Officials think al Qaeda has some type of nuclear arms
October 13, 2001 11:55 AM   Subscribe

Officials think al Qaeda has some type of nuclear arms I just love how we get warmed up for the truth.
posted by Niahmas (27 comments total)
 
And Out of Nowhere comes Dick!
posted by Niahmas at 11:59 AM on October 13, 2001


once the nukes fall we'll all be warmed up for the truth for sure!
posted by jcterminal at 11:59 AM on October 13, 2001


"And if there's any nuclear capability, it is liable to be more radiological than fissile," the official said.

More like Chernobyl than Hiroshima in other words.
posted by boaz at 12:10 PM on October 13, 2001


fissile flim-flam . Old 1994 article on Russian black-market nukes.
posted by stbalbach at 12:24 PM on October 13, 2001


Yippy. If they are naive to do this, they're begging for the annhiliation of the Middle East. The Middle East is perhaps best suited area in the world to nuke if I'm not mistaken.

Damn I hope something much bigger doesn't come from this.
posted by Aikido at 12:41 PM on October 13, 2001


The Middle East is perhaps best suited area in the world to nuke if I'm not mistaken.

The best-suited place why?

(i.e.: could you make a more irresponsible comment?)
posted by fishfucker at 12:49 PM on October 13, 2001


i think it seems fair... if they try to lob a nuclear weapon on our troops, well... we might as well nuke mecca.
posted by gelatinouscitizen at 1:26 PM on October 13, 2001


Seriously, who the fuck are you people? Nuke Mecca? Because the fount of their religion equates directly with their terrorism? Let's start by lashing gelatinouscitizen and his autographed copy of Mein Kampf to any hypothetical warhead.
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:34 PM on October 13, 2001


oh sure, that will SOLVE everything.
posted by kosubai at 1:35 PM on October 13, 2001


Let's see. It's the Washington Times. It's an un-named source. It uses hedge words like "could have" and "believed to have." And suddenly, after scant words on the nuclear threat, the article talks about the much tamer chemical weapons--which there is more evidence for--and then, weirdly, drops the subject altogether and reports military maneuvers that have nothing do to with the headline and the lead paragraphs.

So my question is, how reliable do you take this story to be?
posted by Mo Nickels at 1:35 PM on October 13, 2001


Mo: I dislike the moonie-run paper, the Wash Times, an ultra right-wing biased paper. However, Gertz (article writer) has done lots of intelleigence work and from what he has said over time has connections to sources in our various intelligence agencies. It is true as is pointed out: mere speculation that they might have stuff. On the other hand, my guess is that we would know about it and it is not around any longer. Redcall that US and Israel iknew about Iraqu's a-bmomb facotiries (trying to make the bomb) and Israel--much to the consternation of right-think people everywerhe went over and bombed those places. And we all said They should not do That to a sovereign nation. But they knew. And we knew it was there.
posted by Postroad at 1:39 PM on October 13, 2001


I meant because its a vast desert thats largely devoid of life other than the human race...
posted by Aikido at 1:39 PM on October 13, 2001


Not that I support such a thing, but did I really have to state the obvious there? Do I have to explain why most of this country's nuclear weapon tests were conducted in Nevada?

Meh, pickity pick.
posted by Aikido at 1:45 PM on October 13, 2001 [1 favorite]


I meant because its a vast desert thats largely devoid of life other than the human race...

Got your desert right here buddy.

Do I have to explain why most of this country's nuclear weapon tests were conducted in Nevada?

America has deserts; it is not a desert. The Middle East has deserts; it is not a desert. It really is quite simple.
posted by boaz at 2:02 PM on October 13, 2001


"oh sure, that will SOLVE everything."

well... technically speaking, it will.

but so would paving the planet.
posted by jcterminal at 2:46 PM on October 13, 2001


Let's see. It's the Washington Times.

::rofl:: You have no idea how respected Gertz is.
posted by aaron at 3:07 PM on October 13, 2001



This is old news. We've known for years that Iraq has tried to develop radiological WMD. While the 911 attacks are evidence that these guys will indeed stop at nothing -- the death toll could as easily have been 60,000, or (some estimates if a tower had toppled the wrong way) 250,000 -- they're also pretty good evidence that they neither have access to better weapons nor ways to deliver them. Otherwise they would have been used.

Also, "radiological weapons" != "nukes", despite the Washington Times headline and frantic repetition on Free Republic. Nasty, to be sure, but not the same kind of thing. There is no nuclear explosion involved.
posted by dhartung at 3:29 PM on October 13, 2001


I wonder where the al Qaeda bases are in Afghanistan? Global Security has a great assemblage of links on the current situation. If al Qaeda has dirty nukes, I say we're justified in using the porn bomb.
posted by obedo at 3:33 PM on October 13, 2001


Dan, this is at least the third time in the last week or so you've posted a non sequiter ad hominem attack on FR in a MeFi thread. What's with the fixation?
posted by aaron at 4:22 PM on October 13, 2001


You have no idea how respected Gertz is.

Aaron, I'm far more concerned with his bad writing habits, than what you think of him. He's a cookie-cutter conservative whose carbon-copy perspectives drip invisibly into the pages of the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, The National Review, which is almost exclusively where they appear, except when mentioned in equally self-handicapped places like the Drudge Report. All he's got going for him is a loose-lipped source or two in Washington and a slough of hit-or-miss FOIA requests. Otherwise, his talents are mediocre and his two books are stinkers.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:19 PM on October 13, 2001


Speaking to the larger point. If they do have nuclear weapons? I would think that might step up this war a bit. Or would the U.S. be expected to accept the risk that they will most likely not be used?
posted by xammerboy at 5:56 PM on October 13, 2001


> ad hominem attack on FR

A magazine ain't a homo, so "ad hominem" is a bad choice of phrase. How about "non-sequitur criticism of the editorial stance of"?
posted by sylloge at 6:18 PM on October 13, 2001


Speaking to the larger point. If they do have nuclear weapons?

They don't have nukes, so making fun of scare-mongering right-wing publications is the larger point.
posted by boaz at 6:24 PM on October 13, 2001


this is at least the third time in the last week or so you've posted a non sequiter ad hominem attack on FR in a MeFi thread

Because they are the perfect example of kneejerk conservative noodniks.
posted by owillis at 8:20 PM on October 13, 2001


A magazine ain't a homo, so "ad hominem" is a bad choice of phrase

Besides, "ad hominem non-sequiter" is a double Latinism....or something.
posted by jpoulos at 8:24 PM on October 13, 2001


It's like when you say, "The left," Aaron.
posted by Doug at 10:22 PM on October 13, 2001


The Sunday Times has a story about al-Qaeda's plan to build a dirty nuke and an unsuccessful attempt to purchase spent fuel rods. When the intelligence source met Bin Laden to discuss the purchase, the source discreetly checked his global positioning system and was shocked to find that their meeting was taking place in China! I couldn't be a spy. I'm always real obvious when I check my GPS.
posted by obedo at 2:40 PM on October 14, 2001


« Older Why Do They Hate Americans?   |   Free speach on college campuses Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments