Article

2004-07-16 Terror Networks

Bin Laden's Goal: Kill 4 Million Americans

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-16 1:29:05 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So it's just a big ol', eye for an eye thing? A blood libel?

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-16 3:38:22 AM|| 2004-07-16 3:38:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 "The author insists that al-Qaida has "thousands" of sympathizers (radical leftists) and numerous sleeper cells in the United States ready to carry out new attacks when given the OK"

"Islam practices patience ... remember it was more than eight years between attacks on the World Trade Center. They are in no rush. They will attack when they are ready."

Like the man says, the Dem & GOP conventions may go off without any major problems, except the collections of homegrown leftwing sellouts creating havoc in the steets of Boston & NYC, but radical Islamists always wish to 'top' their kill ratio with each major attack. The WTC is a classic horrific example. Multi-subway slaughter might be the next order, unless they are prevented by whatever means required to ensure public safety from these cult-like killers.

"Williams, quoting Russian military officials, says Moscow secretly slipped into the continental U.S. several suitcase nukes to be activated in case of the breakout of hostilities with Washington."

"Today, Williams says many of those "sleeper" nukes remain in place because some in the Kremlin still believe a conflict with the U.S. is possible."

Some people in America, the U.K & elsewhere trust the current Russian government. The new improved KGB is hard at work under Putin

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-16 3:40:27 AM|| 2004-07-16 3:40:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 This is pretty easy to counter. We get nuked we vaporize Medina and Mecca, so much of Islam. Osma doesn't count on us playing the eye for eye game.
I say we announce it publicly. Give standing orders. Then let the Islamisists sort it out.

Whalla is a Hockeypuck Osama, FOAD.

Posted by FlameBait93268 2004-07-16 3:45:27 AM|| 2004-07-16 3:45:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Sounds a little fishy to me.. suitcase nukes? Far too sci-fi?!

Posted by Howard UK 2004-07-16 5:19:34 AM|| 2004-07-16 5:19:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I was wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/

Posted by Howard UK 2004-07-16 5:54:22 AM|| 2004-07-16 5:54:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Flame: I guess I'm not as dispassionate as you. I live in Manhattan.

Posted by PlanetDan 2004-07-16 7:34:54 AM|| 2004-07-16 7:34:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I seem to recall reading, perhaps here on RB, that the old Soviet suitcase nukes required maintenance/replacement, and that any sold on the black market would be non-working at this point. Perhaps some of our nuke experts could comment.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-16 8:15:50 AM|| 2004-07-16 8:15:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Whenever I read about someone spouting off about terrorists with suitcase nukes, I know its someone who is either ignorant or deceitful.

Yes it is possible to build a nuclear weapon small enough to fit into a suitcase.

However,
1. - it would be very, very heavy.
2. - it would be detectable by even rudimentary devices
3. - once assembled, small nukes require real time maintenance by people who know what they are doing - without this maintenance, the bomb loses its capacity to go critical

Posted by mhw 2004-07-16 8:19:07 AM|| 2004-07-16 8:19:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 radio interview with a tech expert yesterday said they required constant maintenance, weren't really suitcase size (but 'handleable' by a single man) and were difficult to set off even when new...

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-16 8:34:31 AM|| 2004-07-16 8:34:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 One piece of litter thrown out the car window, one fender bender, or just one pissed off/jealous/avenging boy/girlfriend calling 911: Osama and his Moose Limbettes can't screw up once.

Posted by badanov 2004-07-16 9:01:33 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-07-16 9:01:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Hmm. Let's ask our loyal, humane allies if 4,000,000 American deaths would finally even the score, from their point of view, for "what America has coming to it". Would that be enough for you to see us as humans again, to open your eyes to evil in this world, or would you really need to see America being punished "play out" a little longer? Maybe we should poll people in those countries which wanted to see America lose in the Iraq War; their opinion should provide a good measurement of whether ~~justice~~ bloodlust has been satisfied.

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-16 10:09:51 AM|| 2004-07-16 10:09:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I think a standing threat to VAPORIZE Mecca and Medina should anything like that happens is intriguing. It would eliminate a pillar of Islam just like that.

Posted by eLarson 2004-07-16 10:13:01 AM|| 2004-07-16 10:13:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 agreed, eLarson. and if al qaeda claims it was some other faction that has the bomb, we say "we don't care -- if ANYONE bombs the USA, Mecca gets it."

Posted by PlanetDan 2004-07-16 10:40:03 AM|| 2004-07-16 10:40:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Nuclear weapons are not easily obtainable nor easily manufactured.

1. You need access to plutonium or highly enriched U-235. This cannot be done by an individual or a small group. It requires the resources of a state entity.

2. Assuming a state entity will sell you Pu or U-235, you will need to machine it into the usable shapes that will then form a critical geometry when put together. Any mistake in this will result in a very expensive hunk of sub-critical metal.

3. You then need someone who's good with explosives to build the charges and timers that will push those two pieces of nuclear material together. Again, any mistake in this and the bomb won't work.

4. You will need to find a neutron source (like a plutonium/beryllium mix), which aren't available in Wal-Mart last time I checked.

I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it is definitely not the "Honey, I'll be out in the garage working on the nuclear weapon" home improvement project that this writer makes it out to be. Also, if memory serves me correctly, I remember reading that the vast majority of the explosives recipes in The Anarchist's Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond either don't work or are more hazardous to the bomb-maker than the target.

Last point: if Mr. William's has indeed stumbled on this threat, show us some love and give us an address.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-07-16 10:48:23 AM|| 2004-07-16 10:48:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 You will need to find a neutron source (like a plutonium/beryllium mix), which aren't available in Wal-Mart last time I checked

Aisle 24, next to the light bulbs

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-16 10:50:37 AM|| 2004-07-16 10:50:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I prefer to buy my nuclear components from local merchants with a commitment to the community, thank you very much.

Think Globally. Nuke Locally.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-07-16 11:02:14 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:02:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I agree with virginian that these things are highly unstable and require constant maintenance, battery charging, etc. This threat doesn't seem credible to me.

Posted by Tibor 2004-07-16 11:09:23 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:09:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 BTW, I forgot to add that I agree with the premise that bin Laden (if he were alive) would want to kill 4 million Americans.

Posted by Tibor 2004-07-16 11:10:38 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:10:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 DN - that was good, heh heh

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-16 11:13:33 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:13:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 one thing is provable from this article - the american media totally ignores true and present threats to our homeland.

the US govt should make a clear statement on this. if a nuke does go off in the US the world should know our response.

Mecca, Medina, Tehran (and all military installations), North West Frontier in Pakland (actuall all bauluchistan..) and damascus would be vaorized. We know who supports these terrorists, we know who our enemy is. We need to let them know the consquences of supporting these asshats.
With our policies of the 80's and 90's, plus the loss of momentum in the WOT (mainly our politics and self censure)our enemies believe there are no consequences. This needs to change.

Posted by Dan 2004-07-16 11:36:21 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:36:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 You will need to find a neutron source (like a plutonium/beryllium mix), which aren't available in Wal-Mart last time I checked

Aisle 24, next to the light bulbs

Actually, I think its only available in the super Wal-Marts not in the 'smaller' ones.

Posted by mhw 2004-07-16 11:38:55 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:38:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Dan, I would go one step further than:

[O]ne thing is provable from this article - the american media totally ignores true and present threats to our homeland.

They actually provoke the terrorists to attack the United States.

Posted by Dragon Fly 2004-07-16 11:43:58 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:43:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 They have nukes here, they would love to use them on us, but they are refraining becase they are very, very, patient, and love suspense.
Uh huh......
Something's missing here folks. 1. Steal underwear. 2. ? 3. Profit.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-07-16 11:45:05 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:45:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 What's this obsession with suitcases? As the terrorists have demonstrated, stowing a nuke in the trunk of a car will work just fine. A car or small van can carry a very heavy nuke and try it just about anywhere.

Posted by Gazoo 2004-07-16 11:51:01 AM|| 2004-07-16 11:51:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 The most likely scenario for a terrorist nuke detonation in the US is a container ship, in one of the major ports - NY, Boston, Baltimore, Long Beach, Oakland, etc, etc.

That's why they're insisting on boarding all ships before they enter port.

Posted by mojo 2004-07-16 12:03:09 PM|| 2004-07-16 12:03:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I don't know where to go with this. The RB experts say it is very difficult to accomplish and realtively easy to detect. Based upon my experience/exposure to DOE, both of these ring true. The other point is if they have the devices in-country, why wait to use them? That would only increase the likelihood of detection as well as increase the need for maintenance.

So I guess I question the author's near-term assertion. I have no doubt, however, that this is the asshat's ultimate objective and, should it occur, that our response will be both swift and devastating.

Posted by remote man 2004-07-16 12:08:56 PM|| 2004-07-16 12:08:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Dreadnaught makes a good point, and let me add my $.02.
A nuclear weapon - even in its most simple and basic form - requires an ungodly amount of upkeep. This is not something you can put together and then just set aside until needed - their care and feeding is so demanding that most people (myself included back in the day) are stunned when they find out what it requires. Even if ALQ has a couple of Paki nukes, unless they are maintained to the letter - with USAF/USN quality facilities and people - they will be useless within a few months at most. (And even with that, all of our weapons need to go back through depot-level maintenance at intervals.)
As far as getting them into the country, I have said this before and I'll say it again: if it was so easy to do, why hasn't it already been done?

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-07-16 12:35:35 PM|| 2004-07-16 12:35:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 While a nuke detonation is a scary prospect, I'm quite doubtful about it.

The logistics of nuclear and chemical weapons seem to prohibit their deployment by small terroristic cells.

I think we'd more likely see a terrorist attack in the same vein as OKC bombing. A coordinated detonation of trucks during rush hour could be catastrophic.

Not to mention an attack by dudes with guns at a mall or sporting event. (It'd be short lived in places like Texas tho. CCW are handy like that)

All in all, we don't know shit. I just know that if 4million americans get vaporized, there's going to be about 250million pissed off americans that aren't going to stand for any bs from other countries or 5th column members.

Posted by Anonymous4021 2004-07-16 12:42:17 PM|| 2004-07-16 12:42:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 "It could render Manhattan unlivable for 1,000 years,"

Seems to me that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are today thriving cities.

and at 12.5 Kilotons they were hit by larger weapons.

"10 kilotons" and could weigh less than 35 pounds.

the smaller the physical weapon, the higher the concentration of the reactive elements. and to make it small requires less shielding

This all adds up to a highly radioactive quick decay device that is easier to detect, and has a limited shelf life.

The maintenance that is referred to is replacing the radioactive core. the most difficult part to obtain.

I would think that the only countries that could produce such a weapon are the USA and the old Soviet Union.

Any Soviet Suitcase bomb would long since have gone inactive.

Posted by Anonymous5761 2004-07-16 12:56:16 PM|| 2004-07-16 12:56:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 suitcase bombs = Samson(Ign)ite

Posted by Capt America 2004-07-16 2:12:03 PM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-16 2:12:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 If their is an attack anywhere before the US election, it will be against one of the US allies. That is the only way to effect the election against Bush. A nuke attack on US soil, no matter when and no matter what president is in power, will result in the end of the world as we know it, and the end of Islam forever. Kiss the rock goodbye 'slims. It will be gone, and you will follow, if there is another mass casualty attack on US soil. For this reason, I am guessing that the terrorist 'slims will opt for small attacks that won't allow us to wipe them off the maps.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-07-16 4:16:08 PM|| 2004-07-16 4:16:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 eLarson (back at post 12): I don't think nuking Mecca (and thus dropping one pillar) would end Muhammadanism, which seems to show considerable flexibility when the political situation demands it. I tried to model Moslem responses a bit and decided making Mecca go away would be counterproductive.

