| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| New al-Qaeda video calls for nuclear strike |
| 2008-05-28 |
| (AKI ) - By Hamza Boccolini - A new video called "Nuclear Terrorism" has been posted on the worldwide web calling for jihadists to use nuclear or chemical weapons to strike the west. A simple jihadi propaganda video or a dangerous message to a sleeper cell in the west? That is the question raised by the video and no-one has yet claimed responsibility for it. "Strike civilians in the west without mercy using weapons of mass destruction" is one of the calls made in the 39-minute video. The question now being asked is whether the video is presenting a coded message or signalling an imminent terrorist attack. Before the video was posted on the Arab internet forum Ekhlas a banner headline appeared on the website that said: "Pray, pray, Allah is great. America is destroyed by a fatal jihadist nuclear strike." Clicking on the banner gives the viewer access to a documentary which shows diverse images - from al-Qaeda speeches to western documentaries and other Islamist videos. The objective appears to be to incite followers of al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction to strike the west, but there may be more to it. The video opens with two verses of the Koran that emphasise "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". It then says "Fight them until there is no more persecution and Allah is the only object of worship. If they desist, there will be no hostility, except against those who are dishonest. Attack those who attack you. Fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." The documentary, filmed in Arabic, begins with images of a documentary distributed in November 2004 by the Italian news network, Rai News 24 entitled, The Hidden Massacre, in which US soldiers allegedly used chemical weapons against Iraqis in the city of Falluja. It also includes the voice of an Arab jihadist who appears to be giving a lesson to a group of people on the need to conduct attacks against the US and Europe. "This is called terrorism, but we cannot stop aggression against our countries if we do not use these arms, as Russia and the US did when they were conducting their arms race. If you have them, we must also have them." Then a voice off camera invites mujahadeen or Muslim fighters to learn how to obtain these weapons of mass destruction and shows a document on the "rules for using weapons of mass destruction against the unbelievers" written by Saudi scholar Naser Bin Hamed al-Fahd. The document dated 21 May 2003 was written by one of the Saudi ulema or religious leaders close to the Salafite movement and to movements opposed to the Saudi royal family that support al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. "They kill our people and for this reason we should also strike them with weapons of mass destruction - doing so forms part of our response to their attacks. In Jihad we cannot do to them everything they do to us, for example rape our women. But we can respond to weapons of mass destruction. "There are quantities of uranium on sale, and since the fall of the Soviet Union their nuclear weapons are available on the market. The second point is in respect of chemical weapons. They can be used in one of the villages of European countries. This is called terrorism but all this cannot end if we don't conduct such an operation against them. We cannot stop the operations against our civilians conducted by Jews and Christians in our countries if we don't do the same thing. The problem is nuclear arms are very expensive, while chemical weapons are cheap. "The best weapons to use are bacteriological ones. This type of barbarous weapon is used by the international community. Why shouldn't we use them if the crusaders consider them effective weapons?" |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #24 I agree that a general nuclear strike against the Middle East would be unwarranted and therefore wanton. If the perpetrators can be located, however, then by all means fry them up. Beyond that, a jihadi nuclear strike would remove all moral compunction about our own use of unconventional methods. (There are already no legal restrictions, since terror gangs are not signatories to international agreements.) Among other things, I would authorize the use of flamethrowers, poison gas, and (if necessary and feasible) tactical nuclear weapons against jihad targets, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but anywhere in the world. Secondly, I would take the war to the real instigators through something along the line of Operation Gideon or maybe even Operation Phoenix. None other than arch-liberal journalist Bob Simon of CBS has proposed this more than once: A terrorist banker falls down the stairs in Rome, an America-bashing British journalist's Bentley inexplicably crashes into a motorway abutment at 180 kph; a terrorist safe-house burns down, with several "peace activists" unable to escape; a Gulfstream V vanishes over the Indian Ocean taking a wealthy oil prince with it; that sort of thing. Simon has pointed out one very great but often overlooked advantage of this approach: Nobody even claims that it is legal. It therefore requires no statutory or constitutional meddling that could come back to bite us later. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-05-28 23:52 |
