Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Osama: I've got nukes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:47 AM
Original message
Osama: I've got nukes
The LA Times reports that al-Qaeda "is more dangerous than at any time since the Sept. 11 attacks."

A counter-terrorism official told the LA Times that al-Qaeda's "planning-to-execution cycle might suggest summer is the window of choice."

A new article by national security investigative journalist John Stanton argues that "Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook," adding "And that’s very worrisome, particularly when each August 6th and 9th come around."

Osama bin Laden has said that al-Qaeda has nukes. Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has said that the US Government knows this to be true.

Dick Cheney wants to go to war with Iran and has indicated that any attack, by anyone, will be construed as an act of war by Iran.

We must demand that Henry Waxman must hold hearings into what Sibel Edmonds knows before we invade the wrong country again.

***********************************

In November 2001, in an interview with Hamid Mir (The New York Times calls him "a widely respected Pakistani journalist,") Osama bin Laden said:
"We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them."


At the time, CNN reported that "Bush administration officials said they do not believe the al Qaeda leader has weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them."

The Bush egadministration, famous for fear-mongering, has often said that we need to take Osama at his word, but I must admit that until last week I had no idea that Osama had ever claimed that he had nukes.

Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants a caliphate that extends half-way across the planet, and that we need to take Osama at his word. And Bush has repeatedly said that Osama wants the US occupation of Iraq to continue indefinitely says that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror (TM), and therefore that the US occupation of Iraq must continue indefinitely.

And we've been told repeatedly that we can't allow Iran to have any nukes because Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" - but when Osama says that he has nukes and that "The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable," we were told that we shouldn't take him at his word, that he doesn't have nukes, and that he hates "us" for our freedom.


The Bush egadministration repeatedly says that "it's only a matter of time" before al-Qaeda does acquire WMD, and "If al Qaeda were to acquire nuclear capability..." - but they never actually refer to Osama's claims that he actually does have these weapons. I find that weird. It appears as though they are trying to thread the needle, suggesting that Osama undoubtedly wants nukes, and that it would be really scary if Osama did actually have nukes, but for some reason the few occasions where I did find the administration apparently responding to Osama's claims were in the few days immediately following the publication of Osama's interview in November 2001, and even then the headlines didn't correlate with the reported story. For example, a CNN story was headlined "White House dismisses bin Laden nuclear threat" but the story, as reported, gave no indication that this was the case. (I want to be clear that I haven't extensively reviewed the reporting. At a minimum, we haven't heard much of Osama's claim since then.) For other contemporaneous accounts which support my position, see Time, Guardian, NYT.

This brings me to Sibel Edmonds, again. In her blockbuster Highjacking of a Nation, she excoriates Porter Goss for playing the "It may be only a matter of time..." card, indicating that Goss and the rest of the US Government "has known for the longest time" that al-Qaeda has nukes.

Sibel was in a position to know. She was involved in the counter-intelligence group at the FBI that was tracking the American Turkish Council (ATC). Valerie Plame's front company, Brewster Jennings, was also tracking the ATC. Both the CIA (Plame) and the FBI (Sibel) were hot on the heels of what is known as A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network - which runs from Russia, the 'Stans, and Turkey, through the US Government (particularly the State Department and the Pentagon) to Pakistan and al Qaeda.

John Stanton has tracked Sibel's case and the ATC very closely. He has a new book coming out called "Talking Politics with God and the Devil in Washington, DC." He argues that:
"Bin Laden’s network/affiliates may have already engineered the deployment of nuclear weapons to US soil. US military and intelligence operatives surely know this. The matter has been discussed by the US security establishment since 1998 and actively monitored through intelligence operations. Nothing has happened yet but now the timing seems about right for an attack. There are far too many instabilities, like those mentioned above, playing havoc with the world’s governments and economies. A devastating blow to a couple of US cities would further weaken the US economy. Following a nuke attack, where would the US strike back? Millions of Americans would believe such an event was the handiwork of the US government like 911. Millions would call for an invasion of some country, any country—even if innocent.

Crippling two American cities with nukes just might be in Bin Laden’s playbook. That means going for two cities on the Gulf of Mexico that play a key role in US energy production and interstate commerce. Houston and New Orleans are two such cities. Both are in close proximity to US oil refineries. Houston has the 10th largest port in the world and houses companies who lead the energy industry in the development and production of oilfield equipment. New Orleans is home to a port that is the 5th busiest in the USA handling a sizeable share of US exports and imports. Lockheed Martin and Newport News Shipbuilding operate in close proximity to New Orleans. The stability of the US economy depends, in part, on the free flow of goods that traverse the Mississippi River to and from New Orleans.
[]
It’s time for some serious conversation with those the US brands as terrorists and rogue nations. Absent that, both sides will continue a fight that may spiral out of control and lead to a global conflagration: just what zealots on both sides want."


We've all been fearful of an attack on US soil, and, separately, we worry about a war with Iran. I really, really hope that New Orleans or Houston, or any other US city, doesn't get blown to smithereens, and I really, really hope that the US doesn't attack Iran. The worst situation of all would be that Cheney would use a nuclear attack on a US city by al Qaeda to launch an unrelated nuclear war of aggression on Iran.

For some reason the Democrats are more interested in holding hearings into Pat Tillman than Sibel Edmonds. Henry Waxman promised that he'd hold hearings into Sibel's case - but he has been silent since the Dems achieved majority status. We need to know what Sibel knows - for a bunch of reasons - not least that it might prevent an unprovoked invasion of Iran.

Call Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
fax: (202) 225-4099
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498


xposted at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. .
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
That is what we are supposed to do, run :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Osama doesn't have nukes
Nor would he have a viable way to get nukes to America even if he did have them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. he says he has them
and so does sibel.

and how difficult would it be to smuggle nukes into the US? it's a common joke that the easiest way to smuggle nukes into the US is to hide them in a bale of marijuana.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Where in the link you gave does Sibel Edmonds claim bin Laden as nuclear weapons?
The only mention of bin Laden is in this paragraph:

Key congressional leaders have been pressing the Pentagon to crack down on the major drug traffickers in Afghanistan upon learning that Al Qaeda is relying more than ever on illicit proceeds from the heroin trade. Congressional investigators who returned from the region in 2004 found that traffickers are providing Osama bin Laden and other terrorists with heroin as funds from Saudi Arabia and other sources dry up. "We now know Al Qaeda's dominant source of funding is the illegal sale of narcotics," said Rep. Kirk-IL, a member of the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, as reported by Washington Times. Rep. Kirk added that Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror organization is reaping $28 million a year in illicit heroin sales.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I don't recall Sibel making that claim
lukery, do you have a link for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Goss
when Sibel quotes Goss talking about al qaeda having wmd, she says "And we know that he knows; has known for the longest time!"

i asked sibel about her comment here and she clarified/reiterated that she was trying to convey that Goss (and everyone else in the admnistration) knows that al qaeda has WMD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. But Goss didn't say that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 10:38 AM by muriel_volestrangler
He said It may be only a matter of time before Al Qaeda or other groups attempt to use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. We must focus on that.

So her remark "we know that he knows" is incredibly ambiguous. He knows - what? That it's a matter of time before an attempt is made to use a chemical weapon by some group? That has already happened, in Iraq. What Goss does not say is that al Qaeda already has nuclear weapons, which is what you claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. And Osama doesn't have any reason to lie does he....
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. even if he did
why didnt the BFEE 'utilize' this particular lie?

given everything we know about the Bush crew, we can objectively say that. given the choice, they'd try to scare us with the osama boogeyman - but they appear to have actively hidden this 'threat' (real or imagined) - why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. I don't know - but do you really think that's evidence that Osama really has nukes?
Are you trying to say that not only does Bush lie, but that he actively avoids saying things that are true, even those things that help him, and since he didn't say Osama has nukes it must be true?