Posted by James 2004-07-16 4:19:17 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2004-07-16 4:19:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 In response to #14, it may not be all that difficult to build a gun type (Little Boy) fission device. The only thing that didn't exist before WWII that was need to make Little Boy was the enriched uranium, and knowledge of its properties. If you had the U235, the only machining that would need to be done would be to make two cylinders, a large hollow one, and a small solid one to fit into the large one. If you didn't care about your own health, all you would need is a lathe to do this. You would need to know the relative sizes for it to work, but you could probably look that up. A neutron source could be obtained from a stolen oil well logging tool, a soil density probe, or enough americium from smoke detectors. That and a piece of lithium would give you sufficient neutrons. Put the lithium at the end of the hollow cylinder, the neutron source at the end of the solid cylinder and fire the small one into the large one. How? Use a scrap naval gun barrel, or steal the barrel from the old artillery piece in the town square, or in front of the armory. Or make one from heavy pipe. If you want a casing use an engine block. This is really not needed since water is an excellent neutron reflector. Just set the gun off in a swimming pool, or maybe a bathtub (I haven't worked out all of the numbers). Even if it didn't work right and just "fizzled", well, you,ve just set off a dirty bomb. Now, an implosion device (Fat Man)is quite a bit more sophisticated. I probably wouldn't be willing to try that myself.

Posted by Anonymous5765 2004-07-16 4:29:23 PM|| 2004-07-16 4:29:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#34

I don't think nuking Mecca (and thus dropping one pillar) would end Muhammadanism

I agree. You cannot stop there, but you must start there. That way, the followers of this vile blood cult will see the destruction the worst among them has brought on all of their heads.

Of coarse, the more risky way to go would be to put Mekkka at about number 4 or 5 on a well publicized (after hitting numbers 1 and 2) list. And give the 'slims a chance to stand down.

We'll see how this goes, but I think we still have time to work this out before it goes that far. For right now, the 'slims think they can destroy us without blowing up the world. The problem will really come into play, when they feel that they can't win. That is when the suitcase nukes will start going off, as they provoke us into a cult like "end of world" scenario. I put "" up because so far, every cult "end of world" scenario seems to have fallen shy of its grandiose vision. But then again, the 'slims are no david kkkoresh.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-07-16 4:32:58 PM|| 2004-07-16 4:32:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 #3Â This is pretty easy to counter. We get nuked we vaporize Medina and Mecca, so much of Islam. Osma doesn't count on us playing the eye for eye game.

I say we announce it publicly. Give standing orders. Then let the Islamisists sort it out.

#12Â I think a standing threat to VAPORIZE Mecca and Medina should anything like that happens is intriguing. It would eliminate a pillar of Islam just like that.

#13 ... agreed, eLarson. and if al qaeda claims it was some other faction that has the bomb, we say "we don't care -- if ANYONE bombs the USA, Mecca gets it."

#20Â ... the US govt should make a clear statement on this. if a nuke does go off in the US the world should know our response.

Mecca, Medina, Tehran (and all military installations), North West Frontier in Pakland (actuall all bauluchistan..) and damascus would be vaorized.

#31 ... A nuke attack on US soil, no matter when and no matter what president is in power, will result in the end of the world as we know it, and the end of Islam forever. Kiss the rock goodbye 'slims.

#34 ... Of coarse, the more risky way to go would be to put Mekkka at about number 4 or 5 on a well publicized (after hitting numbers 1 and 2) list. And give the 'slims a chance to stand down.

Ever since I found Rantburg I have been advocating some sort of credible deterrent to terrorism. Since Islamist terrorism is the biggest threat, their shrines should be held hostage. Even without a nuclear attack, reprisals should still be made.

If a "dirty bomb" is set off in America, Medina or Mecca gets dusted with the same isotope, just before the haj.

If chemical or bio weapons are used, the shrines get the same treatment, right before the haj.

There has to be a price, and America needs the courage to establish that price and spell it out clearly to the Muslim world. Islam is not going after the terrorists within their ranks with anything approaching efficacy. It is now up to us to deter any sort of mass attack.

