Nato raises 'justified concern' that Isil is plotting nuclear attack on Britain

In case anyone really cares the concern is not about nuclear devices, but "dirty bombs". Conventional bombs using radioactive materials as a sort of "shrapnel." Such an attack would not be a "nuclear conflagration" but it would make an area unlivable for a good amount of time.

This is not, btw, a new concern. Nor is the concern over a chemical or bio attack. All would be attractive to the terrorists. All are wonderful weapons of terror.


globalriskinsights.com...

a reply to: Phage

They would have a lot of bother thinking where to explode one of those because it would likely drop of sympathisers heads - but killing fellow muslims isn't against daesh's religion. Such a good thing martyrdom has been implanted so well there.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Only issue there is if we do launch some kind of per-emptive war then we'll just create millions more fanatics who are willing to die fighting us.

its a lose , lose situation..

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: LostThePlot

What's in Luton?

I'm ignorant, sorry.

It's a bit of a hotbed for islamic nutters and also the birthplace of the EDL

On top of being an all around #ty place to live.

They did produce Charles Bronson though. They should free him. He'd sort the place out.

So I guess if UK leaves EU
we get This! just before we do it.
that Will stop us and any one else.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
However, imho, the oligarchy WANTS a nuclear conflagration.

They seem convinced that hiding in their DUMBs plush underground cities that they'll be safe until they can crawl back out and rule the smoldering world unfettered.

And what exactly would they then "rule"?

The failure of basic common sense here is astounding.

These imaginary "PTB" you think are evil and want to murder millions of people would come out of their "plush" underground cities (which you can't prove actually exist, and which cannot be "plush" by the very nature of them being underground) into a world almost completely destroyed, with no ECONOMY to use, no resources, nothing but a massive mess to clean up.

Their power would be gone, their wealth would be gone, the people you imagine they want to rule over with an iron fist would be gone.

These "PTB" already have a cushy life, so what makes one believe that they would burn everything to the ground?

None of this makes any sense, at least not to anyone who doesn't believe that there's a psychopathic collection of evil "NWO" and "Lizard People" hell bent on Jihad.

a reply to: BO XIAN

lol im in UK, doubt anything will happen - business as normal

originally posted by: buddha
So I guess if UK leaves EU
we get This! just before we do it.
that Will stop us and any one else.

You know what? That's a very chilling thought you just had.

Can't say I feel as though you are wrong, though I wonder if the world really understands what we can be like if we are pushed too far...We are not all about polite queues and queensbury rules.

Reminds me of that poem, "The Beginnings" by Mary Postgate.





It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,
It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.

NATO has to make this assumption..... it just makes it easier to:

A. Justify the continued existence of the occupasional forces that is NATO.
B. Hive-mind the citizens of Europe into believing that everything will be better if we fight for the EU to survive.
C. Keep waging never ending war aginst self-made invisible enemies.

If fear doesn't work on its own, you can be damn sure they will give us something to gather around, just like they did with 9/11.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Vector99

I could believe

--Pakistan
--Saudi's
--Russians.

Can't believe Israel at all. They are NOT that suicidal.

Nothing suicidal about it. When were they last threatened with an attack from Isis? Considering they are a Jewish nation you'd have thought they would be a target by now. One thing Israel is very good at is infiltrating these sort of groups then influencing and manipulating them from the inside. Do you think it a coincidence that Mossad lived about 4 doors down from the 9/11 hijackers at more than one address?

And this isn't some sort of anti-Semitic rant it's common sense and glaringly obvious. The CIA does it. MI6 does it. They all do it.

My guess? They are saying they expect them to split in two because that's their game plan. Divert some force to attack Europe etc. Keep the atrocities coming for long enough and eventually the populace will literally beg for armed intervention. That's where the second stay behind force comes in, because you can't chase after an enemy that isn't there you still need a target. Meanwhile you get stricter laws and control at home AND you get to carry on with your occupation of the Middle East.

These attacks happen and people shout 'false flag! False flag I tell you!'

Is it still a false flag if there is a real enemy carrying out the attacks under the guidance of people they don't even know are actually Western intelligence and security double agents? If I was part of an organisation that wanted to use terrorist attacks to suit my masters goals, I wouldn't have a dog and bark myself. Not when there is an army of raving lunatic fanatics who will do it for me.

And this isn't about a new world order it's the same as it has always been. Control of natural resources. If you control that you control the world.

a reply to: Phage

You SOUND like you consider it an improbability to an impossibility for such groups to have and use a genuine nuclear bomb vs 'merely' a dirty bomb. But I'm just guessing. What is your perspective on that score and why?

I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they had a serious true nuke or 3.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
The biggest problem here is, MAD (mutually assured destruction) does not play a role when dealing with Islamic extremists, as they value death more than we value life...

Sigh - you're absolutely right. I read the OP and again, that rage and anger rose in me, "Why do they do this? What will it serve? What good will come from a world irradiated beyond use?"

But then, your post was exactly the answer -- THAT is why they do it. They value death more than we value life.

It genuinely brings tears to my eyes to think that a group of people are so committed to the destruction of life for no reason apart from a belief in a religion.

And perhaps it's just the rage and anger talking, but I think that, in order to save the world from their commitment to death, they need to be wiped out. Utterly and completely.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: BO XIAN

The biggest problem here is, MAD (mutually assured destruction) does not play a role when dealing with Islamic extremists, as they value death more than we value life, so combined with concepts like martyrdom, we truly have moral grounds for a wide spread preemptive war in order to stifle this dangerous threat (of nuclear destruction, or bio/chem weapons), that is if we truly believe the threat is imminent

Not if they're killed by weak, feeble Women (sarcasm...you're not weak or feeble)...these morons have a dread of being killed by Women, as they believe they won't go to their version of heaven or some old crap like that.

Form female only attack squads...they'd be terrified it would prove that allah wasn't on their side.

Dozens of tactical nuclear weapons went missing from Soviet military bases in the Eastern Bloc and Russia proper during the chaos of the late 80s and 90s that were never found.

They aren't large silo-sleepers that are dominant in the minds of the popular psyche. The Soviets developed a 1 kiloton nuclear shell for their 152mm howitzers if there was ever an engagement with NATO in Europe.

If they do have a nuclear weapon it likely came from here.

Another scenario is they have built a dirty bomb using the Uranium they scavenged from various universities they conquered.

Ironically the dirty bomb should be the bigger fear. The radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon reaches its half life quickly. You could walk in the Hiroshima crater, safely, an hour after detonation. Not the same with the Dirty Bomb.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Another scenario is they have built a dirty bomb using the Uranium they scavenged from various universities they conquered.

This is more realistic.
There are plenty of universities, scientific facilities, military sites and medical facilities they would have taken control of. They would have easily found plenty of highly dangerous materials they could use for such a weapon.

Unfortunately, this is what happens in a war zone.

In addition to this, there would be individuals from other countries looking to sell dangerous materials to them. It's not beyond the imagination to consider that North Korea might seek to make a little money on the side delivering nuclear materials to terrorist organizations ready to attack nations it also deems to be an enemy.

Then we have nations like India and Pakistan, not exactly secure in their materials, and incredibly corrupt too. It would not surprise me in the least if people with access to such materials in those countries were caught selling.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Ironically the dirty bomb should be the bigger fear. The radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon reaches its half life quickly. You could walk in the Hiroshima crater, safely, an hour after detonation. Not the same with the Dirty Bomb.

I don't think it's sensible to compare the two.
A nuclear explosion would result in potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths in an instant, while a dirty bomb might actually only cause a handful of deaths but ongoing medical problems for those exposed.

It's a matter of personal opinion when it comes to which is worse.

It would also be possible to clean up after either. It wouldn't be easy, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it would be possible.

Unfortunately, while I believe we have quite a lot of security in place to prevent such a thing from happening, it's not impossible.

We can at least be secure in the fact that our government has already prepared for such a thing and would have a response in place, activated within minutes, no doubt able to save a lot of lives and prevent a bigger catastrophe.

Rocker2013,
you use the same line of reasoning I do concerning elites causing the destruction of the world to usher in the NWO.

Their power would be gone, their wealth would be gone, the people you imagine they want to rule over with an iron fist would be gone. These "PTB" already have a cushy life, so what makes one believe that they would burn everything to the ground?

If they were to do something like that, they would have to do it in such a way as to preserve enough resources, including people. However, even the rational behind this version of BO XIAN's contention falls flat against your line of reasoning though. Star for you.

The whole dirty bomb theme is nothing but a media cooked up / hyped up scare story.
I remember way back, when the dirty bomb issue first surfaced, reading an article that referred to a US DoE test of such a device to see what kind of contamination spread was possible. The conclusion was that more danger was posed by the initial explosion rather than by the distribution of radioactive material, which was so small it literally blew away in the wind or was washed away by the rain and posed a very minimal danger. It's all about the way it's packaged and fed to the masses, once again!

As for ISIS actually getting such material here, along with the explosives and radicalized nutters to carry out the attack, I think back to a news clip from a couple of days ago. Theresa May (nasty establishment hag) was pushing the "Remain" line on the Brexit issue and said how if we stay, we can share data with the other European intelligence and police agencies, which will keep us safe from these terrorists.
Does it not occur to them that breaking away, closing our borders and stemming the influx of "immigrants" might actually help more? Stop them actually coming into the country first, rather than using Intel to identify them once an act of terrorism has been carried out, which seems to be the current pattern!

As for the story from the Torygraph, it's just more scaremongering by another "security expert" with a cosy and high paid job to protect.

This is a big fear for all of the liberal leaders around the world. They would no longer be able to control the narrative and hold back the rage against the evil knocking at their doorsteps.

a reply to: Vector99

Actually, it could be easier than you think. Some college's have their grad students build a working prototype, without the fissionable material of course. But they have a 90% success rate. An eye opening documentary called Countdown to Zero explains it all in great detail. The only difficult part is getting ahold of the nuclear materials...