Article

2003-06-03 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-03 12:48 am|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Making a nuclear bomb would require that terrorists first obtain fissile material such as enriched uranium or plutonium as fuel for creating a nuclear blast.

Putin and company have probably sold Iran enough material to make several weapons. Or maybe they are getting their toys from the Nkors. It has been my long held belief that should al Qaeda go nuclear, the terrorist states that put them in that position will probably be reduced to glowing slag by the end of the day.

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-06-03 06:36:57|| [www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-06-03 06:36:57|| Front Page Top

#2 I've said it before. Why would any terrorist use WMD, whose creation, transport and handling are dangerous to the terrorist before they reach their target when they can just fly a plane into a building? Low tech, inexpensive weapons are the hallmark of al Qaeda. WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists, if at all.

The dog video was shown on American television teo years ago. CIA is rehashing old info.

Posted by Chuck 2003-06-03 07:01:57|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-06-03 07:01:57|| Front Page Top

#3 This may have added a few new details, but that Al Q would have "used them if they had them" was something we already knew.

Posted by Ptah 2003-06-03 07:42:34|| [www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-06-03 07:42:34|| Front Page Top

#4 The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

Posted by ----------<<<<- 2003-06-03 09:11:35|| 2003-06-03 09:11:35|| Front Page Top

#5 chuck - because presumably its a lot harder to fly a plane into a building these days. Leaving aside govt and airline security steps, its widely noted that passengers are not likely to tolerate a hijacking, when they can expect it will end in death for all aboard.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 09:28:03|| 2003-06-03 09:28:03|| Front Page Top

#6 liberalhawk - I didn't say a passenger plane. And, it could be an LP gas tanker, or a gasoline tanker, or a tanker of methyl ethyl bad-stuff. In twenty minutes, tops, I could improvise a serious incident with what is all around me in the city. And if I planned as well as al Qaeda usually does, it could be a big incident.

The tools of terrorism are all around us, and cannot be totally defensed. To assume that they would choose an expensive, risky, high tech option is being foolish. The CIA merely wants to justify itself, rather than produce information of any actual benefit.

Posted by Chuck 2003-06-03 10:41:07|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-06-03 10:41:07|| Front Page Top

#7 Regarding Chuck's last comment. During our wildfire season last year, we had several of this huge lumbering transport planes in the state loading up with fire-retardant slurry at regional airports. I always thought how very vulnerable it would be for terrorists to overpower one of these planes at the lightly-guarded regional airports and fly maybe 10 minutes into downtown Denver.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 10:47:26|| 2003-06-03 10:47:26|| Front Page Top

#8 Of course a plane loaded with fire retardent just doesn't have the explosive power of one filled with jet fuel. The kinetic energy of the impact would provide the only damage, since everything else would be covered in iron oxide laced water.

Posted by VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) 2003-06-03 10:54:10|| 2003-06-03 10:54:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Chuck wrote: WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists,...

Al Qaeda aren't cult-type terrorists? You mean all of this stuff about the US being a Great Satan and reestablishing the Caliphate aren't true. Boy, am I relieved.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-06-03 10:58:29|| 2003-06-03 10:58:29|| Front Page Top

#10 Re: VRWC's posting. I fully realize that the fire-retardant slurry would not create a conflagration, ironically it would have a mitigating effect on any fire caused. The point is that these planes are located at regional airports close to major city centers in many cases and the effect would simply be the horror of the plane-building impact.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 11:02:05|| 2003-06-03 11:02:05|| Front Page Top

#11 Re: ColoradoConservative's posting. The more dangerous threat would be a Gulfstream G5 business jet traveling at 500 mph. A jet of that size traveling at that speed would probably go right through one building, and hit any ajoining building. Denver has two business airports with Gulfstreams within minutes of downtown. We hope they have adequate security to deal with any threat.

Posted by VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) 2003-06-03 11:07:54|| 2003-06-03 11:07:54|| Front Page Top

#12 gasoline tanker - you mean a truck - i thought above you were talking about planes. IIUC gasoline and chemicals are not normally transported by plane. Not to say that the issue of lightly guarded small planes isnt an issue.

I would think Al qaeeda would explore all these options - the attacks more likely to succeed as well as difficult ones that could create more damage. thats why we have to defend against them all, as well as take the war to them.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-03 11:20:39|| 2003-06-03 11:20:39|| Front Page Top

#13 If you had the time you could certainly replace the fire retardant with something nasty. Either explosive or deadly, to dump out. Sort of like the corp duster stories that circled around right after Sept 11. People might not even be alarmed if there was a fire and they'd seen that type of plane fly over all the time.

Posted by Yank 2003-06-03 13:16:12|| 2003-06-03 13:16:12|| Front Page Top

#14 Doesn't have to be one of the fire-retardant planes. Lots of others are lightly or un-guarded. Think of a UPS or Fedex plane - both have their own fleets - filled with overnight mail being delivered to the Capitol. Wonder whatever happened to that rattletrap 727 that was repo'd from Angola...?

Posted by Fred 2003-06-03 13:50:10|| 2003-06-03 13:50:10|| Front Page Top

09:17 Raptor
08:15 liberalhawk
04:40 R. McLeod
04:37 R. McLeod
01:50 Anon1
22:40 11A5S
22:18 11A5S
21:08 tu3031
21:02 tu3031
20:55 tu3031
20:50 Fred
20:49 TPF
20:22 jdhays
20:21 Tokyo Taro
20:15 11A5S
20:15 rammer
20:13 badanov
20:11 Angie Schultz
19:02 Steve White
18:57 Fred
18:49 Dar
18:36 Frank G
18:34 Frank G
18:32 Frank G