• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb'

America cannot defend itself against Al Qaeda as long as American leftists view American conservatives as worse than Al Qaeda.
 
The article has nothing to do with actual dangers of a terrorist attack. The whole article is about the "scary" weapons like anthrax, nuclear materials, smallbox and even the feared bird flu. The fact is that guns and bombs are by far the most common threats, and also the most effective to date. Terrorism is a tool that works purely based on fear, and this sort of article is like fragging your own side.
 
Run for the hills
Run for your life

Hahah, I'm not too worried about a "dirty bomb" or whatever. I just hope we don't use this opportunity to push more fear mongering. Terrorists will always try, we can use reasonable methods to limit certain probabilities. But cowering under the bed trying to hide from the big bad boogieman isn't really going to help us. Given enough time, there will be another terrorist attack. Fact of life.
 
No intelligent discussion? Pretty much just derision??

Anyone who ridicules the possibility that terrorist groups may strike with nuclear weapons is an ostrich.
 
Excerpted from “'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb'” By Heidi Blake and Christopher Hope, The Daily Telegraph, The Vancouver Sun, FEBRUARY 1, 2011
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]housands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.
Click to expand...

There's nothing very new in this story but for WikiLeaks providing the State Department cables detailing the constant effort to locate and identify the potential threats existing around the world and the reality that such attacks are not only quite plausible but may be actively under development by Al Qaeda today.

Thank you, WikiLeaks.
 
MaggieD said:
No intelligent discussion? Pretty much just derision??

Anyone who ridicules the possibility that terrorist groups may strike with nuclear weapons is an ostrich.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a probability. I'm just not pissing my pants because of it.
 
Dirty Harry said:
* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. Was not enough reason for invasion
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Didn't have WMDs and nuclear programs had been halted
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Other countries are just as bad or worse. Our invasion killed a lot of Iraqis. That's pretty brutal.
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". We provided him with some of those WMDs he used. We used WMDs against other nations too.
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Revenge by Bush Jr is not a reason for war. How many US planes were shot down in the no fly zone?
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. The Al qaeda bases in Iraq were located in the north US protected no fly zone. Al Qaeda hated Saddam as much as GWB did.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. The US supports dictators all over the world and have supported terrorist groups in South America.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. Saddam did not aid Al Qaeda
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Saddam had nothing to do with terror attacks on the US Iran did.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Creating a act does not give us the right to invade other countries.
Click to expand...

This isn't the thread to discuss the details. If you want go over the details then start a new thread and message me.
 
Imo there is almost a certainty that NYC will be attacked in the next half century with weapons of mass destruction. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to reduce this possibility is for America to reduce its contact with the peoples of the eastern hemisphere. And to enforce discipline within the western hemisphere.
 
A nuclear attack would kill hundreds of thousands. People still like to complain about the soldiers dying in the war or terror but don't understand that we are trying to protect this country. I wish soldiers didn't have to die, but unfortunately they do.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Imo there is almost a certainty that NYC will be attacked in the next half century with weapons of mass destruction. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to reduce this possibility is for America to reduce its contact with the peoples of the eastern hemisphere. And to enforce discipline within the western hemisphere.
Click to expand...

And secure our borders.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I don't think either the American left or the American right is interested in securing America's borders. Their interests lie elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Most people in this country want the borders secured.
 
Goshin said:
But they ARE out to get you, and they WOULD like to do so with more effective weapons. Odds are good that one day they'll pull this off too, if they keep at it and we don't stay on top of them.
Click to expand...

Such are the risks of living in a free society. Exactly how much freedom are you willing to give up in order to protect yourself from this threat?

FWIW, there are significantly greater odds that your wife will stab you to death than that you will be killed by terrorists with a dirty bomb. You should think about that the next time you criticize her cooking, Goshin.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
The only way to reduce this possibility is for America to reduce its contact with the peoples of the eastern hemisphere.
Click to expand...
That won't do a damn thing. Just look at what happens when a danish cartoonist draws a picture of muhammad within his own borders. The majority of the Muslim world ****s itself and calls for his death. Its a pipe dream to believe that hiding in the corner keeps one safe from the happenings of the world.

Albert Di Salvo said:
And to enforce discipline within the western hemisphere.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean?
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Imo there is almost a certainty that NYC will be attacked in the next half century with weapons of mass destruction. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to reduce this possibility is for America to reduce its contact with the peoples of the eastern hemisphere. And to enforce discipline within the western hemisphere.
Click to expand...

We'll see biological or chemical attacks in our food or water supply first ... IMO.
 
Dirty Harry said:
And secure our borders.
Click to expand...

Its impossible to secure our borders unless we implement radical changes. For example, divert massive amounts of money into checking all shipping, trucking and cargo thoroughly, create a DMZ on our borders as well as implement national IDs and networked camera systems in most public areas.

Most Americans are not willing to do such a thing. Therefore our borders will remain porous and enemies will be able to get in. We can definitely make things more difficult without doing the things above but its not exactly hard to get into the US witt people and items as Mexico demonstrates on a daily basis.
 
Our trillion dollar military should be used to defend this country instead of used to spread our influence, nation building, regime changes, and policing the world. Protecting our waters, airspace, borders, ports and airports should be the primary function of the US military. Time to start protecting this country instead of other countries. That would actually make us safer. The CIA, air pwer and spec ops forces should be used to destroy our enemies.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Its impossible to secure our borders unless we implement radical changes. For example, divert massive amounts of money into checking all shipping, trucking and cargo thoroughly, create a DMZ on our borders as well as implement national IDs and networked camera systems in most public areas.

Most Americans are not willing to do such a thing. Therefore our borders will remain porous and enemies will be able to get in. We can definitely make things more difficult without doing the things above but its not exactly hard to get into the US witt people and items as Mexico demonstrates on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Borders can be secured if people are sufficiently ruthless. The Texas Rangers prevented large scale Mexican immigration into Texas during much of the 19th century.

Desperation and radicalization are the precursors to ruthlessness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom