RoR: Forum

It just randomly showed up in your email box?

Post 1

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:44pm

Sounds like a hoax. At least in it's specifics. In it's possibilities it's unfortunately a valid and damn scary prospect.

Post 2

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:57pm

Daniel, nice name, I like it -

No, it came from an elderly relative that sends me between 5 - 10 emails per week, mainly consisting of jokes and the "God bless America" variety, which are forwarded on to him from one of his cousins who is "Love America - Right or Wrong - or Else!

Post 3

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:03pm

Jody, old buddy, I couldn't agree more.

Do let me know (via mail) how things on your agenda are affected by the new Venice of the south. Staggering... The mind just spins!

Post 4

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:04pm

Daniel-
How the hell do we get ourselves off that mailing list? ;)
Nephew.

Post 5

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:32pm

Made in 1988 and activated by a cell phone? Whoever wrote this hoax does not have much of his technology straight.

Post 6

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:37pm

The full story is at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203. Joseph Farah, who runs the site, is a mix of serious investigative reporter and conservative wildman.

His biggest accomplishment was driving Bill Honig, California's crooked schools superindendent, out of office several years ago. Honig and his wife bilked the school system out of hundreds of thousands by, e.g. renting a spare bedroom to her consulting company for $300000. Farah worked for the then-dying, now-dead Sacramento Union at the time. No other papers would touch the story until the indictments came down. Honig's initial defense was to claim that the conservative Attorney General framed him because he refused to teach creationism in the schools. The jury didn't buy it, and, while Honig didn't go to jail, he was forced to make restitution and resign. He runs a winery today. If Farah had been writing for a liberal paper, bringing down a conservative official, he would have earned a Pulitzer.

After the Union folded, Farah went on to found the Western Journalism Center, which was, along with National Review and the Heritage Foundation, audited during the Clinton administration. As far as I know, he has no track record as an international affairs reporter, and the lack of sourcing looks fishy to me.

Peter

Post 7

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:03pm

An utter crock.

As Adam pointed out, it fails on the technologically believable aspect of cell phone triggering in the 80s. It similarly fails on "The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments" and the surrounding description which indicates both Pu and U being needed in these alleged 'suitcase' nukes. Pick a plutonium implosion device or even an unbelievably expensive but simple U235 device for your story - but don't go telling us both are needed.

Even more tellingly it fails basic believability concerning terrorists. Assuming the insanely improbable that they acquired tactical nuclear weapons, and they hate Americans so much they won't spill the beans or sell the weapons to a higher bidder - once they placed one why the hell would they wait and risk such a valuable weapon being discovered before use? There'd be less patience and restraint than a five year old on Christmas morning.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:07pm

Ahh...our friend Farah. Doesn't he still insist that TWA flight 800 was intentionally brought down?

Post 9

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:22pm

Anyone care to comment on the US-Mexico border issue?

I've seen news reports that show, much like "the war on drugs", that border officials apprehend only a tiny percentage of border jumpers.

Anyone care to comment on the depth to which organised crime penetrates Russian & FSR societies?

You think some vodka-soused military official with Russian mafia contacts is going to care about handing over one of their "unaccounted for" nukes for a few million and a chance at a cozy life on the Costa del Sol?

Sure, the email's bogus. But the damned scenario isn't.

Why the hell doesn't Bush spend a few billion on a super-border? Why aren't there more border guards? If it's impossible to police that border, then why the fuck police airports and ports? If you were a terrorist and wanted to smuggle yourself and a few packages into the US, it sounds like Mexico is the way to do it.

Perhaps someone can answer this question for me: in a country as open as the US with it's ease of mobility and availability of explosives and guns, why hasn't there been a suicide bombing or two in the last 4 years? Not even one camel jockey with a grenade or an automatic weapon on a crowded bus? Does that bug anyone but me?

Oh, it's because Homeland Security is doing such a bang up job? Gimme a break. What the hell are the doing about the border then? And, since when did we have that much faith in government to protect us?

Ross

Post 10

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:59pm

Ross,

There was a lone Islamic gunman who shot a few people at an Israeli airline gate at the Los Angeles airport post 9-11. He was shot by security, and was most likely just a random nutjob and not part of an organized terrorist cell. The most logical reason that there hasn't been a suicide bombing in the U.S. is that al Quaeda is very patient. There is pressure on them to make the next attack on American soil equal to or greater than 9-11 so as to show the Islamic world that they are viable paramilitary force capable of striking serious blows the U.S. A detonation of dirty bombs in multiple cities simultaneously would certainly qualify as a "one up" on 9-11, and that is probably the most likely way terrorists could "nuke" America at present.

The terrorists are aware that every time they execute an operation, they leave an evidence trail of how they got into the country, who they coordinated with etc. The trail would particularly be apparent in a garden variety suicide bomb operation in America, and it could potentially jeopardize their support networks if they had bigger plans in the works.

