Bin Laden developing nuclear plan to kill millions

Al-Qaida's 'American Hiroshima'
Bin Laden developing nuclear plan to kill millions

Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters



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. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

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."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.

 

Now this is some scary s***. If Bush can stop it, prevent it, crack down on those MS-13 scoundrels, and arrest every suspicious Arab-looking potential terrorist in America, I'll eat all my previous words and vote for him until he can't hold his veto pen anymore....

Why we continue to think we have an "open society" and have all these silly rules about "fairness" and "avoiding racial profiling" when we do our security searches, I can't imagine. That stuff will all be a bad memory when and if the terrorists set off their first nuke inside the US. God help us see the light of day before then.

While I have been portrayed here as a "leftist/liberal", I also realize that we are at war with a serious and fanatical set of enemies who do not play by the old rules. Therefore, a crackdown against Islam and its fellow travellers along the lines of the Japanese internment in WWII is certainly in order, and soon.

Someone wrote the other day that the first order of government is protecting its citizens from slaughter at the hands of our enemies. I couldn't agree more, and wish that our current President was just a little bit smarter and a little bit more decisive in how he is handling these difficult issues... That's what scares me about Bush more than anything else. It isn't his "resolve" - it is his ability to execute. Take the Iraq War for example... what a boondoggle and primo example of political generalship ignoring the advice of professional military expertise. Well, we can't afford that anymore, and couldn't afford it in the recent past either.

Would Kerry have been better? Maybe. Probably. He couldn't have been any worse....

 

A much misunderstood thing. And it will remain misunderstood until a distinction is made between internment and Relocation.

 

I can't believe anyone is actually implying that Japanese internment was in the least bit effective. That's totally ludicrous. It was motivated wholly by racism and greed. Hawaiian Japanese-Americans were not interned; they were the ones geographically closest to Japan, and also the largest population, hence the most potentially "dangerous"... but since interning them would have totally ruined the Hawaiian economy, no one bothered.

 

Bin Laden

I thought that if we attacked the wrong country for having nothing to do with 9/11 that Bin Laden would back off. Perhaps that was wrong-headed.

 

I'm a bit suspicious about this street gang connection thing. Gangs make their living from trafficking in humans, drugs and street weapons. Causing a nuclear incident would help wipe out their whole support system. On the other hand, they're also not the smartest people in the world and many of them would do anything for the right amount of cash. Cracking down on gangs sounds like a great idea. But "closing" a 2000-mile border? The risk would have to be pretty well understood, because the economic consequences for both our national economies would be disastrous. Every tightening of security has economic consequences, and I think we should start off by filling some easier-to-fix gaping holes, like security around nuclear and chemical plants. And any container ships coming from the former Soviet Union should be inspected very carefully.

 

Whether the internment of Japanese, Germans, Italians and others was effective is undetermined.

Internment is for non-citizens. Most of the Japanese-Americans in camps were in
Relocation camps which were not the same as internment camps.

Internment is as old as the Republic and older and is practiced worldwide. Not was practiced but is practiced.

Foolish statement. The racism and greed were there but the war effort impelled the internment of Japanese, Germans, Italians and others. And it was the war effort that impelled the policies of Exclusion and Relocation of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and Italian-Americans.

The Relocation camps were built for Japanese-Americans because there was no place for most of them to relocate.

Some Hawaiian Japanese probably were interned. As for Hawaiian Japanese-Americans, well, all of Hawaii was placed under martial law.

 

Please provide me with some figures to back up that rather outrageous statement. How many second-generation, American citizen German-Americans and Italian-Americans were interned/relocated? How many of their businesses were seized?

 

I think this quote really destroys the whole stupid and flimsy "it was just the war effort" argument.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZD1.html

 

I made no outrageous statements and you are jumping ahead.

I reject "interned/relocated" as they were different policies.

Because of screamers like you and qvatlanta, numbers remain difficult to determine. It was roughly some 15,000 Japanese interned and some 15,000 Germans, Italians and others.

Relocation/Exclusion is a more complicated subject.

The situation regarding Italian-Americans was officially addressed with Public Law #106-451. Similar proposed legislation for German-Americans has languished.

 

No "it was just for the war effort" argument has been made. Please learn to read if you are going to reply to me.

 

You are a leftist/liberal, Carl, but you're also something else, I can't quite figure out what. You're half Abbie Hoffman, half John Wayne.

You're an interesting character, to say the least.

 

Please learn to write if you expect your position to be understood. After calling my statement out as foolish, you haven't yet made any kind of point about the legal difference between internment and relocation. I totally understand that each of them have a separate stricter definition, but in common speech "internment" stands in for "forced relocation into guarded camps". If you think the definitions need to be separated to make some kind of argument, then what is that argument and why are you making it?

 

Well, let me make myself clear. In wars between nations where race is a factor, things are just.... different. There is no question that the combat and struggle against Japan was more brutal and animalistic in its inhumanity to man than our struggle against (white/Caucasian) Nazi Germany - as horrible as Nazi Germany was.

So..... would I have put every Japanese American I could lay hands on in 1941 into relocation/internment camps? Yes. And it was the right thing to do at the time, and still is today. Were there abuses? Of course. That is the nature of war.

Same for now. I would put every damned Arab and Middle Easterner I could find into some sort of camp until we got them the hell out of the country. They would NOT be allowed back in, and all interaction between us and the Islamic world would be halted until this battle to the death with Islamic fanaticism is won decisively by the forces of modernism and democracy.

Does that make this any clearer for you, qvatlanta?

 

Carl, it's impossible to argue with naked racism. At least with decimon it seems like there is some kind of legal argument going on, but your position is not only racist but impractical. The J-A parallel shows this clearly... once America began to reverse its strict position against Japanese-Americans, and even opened up the Army to them, they served in the 100th and 442nd in large numbers and won some of the hardest and bloodiest battles in Europe. When it comes to "Arabs and Middle Easterners", the only think I can do is ask this series of questions. What about American citizens of Arab-Christian descent? Do they get included? What about Caucasian-American and African-American Muslims? What about the Nation of Islam, who aren't mainstream Muslims at all? A lot of the anti-terrorism efforts going on right now are vastly aided by patriotic Muslims, and the government has a desperate shortage of Arabic translators. Turning against the very people who can help us the most is completely insane.

 

I continue to have MAJOR doubts about nuclear bombs as terrorist devices. Why?

1) If it is so easy to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it, why hasn't it happened yet? Ever? NO nuclear devices of ANY sort have been detonated as acts of war ANYWHERE by ANYONE except by the U.S. in Japan.

2) Terrorist attacks HAVE been made against us, 9/11 being the most horrific but these attacks, while effective, used much more primitive means: airliners full of fuel or trucks containing conventional explosives.

3) Engineering, manufacturing, transporting, handling, and maintaining nuclear devices has, up until now, required the resources of an industrial state. Nuclear weapons deteriorate, you know. Nuclear materials pose special handling risks and require rather extensive equipment.

So what is holding Bin Laden back? Ethical concerns? Yeah, right.

 

I don't know about this one, Carl. I'm not sure, those Japanese imperialists could be pretty far gone evil, and they had a society with restrictions on speaking out against tyranny that gave them pretty much carte blanche to carry out whatever evil plans they could devise, but more animalistic than Nazi Germany?

Man, you've gotta go a million miles down the road of animalism to get within distant sight of the Nazis--as bad as they could be to the Chinese and POWs, I'm not sure they ever went that far down that road.

And if your point is that it's not the tyrants who were animalistic but the battles and the war itself, then I think there'd be a few living in Dresden who'd have a thing or two to say about animalism in war--we pretty much pulled out all the stops there, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme measures, but they just accomplished more efficiently what the Allies had been doing to defeat the Germans for the last year of the War. The only reason we didn't use such extreme methods as nuclear against them is because they'd pretty much been defeated by the time we'd perfected them.

 

You said that WWII internment was "wholly racist" and I pointed out that Germans and Italians were interned.

You claimed I'd said this was "just" for the war effort when I'd said no such thing.

You want a legal difference between Relocation and internment? Internment had always been legal and was put into effect immediately after the unpleasantness at Pearl Harbor. Relocation was not "legal" for more than two additional months when FDR signed Executive Order 9066.

BTW - Some Inuits (Aleuts) were relocated from some Aleutian island to camps in Alaska. That was to clear the way for the Army to displace the Japanese troops on the islands of Attu and Kiska. Those Inuits were included in Reagan's compensation plan for the interned and relocated Japanese and Japanese-Americans.

 

I've seen this attitude before and it is just so wrong. There's just no way that Japanese imperialism was worse than Nazi imperialism. It's just that some people still assume that the Japanese people "had it in them" genetically to be death-worshipping killers. The truth is that just like the German people, they were collectively brainwashed into a poisonous militaristic fascism. In the 19th century Japan was a comparatively poor, mostly agricultural nation with a central government that was growing in strength, but a lot of internal conflicts still remaining. By the 1930s the state cult had solidified and was capable of producing such horrors as the Rape of Nanking.

 

I still think you're blurring the two terms. For example, when I asked "how many second-generation, American citizen German-Americans and Italian-Americans were interned/relocated?" you did actually respond with a count using the stricter definition of interned that does not include American citizens! I will totally agree that there is a legal difference between the two. But in practical terms, what does calling it Relocation instead of internment accomplish?