NY, LA, Miami and 'Dirty Bomb' Threat

[Annie]

I couldn't find a post about this from the last few days, though CNN was making a big deal out of it yesterday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3436274,00.html

ia. 'Dirty bomb scare rocks city,' Daily News' main headline reads

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – The high alert declared by the New York Police on Friday night following a report on the Israeli website DEBKAfile that al-Qaeda might be plotting to detonate a dirty bomb in the city, made headline in the US media Saturday morning.


"Vague threat prompts steps by NY Police," the New York Times headline read...

From a more reliable site than Debka, along with concerns. Lots of links:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/pakistan_concern_ove.php

US intelligence investigates Pakistan's nuclear security and the military’s loyalty to Musharraf as the Northwest Frontier Province spins further out of control

As the security situation in the Northwest Frontier Province continues to deteriorate and President Pervez Musharraf's political stock continues to drop, the US military intelligence community is "urgently assessing how secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons would be in the event President Gen. Pervez Musharraf were replaced." Meanwhile, the Taliban and al Qaeda have dispersed operatives from the training camps in the Northwest Frontier Province and are preparing to fight on their own terms.

With the Pakistani government facing a robust Taliban insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Province, a significant al Qaeda presence inside the country and a violent cadre of homegrown Islamist extremists, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has taken on an elevated importance. The US intelligence community believes it has a handle on the location of Pakistan’s nuclear warhead, but there are questions over who controls the launch codes in the event of Musharraf’s passing.

The US is also looking past the issue of the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The loyalty of the conventional Pakistani military to President Musharraf is in question, according to CNN. "Musharraf controls the loyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclear program, but those loyalties could shift at any point," CNN reported on August 10. "There is also a growing understanding according to the U.S. analysis that Musharraf's control over the military remains limited to certain top commanders and units, raising worries about whether he can maintain control over the long term."

On the same day of the release of news on concerns over the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the loyalty of the Pakistani military, the Asia Times' Syed Saleem Shahzad reported al Qaeda and Taliban camps in North and South Waziristan have emptied, the Taliban and al Qaeda are expanding into the settled districts of the Northwest Frontier Province, and are reorganizing in both Afghanistan and Pakistan for a major fight.

The Fourth Rail interviewed a senior US military intelligence official and a US military officer, both of whom are familiar with the situation in the Northwest Frontier Province and wish to remain anonymous. The sources confirmed Mr. Shahzad's information concerning the al Qaeda and Taliban camps in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s reorganization is accurate. Both sources are particularly concerned about the implications of the emptying of the camps.

Mr. Shahzad reported there were 29 al Qaeda and Taliban camps in North and South Waziristan, and all but one "have been dismantled, apart from one run by hardline Islamist Mullah Abdul Khaliq." [Note: on October 4, 2006, The Fourth Rail reported "there are over 20 al Qaeda and Taliban run training camps currently in operation in North and South Waziristan."] While The Fourth Rail sources verify the camps' existence, they noted the camps have not been dismantled and the infrastructure is still in place. "The physical infrastructure (camps and the like) still exist, they haven't been dismantled. They've just been abandoned or are being operated by skeleton crews," the senior military intelligence source said, while noting "the Khaliq camp is only churning out Taliban, not al Qaeda."

The al Qaeda and Taliban personnel abandoned the 28 camps after "the US had presented Islamabad with a dossier detailing the location of the bases as advance information on likely US targets," Mr. Shahzad reported. "All other leading Taliban commanders, including Sirajuddin Haqqani, Gul Bahadur, Baitullah Mehsud and Haji Omar, have disappeared,” said Mr. Shahzad.

...

 

[onedomino]

I couldn't find a post about this from the last few days, though CNN was making a big deal out of it yesterday.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3436274,00.html



From a more reliable site than Debka, along with concerns. Lots of links:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/pakistan_concern_ove.php

I agree with Obama that if Pakistan cannot erase Al qaeda and the Taliban from the Northwest Frontire Province then we are going to have to do it. Otherwise, the area will become (or has become) another pre 2001 Afghanistan.

 

[Annie]

I agree with Obama that if Pakistan cannot erase Al qaeda and the Taliban from the Northwest Frontire Province then we are going to have to do it. Otherwise, the area will become (or has become) another pre 2001 Afghanistan.

Concur. The larger issue though is the threat to US. Real or not?

 

[onedomino]

Concur. The larger issue though is the threat to US. Real or not?

Yes and that entails the safety of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. The possibility that Islamic extremists might get control of those weapons is what makes Pakistan by far the most dangerous country on Earth. We have the Chinese, and their hatred of the Indians, to thank for Pakistani nukes.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Concur. The larger issue though is the threat to US. Real or not?

I believe there is a very real threat of the terrorists' using nuclear weapons against the U.S. Recently it was reported that 7 U.S. cities have been targeted to be hit all at once by Al Quada. In addition to N.Y., L.A., and Miami, the others are Las Vegas, Houston, Washington, D.C., Chicago. One writer wrote about the devastating results to this country if Houston was hit. Now multiply that 6 times over. Their goal is to ruin the U.S. financially.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe there is a very real threat of the terrorists' using nuclear weapons against the U.S. Recently it was reported that 7 U.S. cities have been targeted to be hit all at once by Al Quada. In addition to N.Y., L.A., and Miami, the others are Las Vegas, Houston, Washington, D.C., Chicago. One writer wrote about the devastating results to this country if Houston was hit. Now multiply that 6 times over. Their goal is to ruin the U.S. financially.

There is nothing to worry about. Have you not been paying attention? Just ask any Liberal and they can explain to you that those stories are just hoaxes put out by the evil Bush in his bid to declare martial law and become our Emperor.

Just as Saddam Hussein never used chemical and biological weapons, the peace loving, friendly Arab "terrorists" are no threat to us. Why if we would just leave them alone this would all blow over.

 

[Ruby]

There is nothing to worry about. Have you not been paying attention? Just ask any Liberal and they can explain to you that those stories are just hoaxes put out by the evil Bush in his bid to declare martial law and become our Emperor.

Just as Saddam Hussein never used chemical and biological weapons, the peace loving, friendly Arab "terrorists" are no threat to us. Why if we would just leave them alone this would all blow over.

I havent heard liberals claim saddam didnt use chemical and biological weapons, I just hear war supporters/bush supporters denials even in the face of proof that we are one of the western nations who SUPPLIED THEM. Reagan even removed him from the terrorist list so we could provide MORE help to him.

Bad things CAN happen, anywhere, anytime....I didnt need the Bush admin to tell me that. Its the fear mongering and pretending that fact is more important today than it was every other day or that we can actually CHANGE that fact by going out and invading other nations and producing mass death and suffering for millions of human beings.

 

[dilloduck]

I havent heard liberals claim saddam didnt use chemical and biological weapons, I just hear war supporters/bush supporters denials even in the face of proof that we are one of the western nations who SUPPLIED THEM. Reagan even removed him from the terrorist list so we could provide MORE help to him.

Bad things CAN happen, anywhere, anytime....I didnt need the Bush admin to tell me that. Its the fear mongering and pretending that fact is more important today than it was every other day or that we can actually CHANGE that fact by going out and invading other nations and producing mass death and suffering for millions of human beings.

So since "bad" things can happen anywhere, anytime the obvious answer is to ignore it ? I'm glad you willing to at least concede that MANY other countries have supplied wackos in the middle east with weapons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I havent heard liberals claim saddam didnt use chemical and biological weapons, I just hear war supporters/bush supporters denials even in the face of proof that we are one of the western nations who SUPPLIED THEM. Reagan even removed him from the terrorist list so we could provide MORE help to him.

Bad things CAN happen, anywhere, anytime....I didnt need the Bush admin to tell me that. Its the fear mongering and pretending that fact is more important today than it was every other day or that we can actually CHANGE that fact by going out and invading other nations and producing mass death and suffering for millions of human beings.

The US did NOT sell Hussein any chemical or biological weapons. This has got to be the oldest tiredest lie out there. But it goes hand and glove with your earlier claim we supplied weapons and armaments to Iraq. Right up there with non existant claim that Bush said Iraq was an Imminent Threat. Or that the War on Terror would be over tomorrow. And the one I really like is the ignorant chant of how Bush claimed Hussein was part of the 9/11 attack.

You nut jobs are batting a thousand in the lies and misinformation category.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What I really like is the claim that a few small dishes of medical supplies sold to Iraq were chemical weapons IN THE 80's, but when found after the Invasion in 2003, they were nothing important at all.

 

[Ruby]

The US did NOT sell Hussein any chemical or biological weapons. This has got to be the oldest tiredest lie out there. But it goes hand and glove with your earlier claim we supplied weapons and armaments to Iraq. Right up there with non existant claim that Bush said Iraq was an Imminent Threat. Or that the War on Terror would be over tomorrow. And the one I really like is the ignorant chant of how Bush claimed Hussein was part of the 9/11 attack.

You nut jobs are batting a thousand in the lies and misinformation category.

You are such an ostrich, you were provided the proof of that and linked to the source. The US dosent even deny it. They excuse it by claiming that Iran was the bigger problem but they dont DENY it any longer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Are you also gonna play Ostrich on Reagan removing Saddam from the Terrorist list?

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress.

That was AFTER it was known he was using chemical weapons on Iran.

Then we have additional help

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

Cluster bombs, military intelligence, biological and chemical materials, money, and even operations to stop materials reach Iran called "operation staunch".

Then we have this...

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

Then we have this.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Its pretty straightforward and the information comes from our own govt and our own govts documents.

 

[dilloduck]

You are such an ostrich, you were provided the proof of that and linked to the source. The US dosent even deny it. They excuse it by claiming that Iran was the bigger problem but they dont DENY it any longer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer



Are you also gonna play Ostrich on Reagan removing Saddam from the Terrorist list?


That was AFTER it was known he was using chemical weapons on Iran.

Then we have additional help



Cluster bombs, military intelligence, biological and chemical materials, money, and even operations to stop materials reach Iran called "operation staunch".

Then we have this...



Then we have this.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm



Its pretty straightforward and the information comes from our own govt and our own govts documents.

Why don't you continue and tell us why the US and other countries supplied Hussein with weapons AT THAT TIME ?

 

[Ruby]

So since "bad" things can happen anywhere, anytime the obvious answer is to ignore it ? I'm glad you willing to at least concede that MANY other countries have supplied wackos in the middle east with weapons.

Of course other countries have supplied weapons.

No one is ignoring that bad things can happen but do you need the news to tell you that you could get hit by a car today or die in a car accident? Today may be the day a new serial killer kills his first victim too, should the news tell you this and you can then prepare better how exactly?

If there is some specific evidence they have of a specific event and they can give you information that will help you avoid a specific impending danger then by all means, let us know, but the game of "they could maybe...." and just insert various horror scenes is fear mongering.

 

[Ruby]

Why don't you continue and tell us why the US and other countries supplied Hussein with weapons AT THAT TIME ?

They wanted to get rid of Irans leadership. We had previously overthrown an Iran govt and installed the Shah. He was a brutal nasty guy and the Iranians overthrew him and installed a govt that is not friendly to the US and has not gone along with US wishes. The US wished to change that again and so they backed Saddams aggressive and unjustified attack of Iran.

Iran wasnt a THREAT to us but they werent playing ball with us either.

Btw, its interesting that you seem to want to rationalize or justify us giving support to an aggressive invasion by a brutal human rights abusing dictator.

 

[maineman]

There is nothing to worry about. Have you not been paying attention? Just ask any Liberal and they can explain to you that those stories are just hoaxes put out by the evil Bush in his bid to declare martial law and become our Emperor.

Just as Saddam Hussein never used chemical and biological weapons, the peace loving, friendly Arab "terrorists" are no threat to us. Why if we would just leave them alone this would all blow over.

ridiculous. No one has ever said that Saddam did not use chemical or biological weapons.... just that his ability to use them on US was non-existent and his willingness to give them to islamic extremists was also non-existent.

Attacking Iraq in the wake of 9/11 is like contracting Athlete's Foot and blowing off your fingers in response.

I have been saying all along that the money and time - not to mention the blood - we have wasted in Iraq would have been much better served in significantly beefing up our port security and border security. Collins and Lapierre wrote about just such a dirty bomb scenario in "The Fifth Horseman" nearly 30 years ago. This can't come as a surprise to anyone.

 

[dilloduck]

ridiculous. No one has ever said that Saddam did not use chemical or biological weapons.... just that his ability to use them on US was non-existent and his willingness to give them to islamic extremists was also non-existent.

Attacking Iraq in the wake of 9/11 is like contracting Athlete's Foot and blowing off your fingers in response.

I have been saying all along that the money and time - not to mention the blood - we have wasted in Iraq would have been much better served in significantly beefing up our port security and border security. Collins and Lapierre wrote about just such a dirty bomb scenario in "The Fifth Horseman" nearly 30 years ago. This can't come as a surprise to anyone.

So do you think that it's good strategy to allow Iran to take over the entire mid-east and destroy Israel while we hide behind our borders ?

 

[Ruby]

So do you think that it's good strategy to allow Iran to take over the entire mid-east and destroy Israel while we hide behind our borders ?

Iran isnt doing that nor have they threatened to do that. It seems people want to start a REAL war over a fictional reason AGAIN!

 

[maineman]

So do you think that it's good strategy to allow Iran to take over the entire mid-east and destroy Israel while we hide behind our borders ?

where do I say that?

Please explain to me what the incredibly expensive invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq has done to positively impact our situation with Iran.

I'll wait.

 

[dilloduck]

Iran isnt doing that nor have they threatened to do that. It seems people want to start a REAL war over a fictional reason AGAIN!

Then why do Democrats want to redeploy our troops to other countries IN THE GULF ( I won't count Okinawa ). What is the strategy for doing that? And go ahead--fill me in on what will happen in Iraq if the US pulls it's troops out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then why do Democrats want to redeploy our troops to other countries IN THE GULF ( I won't count Okinawa ). What is the strategy for doing that? And go ahead--fill me in on what will happen in Iraq if the US pulls it's troops out.

You haven't been paying attention. People like Ruby and Maineman do NOT care what happens to Iraq or Iraqis. Ohh they will piss and moan about how the US supposedly killed x number of them and then in the same breath say " we have to leave".

They will claim the high moral ground in one breath, about how we caused all these problems and then continue with " and we must leave now". It is all word games for them. The truth is they do not give one good rat's ass about those people.