See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: Portents of A Nuclear Al-Qaeda
Source:
Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /10/17/AR2007101702114_pf.html
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: David Ignatius
Post Date: 2007-10-18 16:13:48 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 163
Comments: 6
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is paid to think about the unthinkable. As the Energy Department's director of intelligence, he's responsible for gathering information about the threat that a terrorist group will attack America with a nuclear weapon. .... He is convinced that al-Qaeda is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb that will leave the ultimate terrorist signature -- a mushroom cloud. We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy. And truly, I wish I could dismiss Mowatt-Larssen's analysis as the work of an overwrought former CIA officer with too many years in the trenches. But it's worth listening to his warnings -- not because they induce more numbing paralysis but because they might stir sensible people to take actions that could detect and stop an attack. That's why his boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is encouraging him to speak out. Mowatt-Larssen doesn't want to anguish later that he didn't sound the alarm in time. Mowatt-Larssen has been gathering this evidence since a few weeks after Sept. 11, when then-CIA Director George Tenet asked him to create a new branch on weapons of mass destruction in the agency's counterterrorism center. ... Mowatt-Larssen argues that for nearly a decade before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear device, according to testimony presented in federal court in February 2001. When the al-Qaeda leader was asked in 1998 if he had nuclear or chemical weapons, he responded: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so." Even as al-Qaeda was preparing to fly its airplane bombs into buildings, the group was also trying to acquire nuclear and biological capabilities. In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. Al-Qaeda also had an aggressive anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001 after bin Laden was driven from his haven in Afghanistan. ... Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know. After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know. So what to do about this spectral danger? The first requirement, says Mowatt-Larssen, is to try to visualize it. What would it take for al-Qaeda to build a bomb? How would it assemble the pieces? How would the United States and its allies deploy their intelligence assets so that they could detect a plot before it was carried out? How would we reinvent intelligence itself to avert this ultimate catastrophe? A terrorist nuclear attack, as Tenet wrote in his book, would change history. If we can see how this story might end, perhaps we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target. Poster Comment: Heads up, people. The "mother of all false flags" will be a nuclear attack, purportedly by "al-Qa'eda," on an American city. The neo-cons have been slobbering over such a "possibility" ever since 9/11 - convinced that only something "greater" than 9/11 will ensure the permanence and stability of the project to harness America's resources and military to fight endless wars in the Mideast that 9/11 began. Thus, this column by neo-con shill Ignatius should be taken as an ominous sign, in my opinion, that such a "false flag" operation is in the works.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I would worry about any large state that usually goes Democratic in presidential elections, but could be pushed Republican with such an attack. The attack would probably be staged in a Democratic stronghold, so the perps get the additional "benefit" of eliminating Dem voters, by death and relocations. California or Ohio, for example, fit that criteria. The fascists want to make the congress meaningless. They want the unitary executive who has the power to do anything they want.
Call Dr. Strange?
So what to do about this spectral danger? Call Dr. Strange? Love it. :P
"Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons! Marchons! Marchons! Qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons!"
In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. It is ominous. And dig the neocon electronicjew imagery of campfires and secret meetings...
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition They won't try they were cought try to do it already everyone would be supicous!
#2. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
So what to do about this spectral danger?
I've already said too much.
#4. To: MUDDOG (#3)
#5. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
Heads up, people. The "mother of all false flags" will be a nuclear attack, purportedly by "al-Qa'eda," on an American city
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#6. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest