Al Queda has nukes prepositioned in the US!!?!?!

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
With threats like these, who will still complain about preemptive strikes?


Al-Usuquf is absolutely positive, "because, in a smaller scale, this is exactly what big financial conglomerates do with Third World countries to collect profits in one month that no Swiss bank would guarantee in four to five years". Al-Usuquf says that al-Qaeda could do the same by "provoking a deficit of $50 to 70 trillion, the equivalent to five to seven years of the GNP of the US". How? By "destroying America's seven largest cities and some other measures". The means? "Atomic bombs." Al-Usuquf's most startling revelation is that the bombs "won't be launched, they are already there". "Seven nuclear heads have already been positioned on American soil, before September 11, and they are ready to be detonated. Before September 11, American security was a fiasco, and even later, if we needed, we could position the bombs there. They arrived through seaports, as normal cargo. A nuclear head is not bigger than a fridge, so it can easily be camouflaged as one. Thousands of containers arrive at a seaport every day, and even with very efficient security, it's impossible to check and examine each one of them."

So should we wait for the UN to tell us when and where we can attack? I think not.
 

Francodman

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 1999
4,965
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
With threats like these, who will still complain about preemptive strikes?


Al-Usuquf is absolutely positive, "because, in a smaller scale, this is exactly what big financial conglomerates do with Third World countries to collect profits in one month that no Swiss bank would guarantee in four to five years". Al-Usuquf says that al-Qaeda could do the same by "provoking a deficit of $50 to 70 trillion, the equivalent to five to seven years of the GNP of the US". How? By "destroying America's seven largest cities and some other measures". The means? "Atomic bombs." Al-Usuquf's most startling revelation is that the bombs "won't be launched, they are already there". "Seven nuclear heads have already been positioned on American soil, before September 11, and they are ready to be detonated. Before September 11, American security was a fiasco, and even later, if we needed, we could position the bombs there. They arrived through seaports, as normal cargo. A nuclear head is not bigger than a fridge, so it can easily be camouflaged as one. Thousands of containers arrive at a seaport every day, and even with very efficient security, it's impossible to check and examine each one of them."

So should we wait for the UN to tell us when and where we can attack? I think not.


That's why we leave the thinking to those in charge.
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
I hope this isn't true. Notice I didn't say "nah, no way." :( We've all ssen many movies depicteing the end of the world. you know, a world that has already been decimated by nulcear holocaust. A world where every man is out for himself or must take a side...like Mad Max or something. Sometimes, I think I can see it coming...
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
yes, attacking iraq will stop bin laden from detonating a bombs
rolleye.gif
 

Dacalo

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2000
8,778
4
76
Seriously, this is all too possible and easy to do. What's scary is that these terrorists have so many resources at their disposal if they wanted to attack us. :confused:
 

If they had them, and their purpose is to destroy the US, dont you think they would have used them by now?
rolleye.gif
 

NARtheWang

Member
Nov 14, 2002
166
0
0
Cursed Hippies!!! Ruinin everything! We control the world in nearly everyway... we are the first and third most powerful entities in the world yet we scream and cower likr little girls everytime we are threatened! What's up with that?? we should just wipe them (al Queda &other terrorist organizations) off the face of the earth and be done with it.... We know where they are but can't act due to our stupid beauricrisy!!!! we need a stronger gov't and a more quickly acting failsafe that can override thigs for no more than 24 hrs until at least the president can look at it or an emergency sennios of congress be called....
 

Maharaja

Member
Apr 25, 2000
192
0
0
oh please, yeah i'm sure terrorists have been able to get their hands on 7 nuclear warheads when whole countries like iran, iraq and libya have been unsuccessful in getting 1. and i'm sure they're just saving them for a rainy day too. i mean what's the rush right? you don't wanna hurriedly detonate them. better to let your nuclear weapons sit and age like fine wine.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Maharaja
oh please, yeah i'm sure terrorists have been able to get their hands on 7 nuclear warheads when whole countries like iran, iraq and libya have been unsuccessful in getting 1. and i'm sure they're just saving them for a rainy day too. i mean what's the rush right? you don't wanna hurriedly detonate them. better to let your nuclear weapons sit and age like fine wine.

I largely think it is a BS article, but the threat is clear.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
With the instability of the former Soviet military establishment, you have to wonder. I just saw a documenatry about the Russian mafia, and it was pretty scary. Through the Russian mafia a Columbian drug lord was all set to buy a 100 million dollar Russian sub. The only thing that stopped the transaction was an undercover informant for the DEA.....:frown:
 

Cyberian

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2000
9,999
1
0
Originally posted by: NARtheWang
Cursed Hippies!!! Ruinin everything! We control the world in nearly everyway... we are the first and third most powerful entities in the world yet we scream and cower likr little girls everytime we are threatened! What's up with that?? we should just wipe them (al Queda &other terrorist organizations) off the face of the earth and be done with it.... We know where they are but can't act due to our stupid beauricrisy!!!! we need a stronger gov't and a more quickly acting failsafe that can override thigs for no more than 24 hrs until at least the president can look at it or an emergency sennios of congress be called....
If you are not joking, you scare me.

 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
This article is total BS. Why would a terrorist say this? It makes no sense.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There is a threat. More than one. A big one is that our neighbor on our right threatens us, and we wish to punch the one on the left for it.

Saddam does NOT equal Bin Laden.
SHOW the link then I can support it.

WTF are we going after Iraq if this true? As pointed out, N. Korea, parts of the old USSR, and others could be providing weapons.

Bin Laden WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 is virtually certain to be alive. Where is the clamor to go after him? Its not there because we cant catch him. It's an embarrasment, so lets throw up another target. Moral cowardice.

Once again, show me
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
so why hasn't bush premptively launched nukes against all muslim countries? :)

that would be a workable solution:)
 

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

Attack who & where?

You can't attach country like China, because some fanatics look Asian & speak Japanese?
It is like bombing Canada, Australia & Briton, because an English speaker did something you don't like
rolleye.gif