I believe Osama would lie about having nukes.
If Bush didn't say that, I would guess it's because Bush didn't know Osama said that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. certainly not evidence
i'm just making an argument. I have no idea if Osama has nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. And why should I believe a terrorist?
If he had nukes, we'd know by now. Condi's mushroom cloud would be plain enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Craftsman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
52. I beg to differ, the wide open southern border makes it easy to get in Nukes
If he has them, I give that about a 50/50 chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Duct Tape
it's the only way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. stock up on duct tape!
save yourself, and your family!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
35. Put a tuna under your bed!!1!!!1!
I think the odor is suppose to ward off terrorists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Some Questions They Don't Ask...
1.) Since the concept of a nuke suitcase bomb has been debunked over and over, how does Osama plan to "deliver" this weapon. Does Al Queda have a secret air force? Does it have ACBMs from secret locations? Or will they just Fed Ex it?

2.) Does anyone even know if Bin Laden is alive. The last tape anyone claims to have been him was nearly 3 years ago...right before the elections :tinfoilhat:. Has there been any independent report of him being alive or having any influence other than symbolic?

3.) Why go through all the trouble and expense when other forms of "weapons of mass destruction" are available...and right here. A truck or train loaded with chlorine (several attacks of this nature already have happened in Iraq) could be very lethal and far easier to secure.

4.) What is Al Queda's aims? Do they just want to kill for killing's sake or do they have a real agenda? Are there political aims? Or is this just a cartoon created now...like the nasty "Red" of the 50s and 60s...that is a convenient strawman for other agendas?

Pardon my cynicism as to what is a threat and what isn't. The fearmonger in this country...and the use of it to destroy civil liberties...has numbed me from living in fear any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. Here are some answers
Your skepticism is well founded but I thought I would take a stab at answers . . .

1. Ocean Carrier and "The Sum of All Fears" scenario is only one of many.

2. Whether Bin Laden is dead or alive is really irrelevant - it would appear Zawahiri is quite alive and well. AQ is operational though who really controls it is another question.

3. A chlorine attack is nothing compared to a tactical nuke being set off. a 1 Kt blast, quite small, in any major urban downtown would almost certainly kill several thousand people and irradiate tens of thousands.

4. They have been quite clear. They want the US out of the ME.

I'm quite skeptical about this nuke stuff - it is not easy to do and doing it in two cities would be even harder. Plus, AQ understands what the US response would be and that's why it won't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. This BS is supposed to make people vote Repuke???
Even if a SHRED of what they say is true...
WHO on earth would EVER trust their
security to one of these BUMBLEFUCK republicans
who only manage to SCREW everything up
while they're also picking your pocket ?????????????????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. the thing is
they havent said ANYTHING. that's my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. Here we go again, Bush's slaughter for nothing gained, fight em there f-off!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. Osama is lying his ass off.
I can't believe the Pukes cower in fear of that nut case, I bet he make Karl Rove jealous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. sibel says the same thing
and why hasn't anyone discredited osama's claims?

that's my point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
49. Because BushCo uses Osama's chest-thunping BS to scare Americans.
BushCo's fear-mongering is effectively making folks in the middle East of a militant bent think Osama is more powerful then he really is, thus encouraging the formation of AQ-clone groups. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
11. I don't believe he even has his own dialysis machine
I'm not sure I believe he's even a living, breathing human being anymore, let alone an evil cave-dwelling nuke-wielding...oh, come on people! They're feeding us Lord Of The Rings bullshit here and we're buying it! A crazy old man in a cave -- on dialysis, no less -- is threatening to nuke us? Are we seriously believing this?

:eyes:

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. 2001
I'm not saying that he is alive.

I'm just saying that in 2001 he really, really said that he had nukes, and everyone ignored it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bush has nukes too and I'm not sure who's more dangerous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. i have no doubt who is more dangerous n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
15. The threat isn't aQ
Like some Keystone Kops organization that's reduced to blowing up its own members in futile attacks on marketplaces is going to have the means for a serious WMD attcks any time soon. Maybe they'll tape it to the last departing Humvee so it'll follow the troops home as Dubya promised.

But it's only a matter of time - maybe 10-15 years - before some outfit like aQ (but smarter, and not necessarily Islam-related) gets a proper Bomb. Not some stupid dirty bomb, but the real thing. Most attempts will be nipped in the bud, but somebody's going to succeed one day.

And in the war-crazed world envisaged by US leaders (let's get over the fantasy that Democrat frontrunners can extricate themselves from this idiocy), those who consider themselves at the receiving end of US aggression won't hesitate to use it. And turning more countries into warzones expands their operational scope: neat "strategy", W.

The choice is between keeping the war going and seeing some cherished city centers to lie in ruins some time after 2020, or ending this insane Crusade now. I don't see much sign of the political elite or its paranoid electorate doing anything to repair the damage before it's too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
16. the biggest threats are in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. B...but he isn't a problem any more. Bush said so. That's why we stopped chasing him. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
19. I also have nukes
Really. Seriously. I have them.

Just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. yeah but
1) sibel also said that he has them, and
2) Bush has trumpeted every fear-mongering thing about Osama except this one. There's a 'dog-didn't-bark' thing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. Not something you want to say
We're monitored by Agent Mike. He might not understand sarcasm today.

:tinfoilhat:

Still say we gotta find that boy some lovin'...some Agent Michelle or the like. They could go fro long romantic wiretaps together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #28
40. He'll be detered
by my nuclear threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
41. Then I guess you can pretty much write your own ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #41
53. Keeping my powder dry
Waiting for the opportune moment and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
21. What happens on August 6th and 9th?
I hope nothing, I'm going on vacation on the 16th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
25. YOY: "I've got Bisquik"
and I'm not afraid to make muffins!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
29. You can't hide a nuke
We have some of the lowest emission warheads and I know they can be easily found, even if hidden. I've worked with NEST in the past and know what their capability was at the time and it's probably a lot better now.

Nobody is going to sneak a nuke into a US city unless someone lets them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
30. Ok, so...
If bin Laden/al Qaeda have nukes, possibly already situated on US soil as suggested in your post, why haven't they used them yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Good question.
The Department of Vaterland Security is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
47. i dont know
maybe he is patient. maybe he doesnt have them. maybe he will only use them in retaliation, like he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
32. Bush: Bin Laden? I don't know, Frankly I don't spend much time thinking about him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
34. time zones
apologies - but due to the whole time zone thing i need to go to bed.

i'll be back in a few hours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
37. Rattled
I get shaken, I'm torn up by the roots
Yeah, I'm shakin', way down in my boots
I get rattled, baby, over you
I get rattled, baby, over you
Rattled, baby, over you


The Travelling Wilburys


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluePatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
42. Houston can happen. Along with any other port, really.
I work in the cargo industry and security is a joke. All show, and no teeth, no manpower, no equipment.
But we have pretty TSA posters, and background checks...ooo...anyway, see link.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/225835_ports26.h...

After googling various sources I still think Customs is physically checking maybe 1 out of every 6 containers...Frankly I sit around waiting for some terrorist to inevitably figure out all the damn loopholes, it's so frustrating, and I consider it a nightmare scenario that I so, so desperately want everyone to work to prevent....If you know the cargo industry and are a "known shipper" and have sympathetic contacts in key places, my God, the possibilities are endless.

The only thing saving us now is all the redundant subcontractors along the way out of anyone's control (truckers. receiving clerks. warehouse guys. dock loaders. account agents. airline employees.) that handle goods and materials, and who have the chance to notice anything strange. We have training on this, actually, but there are a lot of instances where freight is never physically inspected...direct port to port moves w/o unloading, etc...so yes, there is very good reason to be alarmed. I am outraged as an insider that after all this time cargo security has not been beefed up more. Christ, it can even be paid for, everyone has a security surcharge, just effin' increase it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
43. If Osama living in the caves as a fugitive already has nukes, then Iran must have them for while now
Which would mean that they are untouchable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
45. Nucular
Al-Kida is a CIA name

Where did they make these nukes, in their Batcave?? :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. osama says he goit them from some russian dude n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
46. Does he also have the team of people
to maintain and operate them? You know, replace radiation-damaged parts, top off the tritium...

Personally, I think if they had them they'd have used them, and if they've waited then they'll be fizzles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
50. K & R! Thanks for staying on top of this Luke.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
51. morning kick
Does he or doesn't he

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 23rd 2017, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC