Al-Zarqawi Nuclear Threat... nothing new?

I've been looking over the interweb for some more information on this and the Washington Times had these things to say:

Recurrent intelligence reports say al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device or is preparing a radiological explosive -- or dirty bomb...

Where would he be poised to employ this device currently, and on whom?

One official said the intelligence is being questioned because analysts think al Qaeda would not hesitate to use a nuclear device if it had one.

Does this one intelligence official really think that if al-Zarqawi was fortunate enough to come into possession of such a device that he would simply detonate it without some prior planning or thought?

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi... ...is thought to be operating inside Iraq

So maybe he's still in Iraq. That wouldn't be a surprise. There doesn't seem to be much more searching for him, according to recent media reports. Why?

CIA Director Porter J. Goss said such a terrorist strike "may be only a matter of time."

Unfortunately, I believe this statement. The questions are where, and when? But is al-Zarqawi in sole possession of the device, or has it been handed off for transport by another al-Queda operative? I see no real tactical advantage to detonating a nuclear device in Baghdad or Fallujah.



Read the very short story by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times

[edit on 21-4-2005 by DeltaChaos]

Although I am 100% against that rat and his new god Osama Bin Laden, but I think that people should scare from the 200 Nuclear Bombs that Israel has it and no one is moving to prevent that.

Honestly... my opinion... I don't buy the threat for a moment. Only real threat to the people of the US comes from Washington.

Originally posted by Islam
... but I think that people should scare from the 200 Nuclear Bombs that Israel has it and no one is moving to prevent that.

Right. Let's divert attention to Israel no matter what the problem is.

People in Sudan are starving....Israel is starving some Palestinian children.
Terrorist could have nukes....Look! Israel has nukes.
The US is attacking Iraq....Launch missiles at Israel.
A tsunami devestates India....Did Israel create this disaster?

If al-Zarqawi has a nuclear device, there is a possiblitiy that he would use it in Iraq. He can't stand seeing the US succeed and would nuke his own country if necessary. If possible he's use it in the US, but Iraq would do in a pinch.

Originally posted by Islam
Although I am 100% against that rat and his new god Osama Bin Laden, but I think that people should scare from the 200 Nuclear Bombs that Israel has it and no one is moving to prevent that.

What do you realy think they are going to launch a nuclear bomb, onto the same land that they want possesion of? thats kinda stupid dont you think?

Second i highly doubt, no matter how bad you hate them, they are going to use there 200 nukes. i mean common, if they were going to use them, they have had plenty of opportunities..


Now lets look at zarqawi, a guy who takes dull knives and hacks off the heads of living people, and has yet to show any signs of restraint when it comes to killing people.

Who do you trust more with a nuke?

Wiegh it.

If Israel didn't have nukes and an alliance with the United States and some other various alliances, the world would be screwed. Don't mess with Texas or Israel, if you do your bound to be royally screwed.

Buy oil from Arab nations and arm Israel with nukes to keep the balance of power equal=Avoiding more war.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Enigmatic_Messiah]

I think the real issue here is no country should have nukes.

I heard the device was in Afghanistan and that Zarqawi is there now or trying to get there. I guess we shall see.

I agree with you that he would not want to use it in Iraq. It would only turn the people against him more. Why would the Iraqis who support him want to contaminate their own cities or homes. Fallout doesn't care what your political views are.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I heard the device was in Afghanistan and that Zarqawi is there now or trying to get there. I guess we shall see.

I agree with you that he would not want to use it in Iraq. It would only turn the people against him more. Why would the Iraqis who support him want to contaminate their own cities or homes. Fallout doesn't care what your political views are.

after seeing him killin other muslims intentionally who knows what he will do, he tends to be unpredictable.

If this Iraqi interim government ever turns into a permanent one, I don't think Zarqawi would be able to live in Iraq. He would be perpetually on the run.

If he had a nuke, which I don't think he does, I believe he might use it in Iraq on an American fortification. For last while, or at least since the last Fallujah assault, the targets of insurgents have tended to be Iraqis. They are the softest hard targets around. Yes, they could continue to pick off Americans 2 by 2, but I think they realize that could just go on forever since our numbers are great.

To hit American's hard, expending a few hundred, maybe a thousand lives in one shot would give him a short term tactical victory. But then he would just have to leave, so I don't know how advantageous it would be.

What I really think is going on here is that a story of the great nuclear menace Zarqawi has been contrived to create an excuse for our continued existence in the region.

I think that if he really had such device in posession, he would rather try deploy it in Moskou , London, Washington or Tel aviv and really stir up some western crusade to convince doubting and moderate muslims to join his jihad, but I am not an expert on the minds of terrorists and religious radicals.....

For the same change he could use (hypothetical) the device to create waves in India to set them up against pakistan and create radical muslim wave in Pakistan or even create some radical muslim immigrant wave in France or Germany

Originally posted by colin_hal
I think the real issue here is no country should have nukes.

That would be ideal, everyone agree's with that view. But the reality is that some nations must have them to secure peace. It's the "You mess with me and I'll shove a horned melon up your ***." philosophy.

Originally posted by colin_hal
I think the real issue here is no country should have nukes.

But they DO Blanche, they DO have nukes!!!

Whether or not any country should have nukes is not a real issue, since the reality is that they actually do. There's nothing that can be done about that now. You can't go back in time.

This is the same arguement I have with these absurd gun control people who say, "guns should be outlawed everywhere". And the only logical rebuttal to that line, while a beaten cliche, is: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

Why is reality so hard for some to grasp?

Sorry, colin_hal, I'm not trying to be negative toward you personally, that unrealistic viewpoint just strikes a nerve every time I hear it.