Did al-queda try to import a nuke into U.S. from Syria??

Its a real question.

Someone give me the low-down here. Did saddam export nukes into syria and has there been any attempts to try to get a nuke into the U.S. from syria??

[edit on 15-2-2006 by John bull 1]

It would be news if Saddam had nukes let alone the rest.

Do you think you heard something like this?

If you did you should paste a link to where you saw it for the rest of us to see.

Otherwise I think the answer to your question is NO.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by ArchAngel]

I thought I read something about that here in this forum. I will try to find the thread.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It would be news if Saddam had nukes let alone the rest.

Do you think you heard something like this?

If you did you should paste a link to where you saw it for the rest of us to see.

Otherwise I think the answer to your question is NO.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by ArchAngel]

Yeah it was over in the terror analysis network section. Dunno, it seems the guy was simply spectulating on a possible scenario.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT: Frankly, I think the thing about the euros is a bit more disturbing to me. A switch to euros before say a nuke strike in the U.S. would make sense.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by StalkerZERO]

There have been repeated claims by the US far right that Iraq's supposed "WMD stockpile" was magically and invisibly moved to Syria preceding the war. The claims are that chem and bio weapons were moved, not nukes. Saddam never managed to build a bomb. There also doesn't appear that there is a shred of evidence supporting this view (notably even the Bush administration has not supported it), however that doesn't stop the loony right from reporting it as fact.

IMO I think at least something was moved over to syria before the invasion. Most probably just money and assets. But could have been other dangerous material not necessarily nukes. Could be chemical or even bio which I'm more afraid of.
Don't forget, we live in a world where certain people sell plutonium like crack dealers sell dope. That might seem comical but its less fantasy than it was just a few years ago.

Is it possible that Sadam acquired a weapon after the Wall went down? Sure. Would it have been shipped to Syria before the attacks? You're darned Skippy. Will Syria give it to a terrorist organization?

Sorry, neither Syria or a terrorist organization has released that info to date.

I'll scheck Fox, you check CNN, Arch, you check AlJazeera; we'll keep all the bases covered.

Wait, check ya last question. Will syria give it to a terrorist organization. It wasn't "DID syria give or is planning to give it to a terrorist organization?" I think the answer to the original question is yes.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Is it possible that Sadam acquired a weapon after the Wall went down? Sure. Would it have been shipped to Syria before the attacks? You're darned Skippy. Will Syria give it to a terrorist organization?

Sorry, neither Syria or a terrorist organization has released that info to date.

I'll scheck Fox, you check CNN, Arch, you check AlJazeera; we'll keep all the bases covered.

Wait, check ya last question. Will syria give it to a terrorist organization. It wasn't "DID syria give or is planning to give it to a terrorist organization?" I think the answer to the original question is yes.

I think the answer is no.

If Syria has a nuke they put it on a rocket, and are ready with a Nuclear EMP deterant to Israels WMD threat.

One nuke and the ability to put it in space buys you the ability to play brinkmanship.

Last resort? Certainly, but the most likely way they would play it.

Handing one over to a rogue group risks them being caught, and Syria being implicated, or they might turn and use it on the Syria leadership or who knows what else.

I doubt any nation would consider giving away, or selling nuclear weapons until they had several already deployed.

Maybe not officially. But lets face it....syria is a freaking spawning ground and safe harbor for terrorist organizations. Something could get done off the books if a deal is made with the right...erm wrong people.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Wait, check ya last question. Will syria give it to a terrorist organization. It wasn't "DID syria give or is planning to give it to a terrorist organization?" I think the answer to the original question is yes.

I think the answer is no.

If Syria has a nuke they put it on a rocket, and are ready with a Nuclear EMP deterant to Israels WMD threat.

One nuke and the ability to put it in space buys you the ability to play brinkmanship.

Last resort? Certainly, but the most likely way they would play it.

Handing one over to a rogue group risks them being caught, and Syria being implicated, or they might turn and use it on the Syria leadership or who knows what else.

I doubt any nation would consider giving away, or selling nuclear weapons until they had several already deployed.

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
Did al-queda try to import a NUKE into U.S. from Syria??

And…

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
Did saddam export nukes into syria and has there been any attempts to try to get a nuke into the U.S. from syria??

Are at the core different questions; answering, no. As it is beyond highly doubtful Saddam possessed and has thus far known to have not to possess such a weapon during his regime.

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
... Something could get done off the books if a deal is made with the right...erm wrong people.

Speculation, AQ would most likely leap at any chances to obtain a viable functioning nuclear weapon from any country willing to provide or facilitate such transference. Perhaps elements of Syria’s government possibly may indirectly/unofficially aid in brokering such an opportunity for AQ (say with N.Korea, Dr. Khan’s network or the nuclear black market etc.). Maybe, maybe not.

