Osama's Message to America!

[winkle]

racer270 wrote

hi guys,
the population of Southern California is in excess of 36 million people....!

that's probably true but mabe only 10 million american the rest mexican

[ken_behrendt]

racer wrote:

also there are enough nuclear weapons aboard ships in San Diego bay to turn Southern California into a barren wasteland...........all thay would need to do is have something to detonate one,to start a chain reaction......maybe it's time to plan a road trip.............!

Fission type nuclear weapons, either used along or as triggers for fusion energy repleasing hydrogen bombs, have an interlock system incorporated into them that will prevent them from achieving critical mass unless the interlock is electronically disengaged prior to what is called "mass assembly". So if a fire or an explosion were to take place aboard a Navy ship carrying nuclear warheads, that should not cause any to detonate.

The worst that would happen is that the mass assembly charges would detonate and the heat of that would then vaporize the U235 or plutonium and send out a cloud of it. Inhalation of that cloud could have serious consequences. I remember reading that there was reseach that showed that the inhalation of a single microgram of plutonium would result in the victim developing fatal lung cancer within about two weeks. Plutonium is considered by some to be the most deadly material on Earth. Pluto was the Roman god of the under world or realm of the dead...what an appropriate name for this strange metal!


ken

[scott]

Personally I'm a little weary of all the panic-mongering. Here are the sagest words I've read on the subject in a long while:

ItÂ’s Not Another World War
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Compared to the lethal menaces of the twentieth century, the strategic threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists is minor league. On September 11th, 2001, the terrorists killed some 3,000 people, and subsequent attacks in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, London and Mumbai have killed hundreds more. Tragic as those deaths are, they pale in comparison to the nearly 100 million deaths of the two world wars.

True to their label, the Islamic terrorists are terrifying, and they can sometimes inflict nasty damage, as we discovered to great sorrow five years ago. But terrorism has always been the strategy of weak parties, not strong ones, and radical Islamic terrorism is no exception.

The closest historical analogy for the radical Islamic terrorist threat is neither the two world wars nor the Cold War. It is the violence perpetrated by anarchist forces during the last third of the nineteenth century. Anarchists committed numerous high-profile assassinations, including a Russian czar, an empress of Austria-Hungary, and President William McKinley. They also fomented numerous bomb plots and riots, including the notorious Haymarket riot in the United States. The Newt Gingriches of that era also overreacted and warned of a dire threat to western civilization. In reality, though, the anarchists were capable only of pinpricks, and life went on.

The radical Islamists are only a little more potent. U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that there are no more than a few thousand Al Qaeda operatives—many of whom are hunkered down in the wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However fearsome they are, we must keep their threat in perspective. Even in the improbable worst-case scenario—the one in which Al Qaeda gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and somehow figures out how to detonate it (not an easy task)—the scope of destruction, while terrible, would still not begin to rival the horrors of the last century's bloodletting, much less what would have happened if the Cold War had turned hot. There is no realistic prospect of Al Qaeda obtaining thousands of nukes.

Consider the scope of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and its allies in World War II. Germany was the world's number two economic power and had an extraordinarily capable military—probably the best in the world. At the peak of its success, the Wehrmacht managed to conquer most of Europe, and Japanese forces overran most of East Asia. It took the combined military efforts of several great powers to defeat the fascists' bid for global dominance. When the dust settled, more than 50 million people were dead.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the world's number two military power. Moscow dominated Eastern and Central Europe, and its conventional forces could have overrun the rest of the continent and condemned millions more people to communist slavery. With an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons, it was capable of obliterating most American cities and effectively ending modern civilization in the United States. The Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany before it, was a strategic threat of the first magnitude.

Absurd proclamations that America's conflict with Al Qaeda and its radical Islamist allies constitutes the next world war are becoming a growth industry. Newt Gingrich is the latest to sound the alarm, but Norman Podhoretz, publisher of Commentary magazine, Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, and many other pundits and politicians have made the same allegation. Indeed, the only thing these would-be national saviors seem to disagree about is whether the current conflict is World War IV or V instead of World War III.

Yet most countermeasures that the United States and other countries have undertaken are glorified law enforcement tactics rather than full-scale warfare. Last month's airline bombing plot in Britain was disrupted in that way, as were the previous break-ups of Al Qaeda cells in Hamburg and Madrid. With the exception of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, this is the nature of the war against radical Islamic extremists. Whereas once we carpet-bombed our adversaries, we now pursue largely non-military tactics.

We must recognize that terrorism poses a frightening and tragic but manageable threat to the United States. Gingrich, Podhoretz and other panic mongers do us a huge disservice by exaggerating its danger. The only way the current struggle could ever become a world war is if American leaders followed their advice and escalated our response into a war between the West and Islam. As we mourn our dead, we must remember that we have more power than our enemies to worsen our fate. For both the dead and the living, we must make sure that does not happen.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6656

[winkle]

seems to me like some folks see terrorists and terrorism kind of like being in the water with sharks or suddenly have a thought about the ultimate terror JAWS

must be something to do with the unknown is just frightful

but then on the other hand i thought i saw jaws lurking under a float in the pool the other night

but don't let that scare you out of the water it turned out to be the pool vac

[ken_behrendt]

I, too, am weary of "panic mongering" and often refer to the war on terrorism as a "war" because, in reality, it is more of global police action that is necessary.

The biggest threat I see from the terrorists is if they ever do manage to obtain a nuclear weapon and proceed to use it to destroy an American city. That is something that will pale into insignificance the psychological aftermath of 9/11. America and the world will never again be the same after an event like that and it must not be allowed to happen if at all possible.

Carpenter wrote:

The only way the current struggle could ever become a world war is if American leaders followed their advice and escalated our response into a war between the West and Islam. As we mourn our dead, we must remember that we have more power than our enemies to worsen our fate.

This is where the "war" can become a real WAR virtually overnight not unlike WWI or WWII. In order to eliminate the possibility of Al Qaeda obtaining "loose" nukes from Iran, the West is going to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching its own uranium. Inevitably, that will mean an air campaign and, I am predicting, that it will not be limited to just Iranian nuclear processing facilities. The war planners have probably already reached the conclusion that the best way to minimize Iran's potential response to such an action is to extend it and, as in the case of Lebanon, bomb every potential military target in sight.

I suspect that the Iranian "government" is actually anticipating a limited air campaign in the coming months, but they are not expecting to have there whole country leveled in the process. What will the reprecussions from that be? Most likely it will result in the fall of the pro-West governments in most of the Middle East and the establishment in them of Taleban style theocracies that will hail Osama as their Savior...perhaps he will even be declared to be the 12th Iman prophesyed to come and spread Islam throughout the world.


Well, we are now less than 24 hours away from 9/11 and, so far, all is calm in the homeland...I hope it stays that way...



ken

[ken_behrendt]

I was listening to an expert on terrorism today who also happened to be a muslim and he said something which really caught my interest.

He claims that both Osama bin Ladin and the real ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei (President Ahmadinejad's boss), believe that when they finally set up a worldwide muslim state or "Caliphate", that its capital will be in...Iraq! In particular, it will be the Iraqi town of Karbala.

Now, if this is the case, then we can be fairly certain that any western backed government in Iraq will find itself in a continous state of warfare with both Al Qaeda terrrorists and Iranian backed insurgents.

If the West truly wants to prevent the formation of a nuclear armed Caliphate whose goal is to convert the world to Islam, then the West will be involved in Iraq for a long time to come!


ken

[trevie]

one question, How long will it take islam to accumulate enough nuclear war heads to be sure to strike the west down compared to how many the west have? If they manage to build one warhead. The west will have it dismantled before you could say jihad. Even if they decide to fire before we knew they had a warhead, we could counter-strike it down before it reentered the earth atmosphere; and possibly throw a few back. As any nuclear strike will be counter attacked without human intervention or hesitation. The state of Iran will no longer be. So if I was in Irans shoes I would think very carefully before building such weapons. In the end, any nuclear attack nobody wins. Its more of a standoff than a shootout.

[ken_behrendt]

trevie wrote:

one question, How long will it take islam to accumulate enough nuclear war heads to be sure to strike the west down compared to how many the west have?

It might not take that long at all...about a decade and a half would be sufficient to build up a fairly lethal arsenal of strategic nuclear missiles and the warheads needed for them.

However, the real danger of a nuclear capable Caliphate or even a union of nuclear capable terrorist controlled Islamic states is that they could use jihadists to infiltrate Western countries and hand detonate portable nuclear weapons inside of major cities.

This action would create chaos and, because there was no radar target tracking data for confirmation, there would be doubts as to which terrorist state was responsible. The western government would then be confused and not know who to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against. The best way to prevent this is to continue the fight against terrorists and make sure that any country controlled by fanatics not be allowed to obtain such weapons.

The USA was thrown into chaos by the destruction of several buildings and the single day loss of over 3,000 people. What might the results of losing an entire major city and millions of people be? It's too frightening to even contemplate and must never be allowed to happen. It is for this reason that I see some very dark clouds on the horizon. The West is headed for major conflict in the Middle East and the world will forever after be changed...



