#21179 by Craig Maxim
Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:47 am
Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:47 am
Irminsul wrote:
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/4677486/
There. Now everybody, sleep tight.
Yeah. LOL
This makes me sleep good tonight too....
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0930.html
DOES AL QAEDA HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
PART TWO
by J. R. Nyquist
In last week’s column I interviewed Paul Williams about his claim that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. Williams offers many facts in support of his case, but facts are slippery. As reported last week, Williams recited how uranium-238 was discovered near an al Qaeda base in December 2001. But uranium-238 is better known as “depleted uranium.” It cannot be used to make a fission reaction.
I asked Williams about the uranium-238 found in Afghanistan and he agreed that uranium-238 “cannot be used for a tactical nuclear device but is a key ingredient for a dirty nuke.” According to Williams, “If a dirty nuke made from uranium-238 were detonated in New York City, thousands would die from the conventional explosion and thousands more would die from radioactive contamination, which is the worst kind of death imaginable. The fact that al Qaeda would leave such material worth millions behind shows that the group’s interest is in the serious bombs [i.e., tactical nukes]. Bin Laden has confirmed this himself as has al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Abu Ghaith, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, etc. Any doubts about al Qaeda’s possession of the real McCoys – the tactical nukes – should have been put to rest by Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris. Michael was the CIA operative in charge of the ‘Alec’ file – the file on bin Laden…. On Nov. 14, 2004, he appeared on 60 Minutes to confirm that al Qaeda possesses an arsenal of tactical nukes and that a nuclear attack by al Qaeda ‘is pretty close to being inevitable.’”
Scheuer, in fact, told CBS that al Qaeda was “involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” But Scheuer did not say, positively, that bin Laden has a nuclear arsenal. He said that an al Qaeda nuclear offensive (including a dirty bomb attack) is “probably a near thing.” Which leads us to a further question: If the man who held the bin Laden file, who saw what the CIA had on this subject, could not be more positive, then what is the substance of Paul Williams’s claim?
Credible testimony about al Qaeda nukes is out there. Consider the Oct. 14, 2001 UPI report that Israeli officials had detained a Palestinian with a radiological backpack bomb “attempting to enter Jerusalem from Ramallah.” This journalistic tidbit comes from UPI intelligence reporter Richard Sale. On Dec. 20, 2001, Sale wrote an even more astonishing UPI story in which he noted: “Initially, there were conflicting reports as to whether the pack contained a radiological weapon [i.e., dirty bomb] or a nuclear system [i.e., fission bomb]. UPI re-interviewed the sources who saw the [CIA] Daily Report item, and they insisted that the weapon was nuclear, not radiological.”
American officials make various and conflicting statements to reporters. Some say the al Qaeda nuclear attack story is “bunk.” Others say it is “probably” true. If Israeli security officials caught a Palestinian with a Soviet backpack, no official acknowledgment would be expected because governments are responsible entities and no democratic government could successfully govern a nation that seriously expects a large-scale nuclear attack in the near term. Imagine the investment climate under such a government. Imagine what would happen to employment, opportunity, currency and consumer goods. People would begin hoarding food and other necessities. They would dump paper money for gold and silver. Economic collapse would surely follow.
I asked Williams if an al Qaeda nuclear attack on America might trigger a reciprocal war of annihilation between Christian and Muslim nations? “Yes,” he said. I then asked if the Muslim world is being successfully radicalized by bin Laden. Williams replied: “Radical Islam is mainstream Islam. Wahhabism, the most radical manifestation of the teachings of the Prophet, became the official religion of Arabia when the Saud family established its dynasty in 1932. Life in Saudi Arabia is little different from life in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women must wear long, black abaya gowns with their heads covered; witchcraft, apostasy and blasphemy remain capital crimes; and crucifixion remains a common form of punishment. The practices of religions other than Islam are not tolerated; virtual servitude exists for Hindu workers; and non-Muslims cannot be buried within the country. And yes, according to a Gallup poll, the majority of the Islamic world expresses admiration for bin Laden and support for the Jihad.”
According to Williams, a war of mass destruction between Christian and Muslim is already on its way. The sides have been drawn. Furthermore, the United States cannot be defended at the outset of this war because its social system is incompatible with the requirements of defense. This is the implication of Williams's work. A consumer-oriented, multicultural society, sensitive to Muslim rights, cannot effectively oppose a Muslim nuclear insurgency.
The apparent inaction of the U.S. government – and the complacence of the public – is easily explained. (1) Serious protective measures, in themselves, would cause a severe recession with predictable social and political consequences. The "negative" attitudes attending the proposed “maximum security” state are economically depressive, not only in terms of closing the borders, restricting trade and the free movement of people between countries, but also in terms of investment and public spending. (2) Citizens are not going to accept facts, logic or testimony that effectively forces them to relinquish their life style or limit their choices. Surrendering the consumer economy and the shopping mall regime is not an option. (3) One of the issues that the president and many other U.S. leaders have emphasized is that they are not simply defending the country. They are also defending a "life style." In other words, the United States government is not properly oriented to defend the United States of America. It is oriented to defend a particular life-style. (4) A close analysis of political criminality (in the nuclear context) suggests that liberal free market institutions with minimal internal security are unworkable and destined for collapse. (This is the main argument of my book, Origins of the Fourth World War.) The slowness, ineptness, sloth, corruption, narcissism and radical individualism of the shopping mall regime precludes and disdains strict and serious security measures needed to defend the country against nuclear threats – whether from terrorists hiding in caves or communists sitting in Beijing. This is the situation America finds itself in today.
It would be preferable if the United States government, with wisdom and foresight, amended the laws and structure of American society in advance of a nuclear attack on the cities. But the U.S. government is not free to halve the standard of living, curtail liberties and expel millions of resident aliens. As elastic as America's system is, in economic terms, American society cannot be adapted to today's nuclear threat environment short of a political revolution (initiated by the president and/or Congress). Such a revolution cannot occur before a mass nuclear attack because the public will not be persuaded of the danger and the politicians dare not say that a retreat from consumerism is necessary.
