WikiLeaks: al-Qaeda 'is planning a dirty bomb'

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".

Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.

Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.

At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaeda was plotting a programme of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8296956/WikiLeaks-al-Qaeda-is-planning-a-dirty-bomb.html

popular with the inhabitants.

Polls show most Afghans despise the Taliban & especially Al Quaeda.

Even if it's detonated in the middle of the Super Bowl the main victims will be those killed by the explosion, not the radiation from a dirty bomb.

Lemme have some of whatever you are smoking. :smoke:

Making it radioactive wouldn't do much more. Everyone not killed by the blast would immediately evacuate and limit their exposure. Most wouldn't even be exposed to enough to hurt them. Those that were close might get radiation poisoning. A few might die, a few might die early of cancer.

It ain't like setting off a nuke where everyone in the stadium and 1/2 of Arlington would die. Sure it would be a big deal, but so was Janet Jackson's tit.

They probably just smoked or drank or something....

That's the core objective of terror attacks: not necessarily the actual damage and injury, but the mass psychological reaction to it.

A nuke is a whole different story. A dirty bomb might kill hundreds, even thousands if it was really big, at the game. A nuke would kill everyone there and 1/2 of Arlington as well.

without me.

A lot of anxiety about terrorism is silly. This isn't.

alarm for a long time now.

Difficult, but worthwhile viewing: "Countdown To Zero"

http://www.takepart.com/countdowntozero

Terra-ists are teh stoopid.

because the US would finish itself off establishing security against future attacks.

We wouldn't even need GW Bush for that.

I started out a big supporter of this outfit - no longer.

I'm not sure just which intelligence service these guys are playing for but I no longer consider wikileaks viable.

right.

You are "not sure just which intelligence service these guys are playing for" ? Maybe its hard to answer this because the answer is NO intelligence service. They are simply leaking US diplomatic correspondence. What government/MSM is sponsoring this? because judging from the death threats coming from those in government, I don't think its the US. And its hardly the MSM pushing these stories who are basically doing a blackout on Wikileaks, who embarrass them with real journalism, other than any new salacious anti-Wikileak stories.

We have been hearing the same BS for ..... how long now?

Wikileaks is currently supporting the same scare tactics and nonsense programing the bush butt boyz were promoting.

if the leak documents start to sound like FoxNews.

Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, those of us who have not seen a National Intelligence Estimate for many years, or who have never seen one, can address the matter with somewhat more confidence than we could have a few months ago. Although it probably did not cross Ellsberg's mind when he released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, he succeeded in doing what the Agency, on its own, has rarely been able to do for more than twenty years: he made the CIA 'look good' through what inhabitants of the Pickle Factory themselves would call a 'highly credible source'."

To those well steeped in the ways of the real CIA, and unfortunately there are too few who are, the above statement fits the pattern. Here is an Agency partisan praising Daniel Ellsberg. This does much to support our earlier contention that one of the real reasons these papers were delivered to the public was really on behalf of the CIA and the ST and not the other way around. Then the article goes on to say " . . . the Pentagon Papers tell us little about what actually happened in the White House Cabinet room, they do reveal much about the intelligence guidance made available to the policy-makers." He is still working on the major premise in an attempt to show that everything the CIA did was right, by showing from the included extracts how excellent its intelligence product was during those trying years. Let's look further into this propaganda, as an example is selected from among the many available.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/STchp8.html

Always be careful what you wish for. Sometimes - someone, somewhere, is willing to provide.

radiological bomb my ass! The same hyperbole - over and over again.

credible fools before.

Thanks for the info.

PLEASE, I HAVE TO KNOW!

#1 - a dirty bomb is not a 'nuclear 9-11' if it goes off in Afghanistan. In the middle of LAX, maybe, but only if the neocons are as prepared to jump on it as they were on 9-11.

#2 - dirty bombs against foreign soldiers in rural areas is so stupid I don't even think the Tea Party would consider it.

Third - the fact that Wikileaks documents others - others, not Wikileaks - having any opinions whatsoever, or taking any actions whatsoever regarding dangerous materials implies nothing about Wikileaks unless someone demonstrates that they are inventing or making up the majority of the leaked documents. Dragging them in as a villian is nearly as stupid as #2 above

#4 - the article itself mentions 'a leading atomic regulator', 'security briefings', and 'security chiefs' responsible for the statements about dirty bombs, not Wikileaks. Even in the bizarrely unrealistic event of Wikileaks having forged all the documents, they're still not making claims about dirty war. Others are doing that.

The veracity of such documents is questionable if they suit the policy.

I'm sure the Bush Admin had reams of paper wasted on theories about Saddam having mobile weapons factories. The more interesting docs would be the ones where they admit that they are making it all up.