Bin laden and company are extremely smart - don't forget that 9-11 took years of meticulous planning. And don't forget that bin Laden has said in his speeches that the key is ultimately to wreak economic devastation on America - that's when she'll really feel it. A suicide bombing at a McDonalds simply wouldn't accomplish that - however - a nuclear catastrophe would instantly turn our country into a police state and would send the economy spiralling.

It's easy to write bin laden off as just some murderous psychopath, but he is in fact a very calm and calculating individual with very specific goals and plans.Each day that goes by makes me wonder whether or not al Quaeda is simply being snuffed out, or if they are merely pulling out all the stops to unleash something horrific. I sure hope it's not the latter.

Post 11

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 7:55pm

I'm�with you on this one, Ross, with everything you said. And Pete the Profiler, you sure make it sound like you have the goods on "the bads" out there. Plain & simple: I don't think you know half of what you think you do -- on THIS PARTICULAR subject (the particular questions Ross asked). No, you've just spit-out a bucketload of opinions -- and what are we supposed to do: ooh and ahh?

I realize that you're on my side, man (pro-America), but please don't answer honest and precise questions with opinionated psychologizing, alright?�We can get that from the newspaper, from blogs,�or from the 6pm news.

Ed

[edited out a grammar error]
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/30, 9:33pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 9:08pm

Ed, I did answer one of his questions, specifically:

Perhaps someone can answer this question for me: in a country as open as the US with it's ease of mobility and availability of explosives and guns, why hasn't there been a suicide bombing or two in the last 4 years? Not even one camel jockey with a grenade or an automatic weapon on a crowded bus? Does that bug anyone but me?

This is a highly speculative question. And it's a good question. I obviously don't know what the FBI or CIA knows about the covert war on terrorists, but we can infer that the answer falls into one of two categories: either bin Laden and his network have been crippled to the point of not being able to carry out operations in the U.S., or they are simply taking their time to plot something big and are trying to stay under the radar for the moment. I suppose the answer could be a combination of the two even. Do you disagree with that, Ed?

In general, if you want to know how I form my opinions of the subject of Islamic terrorism, I recommend the following two books. I think you'll get better idea of where I'm coming from on this:

America's Secret War - Dr. George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, and I put a lot of stock into his analysis because market forces compel him to be accurate. His private geopolitical consulting firm is hired by multi-national corporations to help them assess risks and opportunities around the globe. I don't suspect he'd have the leading business of his kind if he was in the practice of spouting of random psychobabble.

Imperial Hubris - Michael Scheuer. Scheuer was the leading CIA officer tasked with assessing the bin Laden threat throughout the 90's. While not gospel, his insights are certainly worth considering.

Post 13

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:00pm

Okay Pete, but -- as you may've already inducted -- I don't trust much in this world ('cept several SOLO-ists, my perceptual powers of awareness, and my conceptual powers of awareness).

By the way, here's what it's like to be inside MY head (oh yeah, and don't forget to buckle-up -- the ride could get very bumpy, and it may even make you faint) ...

[Pete says: "we can infer that the answer falls into one of two categories ...�Do you disagree with that, Ed?" -- but I think in three's, not two's ... so what the hell am I supposed to say to this man? ... Well, I could tell him about my conspiracy theories ... nah ... that'd just make him snap to a judgment: either that I don't think straight, or that I am "un-American" ... okay, okay ... I got it ... I'll tell him about that one stock-scandal idea -- the one that actually DID get busted (before it got off the ground) ... the one where rich politicians (is there any other kind, sheesh?) ... the one where those rich politicians were caught setting up a pre-meditated stock-exchange that would profit off of foreign policy changes, etc ... they would pre-buy stocks in different countries' revenues, etc ... and direct US policy toward those countries "appropriately" (and by "appropriately" -- I really mean mis-appropriat-ively) ... but wait ... while I remember the FACT of this news story, I forgot the DETAILS (the names, etc) ... ah, crap! ... just say nothing, Ed, just say nothing for now.]

Whoa [coming out of my skull]! If ANYONE recalls details about the unmentioned (but thought about) "busted" stock-scandal above ... please chime in (my "neck" may depend upon it now!).

;-)

Ed

Post 14

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:16am

Pete

I have no doubt that where Al Qaeda is concerned we're dealing with evil genius. But your suppositions don't add up.

Why did the Brits get bombed? Why not wait (as you've suggested) and hit downtown London or Manchester with a nuke? If you're gonna bother blowing up subway travellers then why not do it in the US, the *real* home of the infidels?

Sure, I agree, they're hanging out for the big hit. And it fucks me off that the Mexican border appears to be so open to penetration.

I'm pretty sure that after 9-11 Bush said something about not being afraid to use nukes in retaliation. Frankly, I think that policy should be made more explicit. I think the US should let the towel-heads in the middle east know quite clearly that if a US or allied city gets nuked then Mecca and a choice selection of other cities--Tehran comes to mind first--will, without a shadow of a doubt be reduced to radioactive wastelands.

That might make the Ayatollahs sit up and take notice. If the US knows that Iran and others are supporting and financing Al Qaeda then call their bluff. Let 'em know that if they open the door to Hell then they should be prepared to walk on through.

The great frustration after 9-11 and subsequent attacks was that there was nowhere to hit back at them. Fine, let them run and hide. But you can't move Muslim cities and you can't move holy shrines. Let them discuss *that* scenario in the their Mosques and caves. Maybe, just maybe, the Iranians or Saudis will have their *own* security forces eliminate the Al Qaeda top echelon.

Ross

NB: and, it'll make the fools at the UN sit up as well. If they know that the US will simply *not* take a nuclear attack on the chin, bite it's lip and act like a good international citizen, then maybe the conspirators who inhabit their plush offices on the East Side will buck up and realise that a turning point has been reached.

(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 8/31, 1:22am)

(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 8/31, 1:30am)

Post 15

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:03pm

Ross asks:

Why did the Brits get bombed? Why not wait (as you've suggested) and hit downtown London or Manchester with a nuke? If you're gonna bother blowing up subway travellers then why not do it in the US, the *real* home of the infidels?

One possible answer is that al Quaeda was simply trying to piggy back off the success of the train bombings in Spain, with the desired result being that the citizens of England would demand that their government gets out of Iraq. England has been the most prominent ally of America in the Iraq war, and their withdrawal from Iraq would be a major victory for bin Laden. Of course, the "victory" would be largely symbolic as the United States would still be capable of carrying out its program even if it had to go it alone. Nevetheless, Brittain's withdrawal would demonstrate to many fence sitters in the Islamic world that al Quaeda is a viable fighting force, just as the Spain attacks likely did as well.

This still leaves the question of why no attack on American soil. I don't think anyone other than bin Laden and his lieutenants really knows for sure. The only other possible explainations other than the taking-their-time-to-serve-up-a-WMD-attack theory are that the government has eliminated them from being a grave and serious threat, or else al Quaeda has lost their desire to attack us. If anyone believes the latter, we should talk about a bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn....

As for your other points about instilling a sense of mutually assured destruction in the eyes of Islamic terrorists and their sponsors, I couldn't agree more. I started a thread on a similar topic a while back. It would seem to me that America should respond to a nuclear terrorist attack by nuking Riyadh, Damascus, Tehran and of course that whole mountainous area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and other Taliban fighters are believed to be hiding. What else could we do at that point?

Post 16

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:36pm

I don't believe the eight bombers and their support group were major players in "al-Qaeda" per say. These guys may have been born and bread here in Britain but they certainly had no allegiance to to the UK. And every two bit fundamentalists with a grudge can't exactly be described as an "al-Qaeda" terrorist, just a terrorist. And we all know that the only good terrorist is (you fill in the blank right here). There are many disparate groups and, fortunately to date, they are all not linked to a major, co-ordinated army called al-Qaeda. And there is still a long way to go. As for the US being able to run the show in Iraq on their own I have no doubt that it can - but not very well. Already you have unhappy soldiers going back for third tours and enlistment rates haven't been exactly record breaking according to recent news reports. America needs friends. It might be the current empire but there have been many empires before and THAT is a lesson to heed.

Post 17

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:41pm

Daniel:

"These guys may have been born and bread here in Britain but they certainly had no allegiance to to the UK. "

Yes, and *that* should be the biggest lesson of all. Born & bred but still willing to treat their fellows like dogs. The danger is in the brainwashing that divorces people from reality. To be that deluded by a religion that you are willing to destroy your own life to kill a few innocents on a bus or train is the ultimate in philosophical corruption. The fractured nature of modern western society also allows these types to fall through the cracks and find solace in the teachings of primitivism and tribal ethics.

Ross

Post 18

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:55pm

Pete:

"It would seem to me that America should respond to a nuclear terrorist attack by nuking Riyadh, Damascus, Tehran and of course that whole mountainous area of Afghanistan and Pakistan where bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and other Taliban fighters are believed to be hiding. What else could we do at that point?"

Exactly. But the idea is not to get anywhere near that point by letting these idiots know what we *will* do. No grey area. No dickin' around. You nuke us, no matter how small, and you'll be visited by the infidel's firey wrath. It's the old cold war MAD policy but with a very different meaning for 'M':

Muslim Assured Destruction.

Ross
(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 9/01, 12:25am)

Post 19

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 6:15pm