| #23 Video is likely bluff. Dirty bomb and chem/bio is more likely. A few infected suicide jihadis snuck over the border and dispersed to various major US cities is all it takes. Or various medical radioactive waste form the third world, gathered in Venezueal and put on a train north then smuggled over the sotuer border. Lace it into a tone or so of ANFO atop a good sized building (or a small cargo plane), and detonate to contamine a large portion of a city. Or the above except with chemicals/toxins (antrhax). Far more likely. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-28 22:34 |
| #22 since the fall of the Soviet Union their nuclear weapons are available on the market. Bullshit. Both Saddam and Gadaffi had treasuries with billions of dollars. Neither was able to buy a weapon. If they are so easy to get, why hasn't Iran bought one yet? If Saddam could have bought a few nukes, would he be lying in his grave now? |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-05-28 19:41 |
| #21 OS, as always, speaks true. The outome of our response would be regrettable, but absolutely necessary. |
| Posted by: Crosspatch Grundy3390 2008-05-28 18:55 |
| #20 OS, I always respect your comments because you've been there up close. I have not and am humbled by those that have. Our response would be terrible. I'm just not sure it would be nuclear. We need the rods from God. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-05-28 18:39 |
| #19 I think you guys misunderstand me. I've seen the kind of destruction that conventional war inflicts. Up close and personal. Even tinpot dictators can cause immense misery that I've see first hand. I regret that one day it may be necessary to incinerate those places and people. I'll not be celebrating. Likely I'll be reduced to tears, and praying for the dead. Ours and theirs. Like having to put your own horse or dog down, it may be whats needed but that doesn't reduce the sadness of it much, if at all. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-28 18:18 |
| #18 If they nuke an American city, the only living Moslems in America within 24 hours will be those who have fled to police stations and thrown themselves into protective custody. There won't be anything but rubble where their |
| Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 2008-05-28 18:08 |
| #17 And if wholesale retribution ever really becomes necessary the government hasn't the courage. Citizens, yes. Leadership no. "Leaders" can be changed in a heartbeat. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-05-28 16:42 |
| #16 oldspook beat me to it. I've always liked Tancredo's threat to bomb Mecca as a deterent if we are ever attacked. It boggles the mind how MSM has labeled Tancredo as crazy, he has been the only one that speaks truthfully. |
| Posted by: Jan 2008-05-28 16:13 |
| #15 what scares me the most is how much destruction we will wreak on them for such actions. Its likely that Mecca will cease to exist as will many heads of government in the ME. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-28 15:57 |
| #14 There are a whole lot of other ways that we can respond besides nukes, and we would use those rather than affecting the rest of the world, including us, with the lingering effects of multiple nuclear blasts. Particularly if a single city is hit. We can and I think would get Old Patriot's heart cockles very warm by doing multiple arc light-style strikes on the offending nations. Heavy, heavy bombing, but everything short of nukes and chem weapons. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2008-05-28 15:41 |
| #13 Moslems are too stupid to realize what the disparity is between what we can do and what they can do. In this case, and with this group, they are all too aware. In fact, that's what they desire. Nihilism in its most distilled essence |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-28 12:40 |
| #12 A nuclear strike against the muddled east would NOT be genocide. Religion is not the same as ethnicity. Nor would all the targets be in the muddled east. There are 296 primary targets in 17 different nations, including several non-Arab nations. Not all of those targets are cities, but the sum total would be the destruction of the capability of islamic terrorists to inflict major damage against the West. The entire sequence could be achieved in less than five minutes, and far more than 48 million would be affected. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-05-28 12:20 |
| #11 Angleton, As horrible the wish is you are wishful thinking. The US would NEVER commit wholesale retribution. Not even if multiple US cities were nuked. We aren't that craven. And if wholesale retribution ever really becomes necessary the government hasn't the courage. Citizens, yes. Leadership no. |
| Posted by: jds 2008-05-28 12:18 |
| #10 Getting through only once means we can never give them the benefit of doubt and must plan for the worst case scenario. Nutjob is getting desperate, has diplomatic immunity, is meeting with the UN in Rome, and has enriched uranium. Our biggest ports aren't secure, and the small ones have no sophisticated scanners. The larger regular importers, such as JC Penney's and Walmart, get a pass much like the cross border NAFTA trucks just by registering, and avoid scrutiny. I recently checked labels while shopping and the items I checked were made in Jordan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Viet Nam. Besides the point of origin, they may have port of calls in between, shipped under a flag of convenience, or have crew with a large family to care for when food is escalating worldwide. Plenty of people to turn a blind eye to pick up a little extra dough along the way, too. Not claiming responsibility for the video, especially when Bin Laden has made the same threats, is out of self interest because they know they would be obliterated first and we'd sort out the facts later. I sure as heck hope "tough diplomacy" isn't the only response that is proposed!!! |
| Posted by: Thealing Borgia6122 2008-05-28 11:41 |
| #9 They'll be lucky if it's in 8 digits. 9 much more likely. I wonder how many of them have considered this. We should send out some ambassadors from the Sioux nation to explain to them what happens. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-28 11:08 |
| #8 Stop and think for a minute about what would follow a WMD attack in the West. If it occurs anywhere in the West, especially if it occurs in the United States....what will happen to the American psyche? What if someone kills your child and you see them do it? What are you going to do? Are you going to talk about it first? Are you going to do whatever it takes and do it anyway you can? Will you stop to consider the "consequences"? If we get hit the United States will go genocidally Homicidal. We wont care how, we wont care when, we wont care if there are innocent bystanders. We will begin killing and we will use ANYTHING to kill as many as we can as fast as we can. And WHo will we kill.? Whole countrys in a series of flashes. And we wont care if the whole world screams or not. We wont stop until the meat is done to a dusty turn. And we might do it to anybody who even suggests we stop doing it. What if 48 million Moslems died in a single week? And then the radiation started killing an additional 12 million a year every years after that? the thing about killing on that scale is that you cant cry because there arent any tears, and its too big even to regret. Moslems are too stupid to realize what the disparity is between what we can do and what they can do. "Tooth for Tooth?" They dont want to go there. The only thing that saves them now is our restraint, not our ability. |
| Posted by: Angleton 9 2008-05-28 10:39 |
| #7 tw, the problem is they only need to get through once. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-28 09:36 |
| #6 The calls for jihadis to use NBC weapons on the West where they live are not new. We've been expecting such since the 1990s. So either we've been catching them before they execute their attack, or they aren't capable of it. Which could change, of course, but in the meantime this strikes me as a sign of Al Qaeda's weakness; they've clearly lost on their main battlefield in Iraq, they're losing in Afghanistan... the only ones who are winning are the invading Muslim hordes in Europe and England, whose jihadism is entirely opportunistic and who are certainly not Al Qaeda minions. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-05-28 06:48 |
| #5 This wishing for genocide sickens me. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-05-28 04:51 |
| #4 Everyone can relax now! Obama says they're just words! |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-05-28 03:18 |
| #3 Compare wid TIMESONLINE,UK > BRITAIN'S PHONEY WAR ON TERRORISM. Ouch! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-05-28 03:02 |
| #2 In Eastern Europe, yes I would agree. In Western Europe, no they are good little dhimmis and would immediately surrender. Madrid proved that, as has the English continuing caving-in. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-05-28 02:53 |
| #1 This is called terrorism but all this cannot end if we don't conduct such an operation against them. Oh "all of this" will certainly end when the jihadis begin utilizing NBC weapons. Particularly I think if they employ them in Europe; despite their thin veil of civility and tolerance I suspect that violent genocidal Europe still lurks not far beneath the surface. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-05-28 02:24 |