Well, it's now the day after 9/11 over here in the USA. I watched the various televised "rememberances" of that horrible day and the replaying of the available video footage of the jetliners being flown into the twin towers. The stories told by survivors are particularly disturbing.

I think it is important that that date be remembered every year so that Americans will know what is at stake. I listened to Bush's address to the nation at 9 p.m. eastern time and found it interesting. He said that the real battle is for the preservation of modern civilization! Too melodramatic? No, I found myself in complete agreement with his assessment especially the part where he said that we are still in the early part of the struggle and that it will continue until either the terrorists are victorious or the West is victorious. Thus, there will be no compromise with the terrorists or the states that back them (like Iran), no peace treaties, and no acceptance of any "offers" that Osama makes in one of his video tapes. This is a fight to the death!

Also of interest is yet another video tape released by Al Qaeda yesterday. In it, al-Zawahiri, Osama's second in command and personal physician, tells the West that they can de-emphasize their military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and start focusing elsewhere because Al-Qaeda intends to begin launching attacks to destablize the Persian Gulf states and Israel.

Thus, it looks like Al-Qaeda wants to start having a more pronounced effect in disrupting the flow of oil to the West. At one point, al-Zawahiri boasts that this will then lead to the economic collapse of the US and her allies. The Al Qaeda terrorists must have found out about the recent drop in the price of oil world wide (my costs at the pump are down over 10% in the last few weeks!) and its really irritating them!


The battle will be long and hard and will, no doubt, require a decade or more. Will the West have the stamina to continue this struggle? After the speech I heard last night, I'm starting to lean toward believing that it will...



ken

[Bessler007]

Not long after the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Economic Policy Review published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a special issue on the economic effects of the events of that day.

It's all about freedom. Some want the freedom to dig a well. Others want the freedom to pee in it.

[ken_behrendt]

Well, more very interesting developments in the "situation" over in the Middle East.

There appears to be some sort of power re-alignment in progress that is only being hinted at in the media so far.

As everybody probably knows by now, the US Embassy in Damascus, Syria was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists yesterday, but the quick action of the embassy guards supplied by the Syrian government prevented a rather powerful car bomb from being detonated in close proximity to the building. All four of terrorists were shot dead, but, unfortunately, one of the guards also died.

The White House then had their spokesman issue a statement that the Bush Administration was thankful to Syria for its help and looked forward to its cooperation in the war against terrorism!

Wait a minute...isn't Syria supposed to be on the side of the terrorists and states like Iran that back them? Apparently not. Syria has a mostly secular government and they are fearful of jihadists trying to topple it. That attack on the US Embassy was also intended to show how militarily weak Syria is and to inspire other terrorists to launch attacks.

It now looks like Syria will be siding with the West in the upcoming Middle East war which, as I've mentioned previously, I am convinced is coming soon and will start with a massive air campaign against Iran to wipe out any suspected uranium enrichment facilities as well as most of their military hardware.

Day by day, Iran is becoming a little bit more isolated by the West in preparation for the future conflict.

In contradiction to this trend, the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, decided to visit Teheran yesterday to discuss with their President Ahmadinejhad how Iran can help Iraq with their security.

Doesn't al-Maliki know that the US considers Iran to be the number one sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East? The US does not want Iran involved in any way with the newly formed government of Iraq. I'm curious to see where this little cooperative enterprise might be headed.



ken

[ken_behrendt]

Well, apparently the new Pope has made his first blunder. In a speech he gave a few days ago, he inadvertently angered the muslim peoples by implying that the teachings of the Koran were evil and wrong! Of course, the Vatican is in full "damage control mode" at the moment and has issued an deep apology by the Pope. This Pope had dedicated himself to "building bridges" between Christianity and Islam, but it looks like all those bridges have just come crashing down.

The Pope has a special advertiser on Islamic affairs that was away in Egypt on a diplomatic mission when the speech was written and did not get a chance to review it. Apparently, in his speech, the Pope quoted some 14th century Christian king in the Middle East who had a rather low opinion of the religion of Islam and of its messenger Muhammad.

While this was an unfortunate blunder at this time in history, I think it illustrates the levels of tension that are beginning to build between the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East. The Pope is perceived worldwide as being the official spokesperson for Christianity while, on the other hand, Islam really has no central authority that speaks for the religion as a whole. This can be a real problem when trying to work out differences between major religions.

I think a lot of people in the West would like to hear more of the moderate Islamic majority speaking out against the radical Islamicists and Jihadists and condemning their use of violence and distortions of the verses of the Koran. And, of course, it would be nice if some of the more prominent Muslim religious leaders would come forward to do this.

Anyway, I'm hoping that this blunder by the Papacy will not lead to increasing attacks on Christian religious buildings and Christians in general in countries which also have substantial muslim populations. We already have too much violence in this world.


ken

[Vic Hays]

Ken

The Pope did not blunder. In a prepared speech everything is calculated to have an effect. Quoting a source takes the pressure off him for personally having the agenda and feelings against islam, but opens up the wounds and brings some of the issues to the surface. perhaps he is really trying to bring dialogue and peace, but as can be seen there is a real possibility of strong consequences.
We are subject here in the West to our own propaganda.
Do you suppose that the recent warfare in the old Yugoslavia was about ethnic cleansing? What do you suppose that the Albanians and the Croatians had in common that was offensive to the Serbs? They were muslim and the Serbs are Orthodox Catholic. The two sides have buried the hatchet, but continue to crusade underground with it while on the surface calling for peace. Both sides believe their destiny is to rule the world so the other side will have to go.

[ken_behrendt]

Vic wrote:

Both sides believe their destiny is to rule the world so the other side will have to go

I assume that by "both sides" you are referring to Catholics and Muslims. Actually, however, while the Roman Catholic Church is definitely interested in propagating its interpretation of Christianity, I think they gave up on the idea of ruling the world a long time ago. They are more interested in spiritual matters now than "temporal" power.


Well, as I predicted, the outrage following the Pope's speech is beginning to spark violence against Christians around the world.

So far, five Christian churches in the East Bank Palestinian Territory have been attacked and an Italian nun in Mogadishu, Somalia was shot dead along with her body guard. Over in England, a muslim cleric is calling for the execution of the Pope!

The Pope has apologized for any grief his speech caused muslims worldwide and re-emphasized that he was only quoting someone with whom he did not agree.

Most of the muslim world seems to be accepting his apology and explanation, but I think that this incident brings up an important point. How does the West critcize Islam without having it interpreted by muslims as an attack on their faith that rates a fatwa or jihad?


ken

[trevie]

Ken Wrote:

How does the West critcize Islam without having it interpreted by muslims as an attack on their faith that rates a fatwa or jihad?

Ken I don't think we could have any argument on their faith, It will still be seen as an attack. Although they are quick to return the favour. I read in the paper earlier today, quoting that 'jesus is a slave to Allah'. If they think Capital punishment should be given out, if you insult the religion 'islam', then it should work both ways. I guess they can get away with it, because they can. Anway why should Muslims attack Christian faith with regards to the pope speech, I thought the pope was catholic? Different religion altogether.

[ken_behrendt]

trevie wrote:

Anway why should Muslims attack Christian faith with regards to the pope speech, I thought the pope was catholic?

I think that after the Pope's speech, some muslim leaders were not interested in attacking the Christian religion, but, rather, the Pope himself and called for his execution!

One must be careful not to focus on the few bloodiest verses of any religion and, because of their presence, denounce the entire religion. On the other hand, those that focus on those few passages and use it to justify violence and murder are also clearly wrong and need to be "brought to justice".

Most muslims (and by "most" I mean 99 out of 100) are good people and want to live in peace with their fellow human beings whether they are muslims or not. They are not interested in converting anybody, much less using violence or the threat of death to do so. However, unfortunately, the muslim world has been slow to stand up and denounce the actions of the very small percentage of them that are embracing radical interpretations of the Islam. I think this will change in the future.



Well, today should prove to be an interesting one over at the United Nations in New York City.

Both the US's President Bush and Iran's President Ahmadinejad are scheduled to address the General Assembly.

Let's see...let me guess what will happen. Bush will denounce the Iranian government's development of nuclear energy which, most likely, will find its way into the building of nuclear weapons. And Ahmadinejad will condemn the West for trying to stifle Iran's development of nuclear energy for strictly "peaceful" purposes.

Well, we already know the script. The war of words has been raging now for months. I just hope Bush and Ahmadinejad do not get into a scuffle out in the lobby of the UN building!

In the past, Bush would just show up a the UN, give a quick address, and they take off. Now, however, I think the scenario is changing. Now he must do some serious lobbying if the West is going to get the support it needs from the other UN members for its efforts to restrict Iran's ongoing enrichment of uranium. Many key members of the Security Council are still dragging their feet when it comes to supporting some serious sanctions against Iran. Without this support, there will be little to stop the Iranian government in its quest for nuclear dominance of the region and a possible strangle hold on the oil wealth of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Israel government is growing ever more impatient with each passing day. Soon, if the West appears to be stalled in the UN, they may take unilateral action against Iranian nuclear and military facilities...


ken