Sponsoring conventional terrorism whether overtly or covertly are different animals than acting as a conduit in providing a means to carryout such a possible nuclear threat, even if by proxy.

I do believe, however, it would be clearly understood by the seller/source that the weapon would definitely be used; ergo a nation willing to lend itself to direct or even indirect implication and possibly even targeting/blackmail is completely another factor. Especially, given this case, 'at the end of the day' provoking a US response that would far outweigh the act.

mg

Whatever form a wmd would take...say it was purchased within the borders of syria. Or say syria was just a conduit. I mean say a wmd was sent to syria from a country other than iraq and from syria sent to the U.S. And also even though the weapon was in syrian borders Syria itself had nothing to do with the deal whatsoever.
If it was confirmed the weapon came from syrian borders would the U.S. want to strike back at syria itself even though they didn't attack us if the weapon was used?
I ask this because of the problem of having to strike back at a transnational terror group with no real geographical borders. Didn't the administration mention some time ago that they will hold the country of origin responsible for harboring the group even though the country itself didn't attack?


[edit on 15-2-2006 by StalkerZERO]

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
Didn't the administration mention some time ago that they will hold the country of origin responsible for harboring the group even though the country itself didn't attack?

Harboring is the operative term here and one which suggests actions along the lines of: Willfully aiding, assisting or knowingly concealing.

In the case of harboring (not just the US eg. France has recently threatened the use of strategic nukes) many nations have made clear overtures about the dire consequences for committing such a 'connected' act; especially if harboring contributes to an act of terrorism on the respective country’s soil or against its' citizenry.

This brings me back to my original post in this thread and the weight of consequences if proven state sponsorship exists in an event such as the one mentioned. The line would be drawn on what constitutes the act of harboring, from there, scaled reprisals would ensue, presumably exponential in comparison.

mg

Ok. Lets say I made a mistake by using the word "harbor" The danger then would be of the transnational group making sure no connection could be made whatsoever of the host country to the terror group. Without any deception on the part of that nations government whatsover, if the terror group used syria for instance for the staging area, storage, and conduit for a wmd to a target nation (U.S.A.) would syria (or any country for that matter) still then be held responsible?

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
Didn't the administration mention some time ago that they will hold the country of origin responsible for harboring the group even though the country itself didn't attack?

Harboring is the operative term here and one which suggests actions along the lines of: Willfully aiding, assisting or knowingly concealing.

In the case of harboring (not just the US eg. France has recently threatened the use of strategic nukes) many nations have made clear overtures about the dire consequences for committing such a 'connected' act; especially if harboring contributes to an act of terrorism on the respective country’s soil or against its' citizenry.

This brings me back to my original post in this thread and the weight of consequences if proven state sponsorship exists in an event such as the one mentioned. The line would be drawn on what constitutes the act of harboring, from there, scaled reprisals would ensue, presumably exponential in comparison.

mg

Originally posted by xmotex
There have been repeated claims by the US far right that Iraq's supposed "WMD stockpile" was magically and invisibly moved to Syria preceding the war. The claims are that chem and bio weapons were moved, not nukes. Saddam never managed to build a bomb. There also doesn't appear that there is a shred of evidence supporting this view (notably even the Bush administration has not supported it), however that doesn't stop the loony right from reporting it as fact.

Humm, I wonder who is the loney, the far left for believing that empty chemical warheads were going to be used by Saddam as ashtrays, or the people that understand the real use of empty chemical warheads among some other evidence found....

Did you forget your medication today? You better take it quickly before you realize what the evidence shows...

What evidence?

I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein once had plenty of chemical weapons. It doesn't surprise me at all that some empty shells were still around.

But the "WMD stockpile" that was the purported reason for this war is nowhere to be found. Now you can choose to believe whatever suits your purposes, but there is no hard evidence that it was moved to Syria. There is no hard evidence that it's still in Iraq. What little reliable evidence there is, says it was mostly destroyed at the end of the first Gulf War, a fact largely kept secret even from his own generals.

Why do it? He didn't want to get nuked.
Why lie about it? To bluff Iran.

He had tried to reconsitute his WMD programs after 1991, but without much if any success. There was no "WMD stockpile" after 1991. Don't believe me? Ask the CIA.

[edit on 2/15/06 by xmotex]

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
…would syria (or any country for that matter) still then be held responsible?

To my general understanding, ‘the cargo’ would be considered a form of contraband. To answer the question, Syria (in theory) would be held no more responsible than examples such as Canada, Mexico or the UK given a similar set of circumstances (the rub: unless intentional traceable ‘state’ negligence was uncovered).

