NEWS: Report: Zarqawi is Now A Nuclear Threat

According to classified reports since December, Zarqawi has a dirty bomb hidden in Afghanistan, and is preparing to use it against either the United States, or Europe. The reports are only just now starting to come to light because the intelligence has yet to be verified. While it is "well within al Qaeda's capabilities" to produce a radiological bomb, the gaps in information surrounding their non-conventional weaponry leave much in question.

---

I don't know whether to be more worried or annoyed by this report.

The skeptic in me says that it is unknown if Abu Musab Zarqawi is even alive anymore, much less his questionable connection to Al Qaeda (which has been born entirely on speculation). When our own intelligence is describing him as the second most dangerous terrorist in the world (next to Bin Laden), but can't even get straight their description of him, I question it myself. The fact that Zarqawi was a complete non-entity until 2004--a full year after he was declared by Colin Powell to be Saddam's connection to the Al Qaeda network--has left me wondering if he really is just a boogeyman. Perhaps this whole report is just another facade to justify a war that can never end.

Then there's the frosted side, the side that says "Maybe... just maybe They are right. Maybe the threat of terrorism really is as bad as the government says. After all, if I have to choose a side, why not choose the side that at least doesn't hate America? Why not choose the side that at least claims to be protecting me? If I can't trust the government, whom can I trust with the fate of my nation? Am I going to turn into one of those nuts who won't believe anything the White House says, just because They said it?"

Terrorism itself is nothing new. We've always been going through it, in one form or another. National Geographic ran an article regarding terrorism that put a lot of it in perspective. Our great grandparents were just as worried about it as we are today, as were their grandparents, and so forth. The biggest difference is that terrorists used to only target specific organizations--usually government. This is because it was considered dishonorable to attack civilians, and public sympathy was extremely important for the cause. Generally such attacks only occurred within one's country, to appeal to their countrymen, and the message they were trying to get across was made crystal clear. A terrorist, while never a good word, used to be more in line with what we now call a "revolutionary". We now live in an era where slaughtering innocents is a perfectly acceptable form of terrorism. Leaving a message is considered optional. Like high-schoolers with a truck, a bat, and a row of mailboxes, there doesn't have to be any rhyme or reason for modern-day attacks. Even accountability has been removed with the advent of suicide bombings.

All you need is capability, and a group of people stupid enough to go along with the plan. The capabilities for terrorists to create a dirty bomb exist. The world has never had a shortage of stupid people. Why should it be so hard to believe that some of them have managed to achieve what we knew they could do all along, and are intending to use it?

Related News Links:
atimes.com
magma.nationalgeographic.com
cfrterrorism.org
www.dailytimes.com.pk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Could Terrorists Set Off a Nuke in the USA? Yes. Easily.
Do you have any question about *Jihad* ???
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-4-2005 by John bull 1]

I think our capacity for intelligence overseas has proven itself to be completely worthless. He might be preparing a nuke or preparing a cup of coffee, in any case our intellegence agencies would have no idea.

have to agree with you on that.
We cannot be sure what he has or hasnt, this is probably been put out to increase the fear factor that the general public is being forced fed with.

How can we expect that what our intelligence is reporting is correct. They also said Saddam had WMD's. I think it could be a scare tactic. If they really knew, I don't think they would report it for fear it would create a panic. But who knows, that's the problem, IMO they lost their credibility.

To an extent, I agree. The problem is whether or not the previous thousand some-odd alerts are a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" or a Desensitizing Op.

If it's a case of "...Wolf" then we are setting ourselves up for a major disaster in the future. With all the previous terror alerts turning out to be nothing more than overblown reports, will we ever believe a "real" report? Probably not. While I realize the goal of ATS is to deny ignorance, are we sometimes denying truth as a result of overzealous skepticism?

If all the previous "wrong" reports have been Desensitizing Op, to reduce the chance of panic in the populace, then it's bloody brilliant, because apparently they can release a report saying the #2 terrorist has a dirty bomb, is preparing to use it against the U.S., and the most it merits is a few comments along the lines of "yeah, right. whatever"

Must really have been a slow news day at the Post.

Hello, sources have reported he had suitcase nukes. This is old news with a new twist. Guess they had one or two columns empty

It's from the Times...





Now that was funny. You have no idea how our overseas intelligence works. Man, if only you had a clue....
Usually only mistakes (which are extremely rare btw) made by our intel agencies become public knowledge. Successes (which are way more than you think) are hardly ever declassified. Keeping Africa nuke free is one of those rare times where some stuff is made public.

I am open to any enlightenment you may be able to give...Perhaps it is time that some of these success is made known. I gave the American Government the benefit of the doubt once, now they need to provide proof. I also do not buy the whole "We cant reveal our knowledge without revealing our sources" nonsense. They can be more creative then that.

Just another scare campaign to keep people eager to support foreign wars for oil and willing to surrender their liberties at home.

"Emmanuel Goldstein has the bomb, OMG!"

If a nuke goes off in a US city, I'll bet my left one it will be somewhere in a Blue state. It will happen when GWB's popularity drops below a given level, and when we need a justification to invade somebody (probably Iran, maybe Venezuala - an easier military target) that "just happens" to have a lot of oil.

