From the alarmist web magazine, World Net Daily:
Al-Qaida has smuggled tactical nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S. across the Mexican border and is planning to launch a major terrorist attack using a combination of nukes and dirty nukes, according to an interview with Osama bin Laden's biographer, Hamid Mir, in WorldThreats.com.
The information confirms reports previously published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin and in a new book by Paul L. Williams, "Dunces of Doomsday."
"I came up with this conclusion after eight years of investigation and research in the remote mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I traveled to Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan and Russia and met dozens of people," Mir said. "I interviewed not only al-Qaida operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book. At least two al-Qaida operatives claimed that the organization smuggled suitcase nukes inside America. But I have no details on who did it. But I do have details about who smuggled uranium inside America and how."
Mir claims his information is based not only on what al-Qaida operatives, including bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, told him, but also upon his own independent research as a journalist. Mir says his upcoming book, a biography of bin Laden, will disclose al-Qaida's nuclear attack plans.
"As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe," Mir says about al-Qaida. "They smuggled many kilos of enriched uranium inside America for their dirty bomb projects. They said in 1999 that they must have material for more than six dirty bombs in America. They tested at least one dirty bomb in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 2000. They have planned an attack bigger than 9-11, even before 9-11 happened. Osama bin Laden trained 42 fighters to destroy the American economy and military might. Nineteen were used on 9-11, 23 are still 'sleeping' inside America waiting for a wake-up call from bin Laden."
Mir said al-Qaida operatives told him that tactical nuclear weapons were smuggled over the Mexican border before Sept. 11, 2001.
Mir said again he believes al-Qaida may use its nuclear arsenal after the U.S. attacks Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear weapons program.
"This is my opinion," he says. "No al-Qaida leader has ever admitted that they are working with Iran. I also think that, maybe, the Iranians will organize some attacks inside America and you will accuse al-Qaida."
Asked why al-Qaida hasn't used nuclear weapons it already possesses, Mir said: "They are waiting for the proper time. They want the U.S. to be involved in a mass killing of Muslims, so that they will have some justification. That is what I was told by a top al-Qaida leader in the Kunar Mountains of Afghanistan."
Mir made similar comments in an earlier interview with G2 Bulletin.
Hamid Mir's credibility skyrocketed when he accurately predicted in G2 Bulletin last month the imminent release of a new recorded communiqué from bin Laden through al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV network. Two days later, bin Laden's tape was the focus of international news coverage.
"If you think that my information and analysis about bin Laden's location is correct," said Mir, "then please don't underestimate my analysis about his nuclear threat also."
I am disinclined to believe Mir's story, because, as I understand it, it takes quite a bit of knowledge and effort to maintain nuclear weapons.
However, my saying I don't believe his story is not the same thing as saying that I don't believe it is possible that there are nuclear weapons in the United States.
Does anybody have some current, reliable information on the status of "suitcase nukes" (as opposed to dirty bombs)? I have heard conflicting reports as to whether or not the technology really exists yet. Since from what I've read "suitcase nukes" are potentially far more devastating than dirty bombs it would be helpful to know whether we really need to worry about them.
I'll try to find something.
I remember reading that there was a bomb which weighs only a couple hundred pounds and can be transported in a truck or car.
I would believe that nukes in Europe is much more likely. Right now it seams more like that Europe is going to be taken over, than USA is going to be destroyed.
oh, and littleredbird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nukes
I can't believe that terrorists has the capacity to aquire and handle nuclear weapons correctly (unless they get help from a country already having nuclear weapons). And why use something that is pretty difficult to handle and transport as nuclear weapons? It's much easier and cheaper to just use some everyday materials like something containing the right nitrate-mix. A dirty bomb probably won't do much damage and while it would make an area readio-active, that is a very slow way to kill people. If the terrorists really want to make a dirty bomb or use nuclear weapons, then they probably are stupid enough to not knowing how they should be used, handled or what effect it would cause. But never say never, I guess. If it happens (especially in the US) it would surprise me though.
My bet would be on lower-tech, lower-priced means of achieving massive disability, death and destruction.
Dirty bombs are one example; the material necessary to make them is so very widely and easily available that it is a very scary thing, and hundreds, maybe thousands, of them could be accumulated across a relatively short time.
Even biologicals can be effective at low cost. Imagine if highly significant numbers of people in critical jobs (police, fire, etc.) or even the ordinary day-to-day work that keeps the country humming right along, started calling in sick with a nasty, debilitating case of the 'flu in numbers that can be described by epidemiologists with the usual "bell curve." With a good plan, much of the country could theoretically grind to a relative halt for several weeks. There are all kinds of diseases, not just respiratory infections, that could knock out a lot of the work force for a while. It wouldn't be a problem at all for a few hundred terrorists to accomplish this with low-tech means, and it would provide enough of a drain on our ability to function to permit them to do - well, whatever.
Other low-tech scenarios have been discussed by security agencies - for example, what would happen if, during a dry summer, a few hundred terrorists went hiking in the woods, placing incendiary devices that could ignite fires simultaneously? The effect of something like that could be huge, millions upon millions of acres. Not only would it destroy natural resources, cost a bunch of money, and potentially engulf whole communities, but it could re-direct emergency teams, again allowing the terrorists an increased opportunity to do other things.
It bothers me a little that we focus so much on the hi-tech means of destruction. That's where we are, of course, as a technologically advanced nation, and hi-tech is sexy, but we need to consider the kinds of things people who need to stay under the radar will think of.
The terrorists love a spectacular show as much as anyone, and while I certainly wouldn't ignore their penchant for showing how "strong" they are by getting a real nuclear weapon, I won't put all my eggs in that basket.
Their ultimate goal is conquest, and we know that they will use any means whatsoever to accomplish their mission.
Post a Comment