A problem with reality is that pieces may be delivered at different times, quantities and phases; assembled on site of which some components may be acquired inside the target state. A fully operational WMD need not leave the departing country of origin complete, only the necessary ‘hard-to-get’ component such as in the case of a nuke: 11-16 kilos of (HEU) and 11-16 Kilos of (HEU) is not a weapon in and of its own right, just contraband.


mg

Well after 9/11 it took a few days to do a decent investigation but eventually al queda and the then host government of afghanistan which was the taliban was targeted.
I wonder if after the emotional shock of a city being nuked would the U.S. even bother to do a decent investigation to find out if the country involved knew what was happening or not......before striking back. :|

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
…would syria (or any country for that matter) still then be held responsible?

To my general understanding, ‘the cargo’ would be considered a form of contraband. To answer the question, Syria (in theory) would be held no more responsible than examples such as Canada, Mexico or the UK given a similar set of circumstances (the rub: unless intentional traceable ‘state’ negligence was uncovered).

A problem with reality is that pieces may be delivered at different times, quantities and phases; assembled on site of which some components may be acquired inside the target state. A fully operational WMD need not leave the departing country of origin complete, only the necessary ‘hard-to-get’ component such as in the case of a nuke: 11-16 kilos of (HEU) and 11-16 Kilos of (HEU) is not a weapon in and of its own right, just contraband.


mg

[edit on 16-2-2006 by StalkerZERO]

[edit on 16-2-2006 by StalkerZERO]

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
I wonder if after the emotional shock of a city being nuked would the U.S. even bother to do a decent investigation to find out if the country involved knew what was happening or not......before striking back.

Imo, this question is highly debatable. The ‘emotional shock’ would be different than the widespread ‘general panic’ that would follow such an attack though-out major metropolitan, industrial areas, government installations and the like.

A ‘knee-jerk’ response would be difficult to execute as heads of state take to the air, key officials entrench underground, and military line resources are absorbed dispelling panic, facilitating unorganized evacuations, engage in full activation of reserves and a ‘spreading-out’ of assets avoiding concentrations, invoking necessary treaties etc.

The act would be seen as a US tragedy and an attack on her soil; however the international community would also recognize the ‘threat’ immediately. Again, speculating, this ‘panic’ would not be limited to the US after such an attack, spreading far outside her borders and this ‘attack’ would cause the galvanization of external sovereign states (which will also sense the 'threat' moving from possibility to reality). Respective international agencies, governmental bodies and forces which would demand answers immediately and would stay focused on the task until found.

A shift to the eradication of this ‘threat’ would move to the top of every national agenda, the source exposed and driven to extinction, not necessarily solely by the United States.

Back to your original question, if this horrific act indeed occurs, and culprits are found inside a ‘nation’ with no 'direct link' (such as in your example Syria or another example, Pakistan) little to no attention will be given to the borders of such states in obtaining/eradicating the criminals. And back to my original opinion, any state sponsership exposed would spell the end for the 'nation' of question in such a manner that no state would ever entertain 'the option' again.


mg

I can't remember if I planned to respond to this and forgot or what but anyway...
Its interesting that you mentioned that little or no attention would be given to borders of another country in the event of such a disaster. Even though the other country might be invoved in what happened I can picture them being angry at their borders not being respected to the point that it might start a war.
And with the right circumstances....a world war. :|

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by StalkerZERO
I wonder if after the emotional shock of a city being nuked would the U.S. even bother to do a decent investigation to find out if the country involved knew what was happening or not......before striking back.

Imo, this question is highly debatable. The ‘emotional shock’ would be different than the widespread ‘general panic’ that would follow such an attack though-out major metropolitan, industrial areas, government installations and the like.

A ‘knee-jerk’ response would be difficult to execute as heads of state take to the air, key officials entrench underground, and military line resources are absorbed dispelling panic, facilitating unorganized evacuations, engage in full activation of reserves and a ‘spreading-out’ of assets avoiding concentrations, invoking necessary treaties etc.

The act would be seen as a US tragedy and an attack on her soil; however the international community would also recognize the ‘threat’ immediately. Again, speculating, this ‘panic’ would not be limited to the US after such an attack, spreading far outside her borders and this ‘attack’ would cause the galvanization of external sovereign states (which will also sense the 'threat' moving from possibility to reality). Respective international agencies, governmental bodies and forces which would demand answers immediately and would stay focused on the task until found.

A shift to the eradication of this ‘threat’ would move to the top of every national agenda, the source exposed and driven to extinction, not necessarily solely by the United States.

Back to your original question, if this horrific act indeed occurs, and culprits are found inside a ‘nation’ with no 'direct link' (such as in your example Syria or another example, Pakistan) little to no attention will be given to the borders of such states in obtaining/eradicating the criminals. And back to my original opinion, any state sponsership exposed would spell the end for the 'nation' of question in such a manner that no state would ever entertain 'the option' again.


mg