "lasers"?

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:50:38 -0800

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.

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:12:12 -0800

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!

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:23:34 -0800

I mean, seriously... World Net Daily?? Come on.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:11:05 -0800

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?

By: dinsdale

dinsdale — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:23:24 -0800

But if Karl Rove is looking for another useful distraction... now that's frightening!

By: Devils Slide

Devils Slide — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 05:51:30 -0800

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.

By: teece

teece — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:41:29 -0800

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.

By: ozziemaland

ozziemaland — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:18:51 -0800

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

By: jefeweiss

jefeweiss — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:05:18 -0800

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.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:37:00 -0800

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 $$$).

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:45:12 -0800

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.