falxori 0 #1 February 8, 2004 a bit disturbing... Reuters Report QuoteArab Newspaper Says Al Qaeda Has Ukrainian Nukes Sun February 8, 2004 12:24 PM ET CAIRO (Reuters) - A pan-Arab newspaper said Sunday that the al Qaeda organization led by Osama bin Laden bought tactical nuclear weapons from Ukraine in 1998 and is storing them in safe places for possible use. There was no independent corroboration of the report, which appeared in the newspaper al-Hayat under an Islamabad dateline and cited sources close to al Qaeda, which the United States blames for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The newspaper said al Qaeda bought the weapons in suitcases in a deal arranged when Ukrainian scientists visited the Afghan city of Kandahar in 1998. The city was then a stronghold of the Taliban movement, which was allied with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda would use the weapons only inside the United States or if the group faced a "crushing blow" which threatened its existence, such as the use of nuclear or chemical weapons against its fighters, the paper quoted its sources as saying. Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union but in 1994 it agreed to send 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. After the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, a former Russian National Security Adviser, Alexander Lebed, said that up to 100 portable suitcase-sized bombs were unaccounted for. Moscow has denied such weapons existed. Lebed said each one was equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT and could kill as many as 100,000 people. Al-Hayat did not say how many weapons al Qaeda bought or say who exactly had provided them. A Pakistani government official said Secretary of State Colin Powell was expected to visit Islamabad soon to discuss nuclear proliferation, after a top scientist there admitted passing atomic program secrets to third parties. The United States has repeatedly said its worst fear is that a group like al Qaeda might obtain access to weapons of mass destruction and use them against the American people. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #2 February 8, 2004 Nah, I reckon both sides are guilty of making false claims about WMD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #3 February 8, 2004 I believe Al Qaeda either has in its possession, or shortly will have nuclear weapons. The Pentagon, the FBI and Dick Chaney all said its only a matter of time and they WILL get their hands on them, and wouldnt hesitate to use them on the USA. It is inevitable. Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #4 February 8, 2004 Hmm, somebody, I think it was Wes Clark, was talking the other day about how the United States lacks a viable plan to deal with black market nukes fromt he fall of the Soviets and how he'd devote monetary and military resources to stop this... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #5 February 8, 2004 Quote a bit disturbing... To say the least..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #6 February 8, 2004 I do not believe they have suitcase nukes......And suitcase nukes are not really suitcase size either. They are not that organized or advanced-YET. And too, nukes must be maintained and stored properly and that is not easy to do....or to hide for that matter. As for missing weapons, I do not think anyone really knows whats floating around, but, probably not much high tech stuff. During the Gulf War the US could not account for about 100 stingers(I read all kinds of things about it and I have over heard Army officers talking about it at a dinner one night while in El Paso) and its not like Arabs have been shooting down planes everywhere with them. I am not saying it is not possible they have nukes, I just do not think it likely. And if they did, I think they would use them ASAP! No doubt in time nukes will be used again, but when and where and on who.......who knows? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #7 February 8, 2004 Nobody went after Al Qaeda on the basis that they had wmd's dude, that was Iraq...Life is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #8 February 8, 2004 Who cares? It really doesn't matter. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, 3/13/02.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #9 February 8, 2004 QuoteNobody went after Al Qaeda on the basis that they had wmd's dude, that was Iraq... You are right, Iraq was invaded based of false claims of WMD - nothing to do with Al Qaeda. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #10 February 9, 2004 QuoteI think it was Wes Clark, was talking the other day about how the United States lacks a viable plan to deal with black market nukes fromt he fall of the Soviets and how he'd devote monetary and military resources to stop this... Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #11 February 9, 2004 QuoteLet's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. Or Bush should not have invaded Iraq under false pretences and should have kept his focus on AQ and OBL. But then as Kallend has already pointed out, why would he, OBL is not important anymore to the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #12 February 9, 2004 Can you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #13 February 9, 2004 Quote Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. I don't think you'll find even the staunchest democrats saying that our actions in Afghanistan were wrong (more like half-assed) but there has yet to be any evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Quaeda. Iraq as part of the war on terror is fallacy. They planned to invade Iraq before terror was a global issue. Terror gave them the political means to invade Iraq. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mcrocker 0 #14 February 9, 2004 Quote I don't think you'll find even the staunchest democrats saying that our actions in Afghanistan were wrong (more like half-assed) but there has yet to be any evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Quaeda. Iraq as part of the war on terror is fallacy. They planned to invade Iraq before terror was a global issue. Terror gave them the political means to invade Iraq. We have plans to invade Cuba, Columba, Mexico, Africa, Asia, just about EVERY country (and yes I know, Africa and Asia are not countries). That is what war planners do, they plan. They play the 'what would happen if..' scenarios. Plans for invading Iraq were around while Clinton was in office. I would much rather have a folder in a file cabinet with a plan 'What to do in the first 96 hours when Cuba invades Florida' than not having any plan at all. In a time of crisis you must have a plan to follow in the initial stages. Hell, I have disaster recovery plans for my company sitting on a shelf, I hope I never use them but they are there and updated on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the plan exists before 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean Bush was actively pursuing that plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #15 February 9, 2004 Quote We have plans to invade Cuba, Columba, Mexico, Africa, Asia, just about EVERY country (and yes I know, Africa and Asia are not countries). That is what war planners do, they plan. They play the 'what would happen if..' scenarios. Plans for invading Iraq were around while Clinton was in office. I would much rather have a folder in a file cabinet with a plan 'What to do in the first 96 hours when Cuba invades Florida' than not having any plan at all. In a time of crisis you must have a plan to follow in the initial stages. Hell, I have disaster recovery plans for my company sitting on a shelf, I hope I never use them but they are there and updated on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the plan exists before 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean Bush was actively pursuing that plan. Well of course the military has plans, contingency plans I think they call them, as they are contingent on those various "what ifs" you mentioned. I was referring to policy initiatives. There is, believe it or not, a difference. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #16 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think it was Wes Clark, was talking the other day about how the United States lacks a viable plan to deal with black market nukes fromt he fall of the Soviets and how he'd devote monetary and military resources to stop this... Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. You've been watching FOX again! Given that Al Quaeda's training camps were in Afghanistan and many Al Quaeda are still based there, perhaps you can explain why we reduced our efforts in Afghanistan to pursue a war in Iraq, a country which, when finally pinned down, even GWB himself admits to have had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US. And we justified that war and vilified and then forced out the UN inspectors on the basis of bogus intel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #17 February 9, 2004 Bomb Russia! Ronnie wanted to, ya know he didWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #18 February 9, 2004 QuoteBomb Russia! Ronnie wanted to, ya know he did Well I hear they have vast supplies of oil.... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #19 February 9, 2004 QuoteCan you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=43022;search_string=afghanistan;#43022 17th post down. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites benny 0 #20 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=43022;search_string=afghanistan;#43022 17th post down. Did you read the post? I think he said we should go in to get Osama et al Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #21 February 9, 2004 Ummm...that says go in, get Bin Laden and his supporters and get out. HOw does that mean don't go into Afghanistan. Furthermore, it turns out we did the opposite...we went in, didn't get Bin Laden, and then pulled out most of our forces and sent them to Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #22 February 9, 2004 Uh, in that post I said we should go in to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden. That should have been (and still should be) our priority. He masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #23 February 9, 2004 QuoteUh, in that post I said we should go in to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden. That should have been (and still should be) our priority. He masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Semantics. We invaded Afghanistan. That is the "going in" that you were talking about. Billvon was talking about a snatch and grab mission in a hostile country that we had no forward base in. He was advocating we not "go in" as we did. Try to squirm out of it if you want. It is fairly obvious to me. QuoteHe masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Shouldn't there be a rule about the Greenies upholding some standards and not trying to pick fights? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #24 February 9, 2004 > Billvon was talking about a snatch and grab mission in a hostile > country that we had no forward base in. No I wasn't. I was talking about going in, quite publicly, with the full force of the US military behind the first people. Make it quite clear that our mission is to find Bin Laden and his supporters and leave, and if Afghanis fire on US troops, well, that's what those gunships are for. >It is fairly obvious to me. OK. Not too interested in defending your interpretations of what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #25 February 9, 2004 QuoteHe was advocating we not "go in" as we did. Where? He said go in and get OBL and his supporters and kill anyone who shoots at us. That's pretty much what we tried to do, isn't it? Where did he say anything about the method. I also don't see where he's trying to pick a fight unless you're insulted by him accusing OBL of killing 3000 Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnRich 4 #10 February 9, 2004 QuoteI think it was Wes Clark, was talking the other day about how the United States lacks a viable plan to deal with black market nukes fromt he fall of the Soviets and how he'd devote monetary and military resources to stop this... Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #11 February 9, 2004 QuoteLet's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. Or Bush should not have invaded Iraq under false pretences and should have kept his focus on AQ and OBL. But then as Kallend has already pointed out, why would he, OBL is not important anymore to the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 February 9, 2004 Can you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #13 February 9, 2004 Quote Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. I don't think you'll find even the staunchest democrats saying that our actions in Afghanistan were wrong (more like half-assed) but there has yet to be any evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Quaeda. Iraq as part of the war on terror is fallacy. They planned to invade Iraq before terror was a global issue. Terror gave them the political means to invade Iraq. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcrocker 0 #14 February 9, 2004 Quote I don't think you'll find even the staunchest democrats saying that our actions in Afghanistan were wrong (more like half-assed) but there has yet to be any evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Quaeda. Iraq as part of the war on terror is fallacy. They planned to invade Iraq before terror was a global issue. Terror gave them the political means to invade Iraq. We have plans to invade Cuba, Columba, Mexico, Africa, Asia, just about EVERY country (and yes I know, Africa and Asia are not countries). That is what war planners do, they plan. They play the 'what would happen if..' scenarios. Plans for invading Iraq were around while Clinton was in office. I would much rather have a folder in a file cabinet with a plan 'What to do in the first 96 hours when Cuba invades Florida' than not having any plan at all. In a time of crisis you must have a plan to follow in the initial stages. Hell, I have disaster recovery plans for my company sitting on a shelf, I hope I never use them but they are there and updated on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the plan exists before 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean Bush was actively pursuing that plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #15 February 9, 2004 Quote We have plans to invade Cuba, Columba, Mexico, Africa, Asia, just about EVERY country (and yes I know, Africa and Asia are not countries). That is what war planners do, they plan. They play the 'what would happen if..' scenarios. Plans for invading Iraq were around while Clinton was in office. I would much rather have a folder in a file cabinet with a plan 'What to do in the first 96 hours when Cuba invades Florida' than not having any plan at all. In a time of crisis you must have a plan to follow in the initial stages. Hell, I have disaster recovery plans for my company sitting on a shelf, I hope I never use them but they are there and updated on a semi-regular basis. The fact that the plan exists before 9/11 doesn't necessarily mean Bush was actively pursuing that plan. Well of course the military has plans, contingency plans I think they call them, as they are contingent on those various "what ifs" you mentioned. I was referring to policy initiatives. There is, believe it or not, a difference. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #16 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think it was Wes Clark, was talking the other day about how the United States lacks a viable plan to deal with black market nukes fromt he fall of the Soviets and how he'd devote monetary and military resources to stop this... Let's see if I've got this straight. When Bush devotes the military and money to stopping terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark criticizes those efforts as being unnecessary. And at the same time, he thinks we should devote the military and money to fight black market nukes? I think I smell some hypocrisy. You've been watching FOX again! Given that Al Quaeda's training camps were in Afghanistan and many Al Quaeda are still based there, perhaps you can explain why we reduced our efforts in Afghanistan to pursue a war in Iraq, a country which, when finally pinned down, even GWB himself admits to have had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US. And we justified that war and vilified and then forced out the UN inspectors on the basis of bogus intel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #17 February 9, 2004 Bomb Russia! Ronnie wanted to, ya know he didWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #18 February 9, 2004 QuoteBomb Russia! Ronnie wanted to, ya know he did Well I hear they have vast supplies of oil.... Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #19 February 9, 2004 QuoteCan you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=43022;search_string=afghanistan;#43022 17th post down. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #20 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you point out where any of the democratic candidates, or anyone on this forum, ever said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=43022;search_string=afghanistan;#43022 17th post down. Did you read the post? I think he said we should go in to get Osama et al Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 February 9, 2004 Ummm...that says go in, get Bin Laden and his supporters and get out. HOw does that mean don't go into Afghanistan. Furthermore, it turns out we did the opposite...we went in, didn't get Bin Laden, and then pulled out most of our forces and sent them to Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #22 February 9, 2004 Uh, in that post I said we should go in to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden. That should have been (and still should be) our priority. He masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #23 February 9, 2004 QuoteUh, in that post I said we should go in to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden. That should have been (and still should be) our priority. He masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Semantics. We invaded Afghanistan. That is the "going in" that you were talking about. Billvon was talking about a snatch and grab mission in a hostile country that we had no forward base in. He was advocating we not "go in" as we did. Try to squirm out of it if you want. It is fairly obvious to me. QuoteHe masterminded the killing of 3000 americans, remember? Shouldn't there be a rule about the Greenies upholding some standards and not trying to pick fights? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #24 February 9, 2004 > Billvon was talking about a snatch and grab mission in a hostile > country that we had no forward base in. No I wasn't. I was talking about going in, quite publicly, with the full force of the US military behind the first people. Make it quite clear that our mission is to find Bin Laden and his supporters and leave, and if Afghanis fire on US troops, well, that's what those gunships are for. >It is fairly obvious to me. OK. Not too interested in defending your interpretations of what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #25 February 9, 2004 QuoteHe was advocating we not "go in" as we did. Where? He said go in and get OBL and his supporters and kill anyone who shoots at us. That's pretty much what we tried to do, isn't it? Where did he say anything about the method. I also don't see where he's trying to pick a fight unless you're insulted by him accusing OBL of killing 3000 Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
