'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb'

reply to post by Wildbob77


I'm also surprised that so many people believe that this would be a false flag event. But after-all, this is a conspiracy site.
BINGO !

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It would seem that many people did not read the post.

It would seem that you did not read the title of the thread or the article posted. In case you missed it...

'Al-Qaida on brink of using NUCLEAR bomb'

reply to post by endlessknowledge


Here is the first line of the article. "Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents."

Please note the "dirty" in the sentence.

Read the article.

Originally posted by beezzer
On the same site where aliens are discussed freely, where conspiracies abound, the idea of a terrorist organization getting their hands on nuke material is laughed at?

Perhaps laughing is not the appropriate response and I can't speak for others, however, logic would indicate that if the majority of nations across the world such as Iran have been unable to obtain such technology, than how could al-quada??? I'm also not saying it is impossible, but more like improbable!!!!

Your reference to aliens is also a slippery slope fallacy.

After actually reading the article, that first line and it's title is really just an assumption, not a fact.

reply to post by Wildbob77


LOL read the article but avoid the title.

The reaction is obviously related to the title which is there to create fear and I guess your proof that it has worked.

Here is a wiki link (I know I know) to "dirty bomb"

There is a huge difference in the skills needed to create a dirty bomb and a true nuke I do see the article as a bit of fear mongering.

Dirty Bomb

could they have nuke???
Has anyone asked Pakistan how many they had/have???
what about Egypt did they go nuke yet do we even know about it????
no i do not mean a war head i mean a dirty one, one that would say do harm but no real damage.
We live in a new time in history think what 5 to 20 people can do not what a nation can do.some might say this is just more fear mongering well it is not it is what could very well happen tyhen what about EMP.

I once heard that the New York emergency people have already had dummy runs to decide how they would deal with a dirty bomb going off in the Chelsea area of New York... Considering that they were also doing a similar dummy run on 9/11 when, while getting ready to see how they would cope if commercial planes flew into the twin towers two commercial planes just happened to come along and fly into the towers- and on 7/7 in London when ambulances, police and emergency response happened to be parked outside the very train stations where they were about to conduct a test on how they would cope if bombs went off at them very stations, so called terrorists just happened to come along and really blow up those stations!!!!
If I lived in Chelsea, New York, I think I would have cause for concern..!

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


well articulated and reasoned my freind .

reply to post by endlessknowledge

I can't believe you just said that. In fact, I had to read it over to believe someone would be this ignorant. I'm trying real hard to not rip you a new one but

Go ahead, give it your best shot.

I'll wait.

, they talk about a dirty bomb, not a nuclear bomb the difference is very important.

In a nuclear detonation nuclear fusion occurs resulting in the classical massive explosion. In a dirty bomb a explosive is used to disperse radioactive matter over a populated area to mimic the after effects of a nuclear detonation.

Again this is by no means a new threat, a dirty bomb is almost a easy to build as a normal explosive device however the materials are difficult to acquire but not impossible if you can get into a hospital or university.


It is by no means a new threat and it has nothing to do with this massive ignorance based conspiracy theory you all have about Al’Qa’ida being a CIA front

Have fun spoon feeding each other more ignorance.

reply to post by kevinunknown

, they talk about a dirty bomb, not a nuclear bomb the difference is very important.

I can see where it's easy to misuse terms here, since dirty in this context means radioactive, and nuclear mat'ls are radioactive. To make a dirty bomb, one needs nuclear materials.

So calling a dirty bomb a 'nuclear bomb' is a sloppy, but understandable, mistake.

And I have read definitions of dirty bombs containing other than radioactive materials for the 'dirt', such as chemical or biological.

In the future, we should endeavor to set definitions that we agree upon, instead of tossing the insults around. Not you - the forum members in general.

It is by no means a new threat and it has nothing to do with this massive ignorance based conspiracy theory you all have about Al’Qa’ida being a CIA front

Not here, not from me. But then, I've never been probed by a grey, either.

reply to post by Stewie


exactly what I was thinking lol

standing /golfclap

Originally posted by kevinunknown
It is by no means a new threat and it has nothing to do with this massive ignorance based conspiracy theory you all have about Al’Qa’ida being a CIA front

"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda". So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?

WRH

reply to post by reeferman


Please tell me that was not your come back, its really week and proves nothing even if it was wright (and its not) it does nothing to invalidate my argument.

The idea behind a dirty bomb is twofold. First of all the actual explosion will cause death and destruction and secondly, the nuclear material packed around the actual explosive device will eradiate the area for years to come. When you detonate a dirty bomb you're not only killing and maining people at the moment of the explosion but you're also making that area uninhabitable...

reply to post by CholmondleyWarner


Which is the kind of thing that will get tptb closer to their desired 500 million left on earth !

reply to post by kevinunknown


How about this one...

Once a CIA asset, always a CIA asset

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

From an article by Robin Cook, Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion,

www.guardian.co.uk...

lol

those wikileaks are statements by people from the US that

they are surely receiving fabricated data to say that