Irresponsible jihadi-nukes rumor-mongering of the day
posted at 2:23 pm on May 24, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Euphoric Reality links to World Net Daily which links to an interview at World Threats with Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who says Al Qaeda has smuggled multiple suitcase nukes into the United States across the Mexican border.
Did I mention Mir has a book about Bin Laden coming out later this year?
RM: It has been reported that you believe Al-Qaeda has nuclear weapons. How did you come up with this conclusion?
HM: 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. I interviewed not only Al-Qaeda operatives but met scientists and top U.S. officials also. I will have the details in my coming book.
At least two Al-Qaeda 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…
And:
RM: How many nuclear weapons does Al-Qaeda possess?
HM: As far as I know, they smuggled three suitcase nukes from Russia to Europe. 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. 19 were used on 9/11, 23 are still “sleeping” inside America waiting for a wake-up call from Bin Laden.
And:
RM: Were actual tactical nukes deployed to the US? And is the leader of the nuclear plot Adnan el-Shukrijumah as believed by some experts?
HM: Al-Qaeda leaders claimed to have deployed their tactical weapons inside America. But when I tried to track the transportation of those weapons from Georgia, I lost track in Italy. I don’t know the location of these today because my source left Afghanistan for Iraq last year. On the other hand, they claimed to me that weapons were smuggled to America through Mexico.
According to my notes, the man responsible for organizing the nuclear attacks inside America is not Adnan but is Muhammed Sher Khan, but this may be an alias for Adnan.
It’s never easy to judge how credible foreign journalists are, but Mir seems pretty credible. He’s also met with Bin Laden. On the other hand, he’s been pitching this story for almost five years. Does that make it less persuasive — or more?
Follow the link to Euphoric Reality for more details.
Update: More good news — the group responsible for the Bali bombings is dabbling in chemical weapons.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
If the terrible days arrive when we have nukes going off in our cities and Israel is also being lit up by Muslim religious fanatics, on that day everyone in America will accept the truth that we have been and are at war with those who not only hate us, but see us as an impediment to the advance of Islam.
Hate alone wouldn’t make this happen. We’re in their way.
And there’s no comfort in being one of the ones who have been warning against Islam. In this case, I hate it if I’m right.
Doug on May 24, 2006 at 2:37 PM
I doubt the story because, if there were even one suitcase nuke set off in a middle-America cornfield, the propaganda value would be enormous to al-Qaeda or to whichever terrorist group was responsible. As such, inventorying nukes for use at a future date is dangerous and, in some sense, a reaping of declining returns as the number set off increase. At the very least the danger of discovery is very real. There are incentives to use; there are disincentives to storage.
Hence, the terrorists have not had suitcase nukes in US shores for as long as that journalist claims.
chsw
chsw on May 24, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Osama says he has nukes and if we ues same he will use his. In my opinion Osama’s trying to strike fear in us. Why would he not use them first? Al-Qaeda is spread in sells all over the world. Who would we nuke first? France, Holland. Sounds to me like he’s bidding time. The “08″ elections are right around the corner.
birdman on May 24, 2006 at 3:02 PM
The threat of Soviet suitcase nukes has been around since the Cold War ended. I don’t think there is any more credence to these stories today then when they first started appearing in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Everybody claims the Soviets had them and lost accountability on them and everybody from tribal warlords in Rwanda to Chechen rebels have claimed to have them.
The question of a dirty bomb is a different matter and if carried out would have far more psychological effect then actual physical effect.
The Arab world is in the seige of a macho contest and the gold ring is the posession of nuclear weapons as if that is somehow the answer to all of their problems. The radical jihadist certainly want them if for no other reason but to make conquest of the non believers easier.
What does Joe Wilson or Ramsey Clarke say on this matter?
LakeRuins on May 24, 2006 at 3:16 PM
LakeRuins You mean comrades Wilson, and Clarke.
birdman on May 24, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Sounds credible to me, given the obvious porosity of our southern border. If UBL were trying to provoke a Madrid effect here in the U.S., it would take a nuke move for that to happen. The libs get in, and everyone else dhimms out. Nah, we don’t need no steenkeeng fence.
Kid from Brooklyn on May 24, 2006 at 3:45 PM
Only a matter of time I’m afraid! We’ll never raise the “Black Flag” while they have nothing to lose and time is on their side.
They’ll employ our good natured Jedeo-Christian values against us and we (read elected officials and MSM/Liberals) will never have the national resolve to destroy this vermin NOW, and that’s the bottom line.
We’ll decide to act when it’s too late and even then there will be those who are hesitant for fear that “one innocent life” could be lost; with nary a second thought or regard for the many innocent Americans lives that will be sacrificed!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 24, 2006 at 3:46 PM
I find Hamid Mir to be credible.
It is shocking that we know the danger posed to our nation and yet refuse to build a fence on the Mexican border.
As great as the intelligence agencies in Israel are, they could not prevent suicide bombers without building a wall. As soon as the wall went up, suicide bombings went down.
Yet we are too afraid to offend the Mexicans by building a wall. What stupidity!
januarius on May 24, 2006 at 3:55 PM
A large share of the blame for allowing these radical islamic nutbags to fluorish must go to the so-called “moderate” muslims who are too chicken shit to speak up. They must have had their balls cut off at birth. If another horror happens in this country, we should take no prisoners.
darwin on May 24, 2006 at 3:58 PM
AP – 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday that Israel would be a “willing partner in peace” with the Palestinians, but would draw its own borders in the West Bank should it conclude it has no negotiating partner. “We cannot wait for the Palestinians forever,” Olmert told members of the House and Senate gathered in the House chamber.
Ya gotta admire the Isrealis!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 24, 2006 at 3:59 PM
One bright spot in all of this nuclear weapons talk there are so many little tin horn dictators and wannabee dictators who wish to posess nuclear weapons that they will actually sabotage anybody else they think is close to getting them. Jordan doesn’t Syria to have them, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Iran to get them, Egypt doesn’t want Lebanon to get them, so basically what you have is big game of keep away. And even though a lot of these are operating with less then a full deck they really don’t want somebody like Bin Laden to get them. Look at how many Muslims they have managed to kill with conventional explosives. Make no mistake about on the Arab street there is becoming more discontent with the radical jihadi’s then in the past. A often asked question is Is Israel and America are to blame for our troubles why are we doing the dying?
LakeRuins on May 24, 2006 at 4:05 PM
Don’t nukes, even suitcase nukes give off a lot of radiation? If so, we should be able to detect it even from low orbit satellites which have sophisticated instruments. Granted lead shielding can cut out the radiation but lead vessels are not easy to transport.
docdave on May 24, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Just another excuse to stockpile canned food, water, and weapons.
NTWR on May 24, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Ditto, NTWR. A damned good excuse, too. Of course, I can merely attribute such activity to the fact that I live on the Texas gulf coast and hurricane season is imminent. Bottled water and 7.62×39, 200 of one and 2000 of the other…
inmanjh on May 24, 2006 at 5:44 PM
I don’t believe this tory for a minute, but if (God forbid) they do set off a nuke in an American city, I want my duly elected goverment, the People’s representatives, to unleash the full might of the U.S. Military, including nuclear ICBM’s, to remove the entire existance of islam from the face of this earth now and forever. Start with mecca, then medina, then every muslim city on the planet starting with the most populated, “ally” or not, and work their way down to the smallest village, even if that village is not even in the middle east. Copy that, France?
Tony737 on May 24, 2006 at 6:57 PM
We should be deploying our own suitcase nukes in Iranian and Saudi cities, just to be on top of things.
Mark V. on May 24, 2006 at 7:16 PM
There are incentives to use; there are disincentives to storage.
You’re thinking like a Western man. That won’t work when dealing with jihadis. Their way of thinking is nothing like yours. Drawing conclusions from your own perspective is the fastest way to get your ass smoked.
Case in point: Bin Laden sought and received a fatwah ruling from Muslim clerics in 2005 for Islamic religious permission to detonate nuclear devices inside the US. The Quran requires bin Laden’s offer of a truce before Bin Laden can carry out the fatwah to use nuclear weapons in the US.
Remember back in January when we all had a hearty laugh about bin Laden’s audio tape offering a truce? It’s only been 4 months…
Don’t nukes, even suitcase nukes give off a lot of radiation?
The fact that plutonium is so hard to clean up and is harmful in such small quantities means that numerous small dirty bombs can be built, shielded, transported and detonated in US cities before detection.
The FBI has been monitoring radiation levels using CIA developed detection equipment (specifically designed to look for plutonium based nuclear devices) at more than 100 mosques, homes, businesses and other sites in and around at least six cities. This is another indication that law enforcement and intelligence agency officials suspect Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have brought nuclear or radiological weapons inside the US. Unfortunately, plutonium based dirty radiological bombs can be made transportable and undetectable with shielding and yet powerful enough to be effective especially when multiple ones can be used at the same time. [source]
I find Hamid Mir to be credible.
He is.
We should be deploying our own suitcase nukes in Iranian and Saudi cities, just to be on top of things.
We’re way too nice for that, don’t ya think?
Redhead Infidel on May 25, 2006 at 12:40 AM
It is shocking that we know the danger posed to our nation and yet refuse to build a fence on the Mexican border.
Oh, PLEASE. They don’t need the Mexican border to do what they want! Just ask the Canadians! I’d say ask the 19 hijackers from 9/11 but…well, you can’t. Do you REALLY think a fence on the Mexican border would stop terrorists?
I’m not for liberal immigration policy, but be serious.
bamapachyderm on May 25, 2006 at 1:34 AM
Allahpundit, at the very least it’s a springboard to long overdue discussion of what our response will be to a nuclear attack. We’ve always known that 9/11 was not al Qaeda’s be-all/end-all plan – that they had greater objectives and the patience to see them through. Personally, I see a correlation between bin Laden’s request and receipt of a fatwa, his offer of a truce back in January, and his subsequent “all American civilians are fair game” speech in April. All that points to an acceleration of events, and it’s not going to be for a shoe bomb at a football stadium, that much is certain.
BTW, I updated my original post throughout the day yesterday with numerous additional links and sources since WND is so obectionable to some. The info is there for the taking, so WND is not the only source.
Redhead Infidel on May 25, 2006 at 9:54 AM
Do you REALLY think a fence on the Mexican border would stop terrorists?
It would cetainly help. Why make it as easy as an afternoon stroll for them? If ingress to the country was restricted to ports of entry, the likelihood that terrorists could smuggle in WMDs is so much less. The reduction of risk to Americans is incalcuable. And worth it in my opinion. On the other hand, terrorists are flowing over our border on a regular basis. We have to hope there’s a few thousand Jack Bauers out there to help us contain they threat they now pose inside our borders. The fact that we let them walk right in is incredibly frustrating to me, and in a post 9/11 world, it’s naive and fool-hardy.
Redhead Infidel on May 25, 2006 at 10:04 AM
The longterm reliability of “suitcase nukes.” I haven’t been able to find the article I read online some weeks ago, but it seemed to make a good case that if “suitcase nukes” really were produced by the USSR and then lost or stolen, they would no longer be usable for the production of a nuclear explosion, unless they were very well maintained. (I’m careful to state the matter this way, because I don’t know anything about their possible secondary usefulness as “dirty bombs,” devices intended to spread radioactive material without producing a nuclear explosion.) The issue in regard to maintenance is the rapid deterioration of the weapons-grade material that would be part of such a weapon. By hypothesis, such a bomb is small and lightweight; the small amount of weapons-grade material in it would rapidly deteriorate to the point that its small size and relatively high impurity would keep it from detonating.
The larger issue. Whether suitcase nukes are viable or not, the larger issue is that our rulers are fiddling while Rome burns. More accurately, they’re fiddling while the arsonists multiply, immigrate, plot, and prepare. If instead I were the one making war on “terror,” i.e. on Islam, muslims would be far too busy burying their own dead to think of attacking us.
Kralizec on September 12, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Comment pages: