• 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'

Second post in and one of them is already talking about waterboarding people. Jesus Christ dude, turn the Fox News channel off and get a life!
 
zimmer said:
Whatever we do, we better make darn sure we don't waterboard anyone we might catch that proves uncooperative and might have valuable information.

.
Click to expand...

Then lets torture people who are apart of domestic terrorism operations. Ends justify the means, after all.

I can think of plenty of situations where torturing US citizens could potentially save many lives.
 
Dirty Harry said:
I thought the war in Iraq and the trillion dollars we spent there was supposed to eliminate the threat. Wouldn't it have been better to go after Al Qaeda with all that money?
Click to expand...

What gave you the idea the Iraq war was about a threat from al Qaeda?
 
Mickey Shane said:
We must stand together in our vigilance. We wouldn't want to find out that the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...

Now say it like you really mean it like our TV evangelist president did when he preyed on the fearful and infirm - Bush in his own words.
 
I love how it says "Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents," but cites absolutely no leaked diplomatic documents whatsoever.
 
American said:
The idiot music makes it hard to hear the words.
Click to expand...

All in your perspective I suppose. For me, the idiotic words makes it hard to hear the music.
 
The most effective use of a nuclear bomb would be to demonstrate it in the desert of Iran and then claim that there are three more bombs already in NY City, DC and Chicago. Thousands if not millions of people would die in the panic to get out of those cities.

Our economy would crash and we would be without a government for weeks as our congressional critters hid under rocks.
 
DiAnna said:
Al Qaeda will hit us again. No doubt in my mind. But I'm not going to spend my life locked in the basement, quivering in fear. They're going to try to do what they're going to try to do, and we're going to try to stop them. If we fail, we'll grieve, bury the dead, clean up the mess and go on. Life is full of danger. That doesn't keep us from living.
Click to expand...

I see that you're still caught up in the Bush/Cheney propaganda blitz. Common sense should tell you that the al qaeda are just radical Arabs who always work alone, have no identity, no tanks, no planes, no navy, no identifiable country, and for the last 8 years their only weapons have been road bombs and suicide bombs.

ricksfolly
 
Iron River said:
The most effective use of a nuclear bomb would be to demonstrate it in the desert of Iran and then claim that there are three more bombs already in NY City, DC and Chicago. Thousands if not millions of people would die in the panic to get out of those cities.

Our economy would crash and we would be without a government for weeks as our congressional critters hid under rocks.
Click to expand...

Ooooooohhhhh. Somebody's been thinking. Wow.
 
scourge99 said:
Apparently you didn't read the Iraq War Resolution very carefully. It says nothing about how stopping Saddam would put an end to world wide terrorism. It talks, in one of 10+ points, about how removing saddam will put an end to his dabbling with terrorists.


Would it? If Saddam was still in power, dodging inspections, building an army, funding terrorists, would the world be a better and safer place?
Click to expand...

Saddam, spend HIS money? I suspect our "allies", the Saudis, fund more terrorism than Saddam ever did...
 
Iron River said:
The most effective use of a nuclear bomb would be to demonstrate it in the desert of Iran and then claim that there are three more bombs already in NY City, DC and Chicago. Thousands if not millions of people would die in the panic to get out of those cities.

Our economy would crash and we would be without a government for weeks as our congressional critters hid under rocks.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't speak for all Texans....most of them aren't that easily stampeded...
 
UtahBill said:
Saddam, spend HIS money? I suspect our "allies", the Saudis, fund more terrorism than Saddam ever did...
Click to expand...

You are right, 9/11 had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. Regime change in Iraq was planned at least 8 months before the 9/11 attack.

"And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I love how it says "Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents," but cites absolutely no leaked diplomatic documents whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Maybe Wikipedia will eventually publish them.
 
zimmer said:
If they could have used a nuke on 911 they would have, and laughed their asses off, as they had after the Tower fell... so I would say "The terrorists are out to get us." There is ample evidence going back more than a decade of their intent.
Click to expand...

True, but they haven't. Moreover, they've gotten no closer now to doing it than they were a decade ago. So, again I say let our intelligence and national defense agencies continue doing their jobs. The fact that such an act hasn't happened obviously means they've been very successful at detering such an event from occuring. So, relax.

Stay vigilant, but let's not panic over what hasn't happened yet.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
America cannot defend itself against Al Qaeda as long as American leftists view American conservatives as worse than Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Why does this have to be a Liberal -vs- Conservative thing? Why can't it just be "doing what's in the best interest of the country in support of our national security? Granted, both sides may different on policy, but I very seriously doubt either side wishes a repeat of 9/11.
 
