Nuclear al-Qaeda
Troubling reaffirmation that al-Qaeda is looking to go nuclear. This from YNET;
LUXEMBOURG - Al-Qaeda is searching for ways to create nuclear weapons for mass destruction, a former UN weapons inspection chief said during a press conference at an international convention ways to prevent a nuclear catastrophe being held in Luxembourg.
Rolf Ekeus, currently High Commissioner at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and formerly Director of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, told reporters that the threat of a nuclear attack on a European city by al-Qaeda was tangible, and that steps are being taken to protect nuclear facilities from which terrorists can obtain enriched uranium.
"Al-Qaeda is searching for nuclear technology," Ekeus said. "They are looking for simple weapons... for mass destruction," he added.
Ekeus said al-Qaeda members "cannot be deterred. They are willing to sacrifice themselves," adding that prevention was the only means to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.
The war on terror is not nearly won. No time for budget cuts, troop pullouts or concessions. The war must be taken to al-Qaeda until it is utterly destroyed. Only then will our children be able to safely sleep at night.
10 comments:
If I thought for one minute that staying in Iraq would help defeat Al Qaeda I'd be all for it.
It's created a great venue for AQ to kill our guys.
There are better ways to fight terrorism.
gregdn, AQ believes that the battle is in Iraq. Osama says it all the time. Where would you have us fight them, Dearborn?
How is abject surrender a "better way to fight terrorism"? Even assuming that they were not in Iraq prior to the invasion (they were) they are there now. How does avoiding battle with them, by our highly trained and motivated military, no less, help?
I happen to agree with you that taking down al Qaeda is an element in winning the War on Terrorism.
At the same time, I find little evidence other than the "report" that you cited that al Qaeda is that close to a nuclear capability. I, too, have done research on this subject. Is there a desire by al Qaeda to mount a nuclear attack? I'm sure there is. Is there a capability to do so? Most experts assess a low probability to this...low, but urgent to address nonetheless.
Without deeper and further analysis or exploration, I deem your's to be scare posting.
The war must be taken to al-Qaeda until it is utterly destroyed. Only then will our children be able to safely sleep at night.
*******
Al-Qaeda is only one group out there and destroying it, while being a victory, will far from end the so-called "war on terror". We are at war with Islam and as long as people read and believe in the Qur'an and Hadith, they will continue to wield the sword in the name of Allah.
gregdn appears to leave ridiculous comments everywhere -- he's a frequent commenter on Cheat-Seeking Missiles, too. What he and his kind don't realize is that defeating the Islamists is a game of hitting them where they are, when we can.
Iraq has turned out to be brilliant in that regard. Al Qaeda and the other idiots have gotten sucked in much more than I ever thought they would, and we can pick them off there. They have to send funds, leaders and jihadists there, all of which keeps more of them out of the Western world.
gregdn thinks abandoning Iraq will somehow help limit the risk of nuclear al Qaeda. How is that? Giving them more time, more money and more workers to pursue nukes will make it harder for them to get nukes? Brilliant!
Greg,
Is rolling over a better way to fight? You said Iraq is "a great venue to fight". What would you prefer as a venue? Herndon or dearborn?
Stormwarning,
I guess the CIA is storm posting. Check out the link to the Washington Times. if telling the truth is "scare posting", then i am guilty.
Laer,
Greg probably voted for Reid.
The "CIA" reference is from 2003. However, the question is not whether al Qaeda seeks nuclear weapons, or if they would use them if they had them, but whether there is any feasibility of it happening.
Also, other than in Newsmax itself, there is no evidence that Director Mueller actually told anyone anything about bin Laden or al Qaeda.
Most experts, while being concerned about the prospects, assess a low likelihood.
I hope I'm right, and that you're not.
FYI and FWIW, I happen to have it from a pretty good source (actually better than that), that the Mueller interview didn't happen.
Storm,
Nothing would shock me anymore. I read yout post on the topic...good work.
Thanks for reading my analysis of the situation.
FYI, I was at a meeting yesterday. The speaker reiterated the position that if aQ had one, they's have used it. Also, maybe more importantly, the speaker dismissed outright the NewsMax reference to the Robert Mueller interview (it apparently did not happen).
Post a Comment