And the usual suspects will bluster and bloviate, calling for murderous revenge against brown-skinned foreigners somewhere, despite any evidence the orders came from Washington DC and not Tehran or Caracas.

I do recall reading about how a group of terrorists were captured with nuke capable plutonium in one of the 'stans last year. The intelligence community seems to be unreliable, rather than completely incompetent.

But, zarqawi has a dirty nuke and hasn't used it? And its in afghanistan? When has he ever even been in afghanistan?


I suppose its plausible that somone in afghanistan has been able to get one, and zarqawi has purchased it but not moved it out of afghanistan. But that would make zarqawi the top terrorist, or at least mean there are no real terrorists left in afghanistan (no BTOs anyway).

Last time I checked, both Afghanistan and Iraq were supposed to be under our control.

Can then somebody tell me how come the guy is carrying teh nuke around these two countries just as easily as some carry a bag of golf clubs? And we still don't have intelligence? Wtf.

Something tells me it's a bit more complicated than that. And what bit of info (besides the president saying so ) says we have things "under control" in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I'm totally annoyed by this report. Why are we worried about a dirty bomb from someone who is insignificant to the point that he can't even get himself over the Pacific to set it off anywhere it might count? Especially when there are rogue nations such as Iran and N. Korea who blatantly exhibit the fact that they have, or are currently acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

Dirty bombs. Man, get real!



I agree...

I think there is a better chance that he is dead than he is alive right now. But of course, he couldn't be reported as dead the way things are going, because if he were dead, there would be even less reason for US to be over there still. As soon as the public learns that this is an independent POLICE ACTION by the United States, largely autonomously, there will be even more doubt about our intentions and goals. If there still are any.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by DeltaChaos]

The same way that when Saddam was in power there were Iraqis who were planning to get rid of him and his regime.

Many governments have control over their countries yet terrorists abound in their soil, for example Spain and the problem they have with ETA. Also in 2000 and 2003 French intelligence forces found plots by Islamic extremists to carry chemical attacks on French soil.... This happens everywhere.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Wow... and I thought I was getting paranoid.

Despite what you may have watched on 24 I don't think anyone in the U.S. Government who was in a position to pull those kind of strings ever would. The economic and political backlash would be too horrible to consider. For one, if a bomb went off in the U.S. today, more people would be calling for the blood of those in charge of the nation, because even before the truth got out, those who allowed it to happen would be hung out to dry, including the President at the time it happens, and especially if that President's whole campaign was about how much more security he could bring us.

Bush may ride the short bus to the White House, but there's no way he, or anyone in his administration would be retarded enough to think setting off a nuke in the U.S. as a scare tactic would be anything better than disasterous.

Agreed, but let's not forget the Northwoods documents. A nuke would be disastrous and counter-productive to EVERYONE's agenda. Let's think smaller, like ebola-laced, uh, beans, or whatever comes from Venezuela besides oil. Plague-ridden Iranian cockroaches.

Just babbling as usual, I still don't know who is responsible for things these days, and Occam's Razor simply cannot be applied to such complex schemes as 9/11, really.

Zip

Interestingly enough, when running this through my Babelfish BS translator, I get...





Seriously, after the Iraqi WMD scandal, it's going to take FAR more than anonymous US sources saying Zarqawi has a dirty bomb, before I even START to believe it's true...



You think?

[edit on 21-4-2005 by Gazrok]

I love these mythological figures, I can see the comics now, evil villian with tank strapped to his back for constant kidney dialysis and one legged wonder with his bionic leg, running around the world creating havoc with empty threats. Seriously people, this govt is giving this Zarqawi character way too much credit, imo they have overbuild his reputation that he will no longer be taken seriously. This one legged wonder is the same one who was in Iraqi custody and managed to slipped away, someone is always on his tail yet his bionic leg saves him everytime, i'm telling you these guys would make great comic book villians.

It strikes me as ironic.

I mean, I don't take the comments disregarding the alert personally; Lord knows our Government has given us plenty of reason to disregard such alerts. But it strikes me as ironic that people who are so fervently willing to believe that black triangles are being piloted by psychic reptillian vampires from Atlantis simply refuse to acknowledge that a person who exists in the real world, who has the capability to do so, might have actually developed a dirty bomb (the nuclear equivolent of a zip-gun).

Has your world really become that disjointed?

Why do we even have a terror-alarm section in the news anyway? It seems to me that reverse credibility applies here; an article from the Weekly World News would be more likely to be believed than anything regarding terrorist activity.

Bah! I'm going back to reporting science. At least some people can believe in that.

What better than a nuke going off in a US city as an excuse to declare martial law? - at which point any public anger at the US .gov would be moot.

I don't think the Bush crowd intends to give up power, ever.

The incineration of a million or so liberals (traitors) would only be frosting on the cake.

A couple of years ago I would have been pretty skeptical of such a possibility as well. But after watching the Bush administration and it's supporters run rampant for a couple of years, I wouldn't put anythig past them.