Objective Voice said:
Why does this have to be a Liberal -vs- Conservative thing? Why can't it just be "doing what's in the best interest of the country in support of our national security? Granted, both sides may different on policy, but I very seriously doubt either side wishes a repeat of 9/11.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I don't believe that liberals want a repeat of 9/11 either, however, it is just that liberals are reactionary instead of preventitive, so by the time liberals react, the damage is done.


j-mac
 
Chappy said:
I think my fellow liberals need to recognize that the threats described in this and similar articles are very real and are of enormous concern to law enforcement authorities. I think transportation across international borders is a non-issue, all of the materials of a dirty bomb are available domestically in most countries. The knowledge is not common but is widely available to people who know where to look. Ultimately this is a question of wherewithal and execution, both of which Al Qaeda has demonstrably shown throughout this period. These are not new threats.

What is new in this article, then? The State Department cables released by WikiLeaks document the efforts by our diplomats to coordinate ongoing efforts to identify and foil these plots. Without WikiLeaks there is no story.

Again, together, now, thank you, WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail squarely on the head! Hence, the reason I both LMAO and cringe every time a pundit critisizes Pres. Obama's nuclear non-proliforation efforts as meaningless. If the leader of the free world doesn't push other nations to account for and security nuclear materials, who will? The U.N. alone? Yeah...right. Good luck with that.

j-mac said:
For what it's worth, I don't believe that liberals want a repeat of 9/11 either, however, it is just that liberals are reactionary instead of preventitive, so by the time liberals react, the damage is done.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You forget, sir, that it was under a Liberal President that this nuclear genie was first let out of its proverbial bottle. Security leaks and espionage aside, I'd think they like their Republican/Conservative counterparts would want to do everything in their power to ensure such material doesn't fall in the wrong hands.

(BTW, last I checked the atomic bomb hasn't been used since WWII. AND it was a liberal president who stayed the course and forced Russia to remove it's nuclear weapons out of the island nation of Cuba. Care to rethink your position on this?)
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ockham said:
We'll see biological or chemical attacks in our food or water supply first ... IMO.
Click to expand...


My wife's cooking IS a biological and chemical attack.

;)
 
Objective Voice said:
True, but they haven't. Moreover, they've gotten no closer now to doing it than they were a decade ago. So, again I say let our intelligence and national defense agencies continue doing their jobs. The fact that such an act hasn't happened obviously means they've been very successful at detering such an event from occuring. So, relax.

Stay vigilant, but let's not panic over what hasn't happened yet.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that no one in this thread is advocating PANIC as the appropriate response to this news. As noted, it isn't NEW news... the tangos have wanted to develop WMD's of some sort for quite a while. So far they haven't managed it... doesn't mean it will never happen.

Still there's nothing wrong with being reminded that the potential does exist for something like this to occur, that there are terrorist who would dearly LOVE to irradiate Times Square if they could pull it off.
 
Objective Voice said:
Are you serious? You forget, sir, that it was under a Liberal President that this nuclear genie was first let out of its proverbial bottle. Security leaks and espionage aside, I'd think they like their Republican/Conservative counterparts would want to do everything in their power to ensure such material doesn't fall in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...


Huh? Liberals openly give away Nuclear tech under Clinton, and today when Russia wanted the number of Trident missles that England has, and England says no, just rely on the good old USA under liberal guidence to give it to them anyway. Wonderful stuff.


WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets - Telegraph


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Huh? Liberals openly give away Nuclear tech under Clinton, and today when Russia wanted the number of Trident missles that England has, and England says no, just rely on the good old USA under liberal guidence to give it to them anyway. Wonderful stuff.


WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets - Telegraph

j-mac
Click to expand...

Since when was the Russia government considered to be terrorist?

I get your point here..."keep American military missle defense secrets secret", but since the issue here is "terrorist getting their hands on fissle materials to constructe a dirty bomb" and not the exchange of military information between two foreign super powers - right or wrong - I don't think this particular issue fits the topic of discussion.
 
UtahBill said:
Saddam, spend HIS money? I suspect our "allies", the Saudis, fund more terrorism than Saddam ever did...
Click to expand...

If you think Saudi Arabian gov't was more of a threat to the US and its interests before (and even after) the war then you are clearly not paying attention,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom