FBI: 100 Percent Chance of WMD Attack

FBI: 100 Percent Chance of WMD Attack

www.newsmax.com

The probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent, Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, tells Newsmax.

Such an attack could be launched by foreign terrorists, lone wolves who are terrorists, or even by criminal elements, Majidi says. It would most likely employ chemical, biological, or radiological weapons rather than a nuclear device.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So, basically, according to this, it is a question of when, not if, the US is subject to an attack involving some kind of WMD's.

I would say that given the state of the world as it is today, this is hardly earth shattering news, but it IS about time someone was open and honest about it.

For people with the right access to the right materials, it is likely that producing some kind of WMD would not require the kind of expertise that is needed to build a nuclear weapon.

The problem as I see it, is when does a weapon become a weapon of mass destruction?
How many deaths does it take for a weapon to become a WMD?

The other problem as I see it, is that the west, and some countries in particular, have pretty much drawn a target on their citizenry by the actions of their governments.

The west, is now reaping what they have sown, for at least decades of imperialistic behaviour, and in some cases centuries, whether that be economic or military imperialism - although it would be fair to say the 2 go hand in hand to a greater or lesser extent.

www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

"at some point".

I'm sure we all will die at some point.

Fear mongering is a powerful weapon.

reply to post by amongus


It certainly is a powerful weapon, but in the case of this article, it is also a very true statement to say that it is a certainty that it will happen - probably in the near future at some point, although it is likely to be a relatively unsophisticated attack.

Who will sophisticated WMD's be blamed on now that saddam has gone though?

My guess would be Iran, although if the US was to try and invade, they might just find they had bitten off more than they could chew, given Irans trading partners, and who supplies them with weapons...

Originally posted by budski
The probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent, Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, tells Newsmax.

Unless Dr. Vahid Majidi is planning on doing it himself, he can't statistically claim 100 percent likelihood. He can claim "near certainty" or "99.99% likely", but no future event is 100 percent guaranteed to happen. One hundred percent is for things that are currently happening or have happened in the past.

I know someone will say "100 percent chance that the sun will come up tomorrow", but there are a lot of factors that could prevent that, like the sun exploding, or the Earth being destroyed in a cataclysm. They are so incredibly unlikely that the odds are ALMOST 100 percent, but, statistically, never quite there.

Originally posted by budski

FBI: 100 Percent Chance of WMD Attack

www.newsmax.com

The probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent, Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, tells Newsmax.

Such an attack could be launched by foreign terrorists, lone wolves who are terrorists, or even by criminal elements, Majidi says. It would most likely employ chemical, biological, or radiological weapons rather than a nuclear device.

Dr. Majidi left one out. A secret quasi governmental cabal of agents tasked with spreading fear in the proletariat.

Control the fear; control the control.

On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Well that's just great.
If we are going to be attacked with a WMD 100% then can I have my freedoms and Constitution back?
I thought we traded them for security. It was a fair trade. Now they're not living up to their end of the agreement.

I'm still not afraid, nice try guys.
The CIA is going to have to actually blow up and level an entire city before I even begin to take them seriously.
Come on boys, we aren't buying it anymore.

This is sooo sad once you see through all of this B.S.

So I guess... I should go to Muskoka and get on top of a hill and get a nice view with a lake and a bag of pop corn...
Sorry guys I can't resist.
What to do in case of Nuke in your area.

reply to post by adjensen


WMD's are recommended by 3 out of 4 doctors.

...but yes, as you pointed out, it is very rare for any person with those credentials to claim a 100% on ANYTHING.

I'm sure that they are just drumming up more support for the Patriot Act by their typical fear mongering methods.

I can safely say though, that there is a 100% chance that the sun will blow up. That is for certain.

Making a claim like this is pretty easy. However, isn't there also the same 100% probability that the WMD attack will be stopped? It's a crapshoot.

reply to post by whaaa


Whaa? I would have to say that I agree with your theory more than anyother. As the other guy said "fear mongering is a powerful weapon" one that our goverment uses well against us. Rember 911

TO THE FBI:

There is a 100% chance that tomorrow will come; we may not all be here to see it, but tomorrow will come.

Keep scaring your people to further your purpose... It's working very well I see...

Magnum

Also bear in mind that the D in WMD doesn't necessarily have to be something that causes death's, at least in my opinion. A chemical weapon that could be made fairly easy with locally obtainable items could cause a serious amount of upheaval and then the destruction would take care of itself, with rioting and panic, paving the way for marshal law to be invoked. Add some fear mongering behind it and voila!

Originally posted by budski

The problem as I see it, is when does a weapon become a weapon of mass destruction?
How many deaths does it take for a weapon to become a WMD?www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You bring up a great point, even beyond intellectual curiosity. The definition is everything, and the term WMD, applied in certain situations, can have severe consequences on our freedom and liberties. If you take into account who is using the term (in this case, the federal government) and what their intentions are (to stir up maximum fear and use that to stifle civil liberties) my guess is that the definition could probably be boiled down to ANYTHING that would be more than one death per pull. So, essentially, one bullet is generally one or less kills, so not a WMD. One edged weapon thrust is one or less kills. But even a small pipe bomb has the potential for one or MORE kills, and could be considered a WMD. Heck, if they wanted to, and my definition is correct, an automobile could also be classified as such. Think about what that could mean, considering how many of our new security laws use WMD as a catch-all term.

Define irony---The organization which has recently been busted GROOMING "terrorists", scare-mongering an indefinite chance of a WMD attack:




Most likely those "weapons" will be SUPPLIED by one of our alphabet soup orgs, in the latest FALSE FLAG, to put the populace back to sleep and gratefully relinquishing MORE of their civil liberties so that Big brother, the one likely COMMITING the attacks, can protect us all FROM attacks. LOL

reply to post by larphillips


I wondered when someone would pick up on that

It's more than a simple intellectual discussion IMO - it's a question of propaganda and control through fear.

Ask people about something like anthrax, and most will tell you there is little danger without an adequate delivery system

Call it a WMD and it's a whole different reaction...

reply to post by amongus

For real ... they forgot to mention ...
100% chance of an "extinction event" due to an asteroid impact.

reply to post by budski


It's of course not politically correct but doesn't Vahid Majiti sound like the kind of name we would be led to believe is a terrorist.

Wait...Vahid is telling us that there is a 100% chance to terrorize us.

Frankly with Osama Bin Laden in the White House and Vahid Majiti at the FBI I now pronounce the War on Terror won by the Terrorists!

Game over.

Who wants to play tag now? Hide and go seek? Tiddly Winks? Pick Up Stix?

Wow...this is so 2001. They better find something better because the terrorist menace is getting old. Funny how tuis came out shortly after the San Diego incident...