While James makes some interesting points, I do not see where there is any other single lever that can be applied to Islam as a whole. And we need to attach some sort of cost to any further attacks on America.

In light of the less-than-cordial reception my first mention of credible deterrence against terrorism got here at Rantburg, I'm gratified to see that other people are beginning to reconsider this option. I still maintain that there might be something better, but until such a possibility is revealed, we still need to have a (smoking) hole-card, and the shrines are a good start.

#33 ... If you had the U235, the only machining that would need to be done would be to make two cylinders, a large hollow one, and a small solid one to fit into the large one. If you didn't care about your own health, all you would need is a lathe to do this.

Doesn't enriched U-235 burn in ambient air? I thought you needed an inert gas environment to machine the materials, plus a full scuba for the machinist, despite that person's incredibly short lifespan thereafter.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-16 5:30:02 PM|| 2004-07-16 5:30:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#36

There has to be a price, and America needs the courage to establish that price and spell it out clearly to the Muslim world.

While I agree that there needs to be a price, we cannot give the dead-enders among the slims a well publicized goal post for our nuclear response. We have seen that their dead-enders can be very potent, and when they determine that they cannot win, that is when they will aim for those goal posts.

Posted by Victory Now Please 2004-07-16 5:42:33 PM|| 2004-07-16 5:42:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Some interesting info on plutonium and uranium handling, machining, etc at GlobalSecurity...

Posted by .com 2004-07-16 5:48:24 PM|| 2004-07-16 5:48:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 A "suitcase" nuke would require incredibly sophisticated tolerances and geometry for the plutonium core and the explosive lens. That and the maintenance puts this one at a secondary level of threat. A container with a ready made bomb would be the most feasibly way to get a nuke into the country. The most important thing is to prevent cells from becoming operational and to harass sympathizers and rabble rousers in Mosques in the US to prevent them from gaining converts and operatives. It would also be nice to tighten our borders, like Mexico for first priority, and secondarily Canada. We need to continue to take the fight to the enemy and to keep him on the defensive. Not much we can do about Europe until they get wacked and wake up to the fact that this is a war and not a law enforcement deal.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-07-16 6:05:19 PM|| 2004-07-16 6:05:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 America's goal: Kill 4 million jihadis.

But we don't have a bag limit, so more is fine.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-07-16 6:38:29 PM|| 2004-07-16 6:38:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 #35 Do it slowly and use lots of water or machine oil to keep it below ignition temperature. Shouldn't be any more difficult than machining magnesium. And if you screw up, you have a uranium fire in a garage in the subburbs, which would make life hell for the neighbors. The point is, if life has little meaning to you, you can manage to pull it off on a shoestring, without the safety procedures that a rational person would use. I doubt that the Sri Arum sarin makers had a DOD quality chemistry facility. It probably resembled a high school chemistry lab. Some of them probably managed to poison themselves during the process. But they still managed to kill a few people, injure thousands, and spread terror.

Posted by Anonymous5765 2004-07-16 6:50:23 PM|| 2004-07-16 6:50:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 A5765,

Interesting engineering design you posit. Unfortunately, all my experience is in the reactor world, not weapons. Nevertheless, there are a few questions that would need to be answered:

1. Does your americium/lithium combo produce the correct neutrons?

2. Are the critical geometry issues resolved any better with your gun barrel model? The sub-critical pieces must stay together long enough with the neutron source in the right spot to get the whole sha-bang rolling. That's why the implosion model was used in the first place.

3. You are correct that even in error you would get a fizzle, and there have been a few critical geometry container accidents (in Mass. in the 1950s and in Japan about 5 or 6 years ago) that probably would resemble the ensuing event. However, uranium or plutonium is a low-level alpha emitter, so a poor candidate for a dirty bomb. The "fizzle" wouldn't give off enough fission fragments to truly frighten.

4. The entire notion of using a spare naval gun barrel or the like belies the terrorist need for portability.

5. Finally, enriched uranium or plutonium is precious. You can't spend that much money or resources to obtain it and then say, "Not sure if this'll work, but let's give it a shot." Any terrorist organization knows that in this environment, after a major operation, your opponents are going to walk the cat back and crush anyone and anything involved in that particular evolution. The results would have to justify the expense.

Very interesting post. Thanks.

Posted by Dreadnought 2004-07-16 7:20:07 PM|| 2004-07-16 7:20:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 You will need to find a neutron source (like a plutonium/beryllium mix), which aren't available in Wal-Mart last time I checked

Aisle 24, next to the light bulbs

Actually, I think its only available in the super Wal-Marts not in the 'smaller' ones.

Try the ones in Byelorus, southern Ukraine ... or the delivery service that makes stops in the Caucasus.

On the need for major maintenance ... one person I've talked with who has some knowledge doesn't think it would be hard for someone with a little training to keep one of the Soviet suitcase nukes in operable condition here, assuming that was done from the beginning of its presence here.

Having said that, this is one of those threats that is extremely difficult to protect against ... especially if, say, a device was smuggled out of the soviet embassy a while back ... but also one I don't give too much credence to on the basis of one journalist's claims.

Posted by not my usual handle here 2004-07-16 7:50:05 PM|| 2004-07-16 7:50:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I also wonder if AQ is not thinking twice about going beyond the 9/11 scale of attack. One or two nukes would invite a devastating response from us. Reports suggest that they were surprised by our response to 9/11, which would mean they were very naive at that time. I assume they have learned something since then, no matter how much macho bluster they spew about everything is going according to God's plan.

Posted by virginian 2004-07-16 10:00:11 PM|| 2004-07-16 10:00:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 The article about plutonium production contains one little gem:

If typical weapons-grade plutonium, plutonium-239, is spiked with some plutonium-238, which decays more quickly, the self-irradiation process dramatically picks up speed. If 5 percent of the plutonium-239 is replaced with plutonium-238, the sample will age 11 times faster than normal plutonium-239. Aging can be accelerated by a factor of 16 over normal aging processes if 7.5 percent of the sample is plutonium-238. A useful measure of acceleration aging is defined as the number of years required to reach a radiation dose that results in 10 displacements per atom. Weapons-grade plutonium normally takes 100 years to reach this dose but will need just 6.25 years if it is spiked with 5-percent plutonium-238.

One would have to assume that any "suitcase" bombs were made with plutonium. Given Soviet Russia's slovenly track record for quality control, contamination of their fissile material may well have rendered any number of their nuclear weapons totally useless by now, especially the compact ones.

Given the tight component proximity and drastic thermal cycling issues of small package bomb designs, it seems less than likely anyone would have been able to maintain them correctly.

I must also concur that if al Qaeda was in possession of a nuclear device they would have already used it. Not that Iran would blush at handing off a few to them when they become available.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-16 10:08:35 PM|| 2004-07-16 10:08:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 You are all fascist pigs... You can't punish an entire religion (one with over a billion followers) for the actions of a few... Islam does not preach violence any more than any other religion... There are some radicals, but that is the case with all religions... The KKK is a terrorist organization that justifies it's actions through Christianity, but no one is calling for the destruction of Christian "shrines" or the like for the behavior of a few redneck bigots. Nor does anyone think it is the religion's responsibility (or that of ranking officials in the religion) to put an end to the KKK or other Christian fundamentalist groups. So, to take the actions of a few (literally) and apply it to over a billion, is an over-generalization to say the least. God bless every human being. -- Travis

Posted by Travis 2004-08-31 6:14:11 AM|| 2004-08-31 6:14:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#46 Sorry you are wrong. Islam has been slow to quit supporting these Jihadi bastards. Plenty muslims vocally, willingly give support to them. I stand by my original idea to hold Mecca, Medina and the Al Asqua mosque hostage. Any attack on the US by AQ and we take them out, period, no negotiation. They are gone. You can throw in Terhan, Damacus, and Islamabad for good measure. Standing orders to all Tridents at sea. Multiple devices deployed all targets totally destroyed. Nothing to salvage. The basis for this evil satanic death cult gone.

Sorry I gave up my fascist tendencies for Libertarianism. Do what you want, don't bother me with it, don't expect me to pay for it, or give a damm about it. Allow me the same freedom to live my life in private without bothering anyone the way I want to.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-31 6:53:31 AM|| 2004-08-31 6:53:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#47 Plenty muslims vocally, willingly give support to them. - I would like to add that many professional, influential muslims in the UK privately support actions such as 9/11 - I love luring them into such admissions by pretending to be anti-American myself. They fall for it every time... Turn Mecca/ Medina into glass and the message may just get home...

Posted by Howard UK 2004-08-31 7:04:35 AM|| 2004-08-31 7:04:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#48 After hearing what the Muslims did to those children in Russia, I gave up EVER trying to see their point of view again. The Muslims of this world can justify any atrocity, no matter how horrible, if it is in the name of Allah, and furthers the creation of their proposed One World Islamic State. And all moderate Muslims I hold equally complicit, since they all secretly rub their hands with glee at the thought of a World Islamic Government. In my opinion, especially after the torture and massacre of the Russian School kids, Islam is now the enemy of the entire civilized world, and like a rabid dog, it MUST BE STOPPED. The best solution, as many others have so eloquently suggested here, is to nuke their "holy" cities and capitals. We should give the populace 24 hours notice to vacate the area(s), however. Otherwise we would be just as barbaric as they are. I'm surprised Putin hasn't taken out Mecca already! - Windsong -

Posted by Anonymous6360 2004-09-08 10:11:49 AM|| 2004-09-08 10:11:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#49 Osama bin Laden can kiss Mohammed the Prophet's ass. I like to say that I enjoy stepping on the portrait of osama bin laden with my bare feet. I also like to throw pieces of bacon on top of the portrait of Mohammed the Prophet.

Posted by Anonymous6534 2004-09-18 3:43:59 PM|| 2004-09-18 3:43:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Did anybody read the articles at these links? We have the 1 kiloton "PBS" suitcase that weighs 80-100 pounds and will wipe out everything in a 1/2 mile radius. Then we have Williams' 10 kiloton suitcase that "could weigh less than 35 pounds". Obviously somebody here is full of baloney, and it's probably Williams. Williams does not seem very believable to me. He says:
"With todayâs technology and the Internet, an experienced person could easily assemble such a bomb in his home garage"
Yeah, if somebody gave him all the materials, machined and ready for assembly. My impression from my reading is that it's a bit more involved than just exploding two pieces together. Clearly it is not as simple as Anonymous5765's concept. And also:
"It could render Manhattan unlivable for 1,000 years"
Anybody here been to Hiroshima lately?

Dirty bomb -- yes, big problem.
Suitcase nuke -- I'm not losing any sleep over it. It hasn't been maintained for years, and time quickly turns it into a dud.

Posted by Tom 2004-09-18 4:25:24 PM|| 2004-09-18 4:25:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 "It could render Manhattan unlivable for 1,000 years"
It took me about two minutes to find a news article about Hiroshima Day 2004: "Today in Hiroshima, Japan, an estimated 40,000 people gathered for the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city."

Posted by Tom 2004-09-18 4:51:06 PM|| 2004-09-18 4:51:06 PM|| Front Page Top

16:51 Tom
16:25 Tom
15:43 Anonymous6534
10:11 Anonymous6360
07:04 Howard UK
06:53 Sock Puppet of Doom
06:14 Travis
21:11 cingold
20:33 rex
20:13 cingold
10:16 raptor
09:34 Frank G
09:32 raptor
00:44 Mark Espinola
00:41 CrazyFool
00:36 Zenster
00:09 trailing wife
23:56 rex
23:55 Mike Kozlowski
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:43 Mike Kozlowski
23:40 Barbara Skolaut
23:36 A Jackson
23:35 trailing wife