Osama bin Laden Killing A Hoax? (Page 3) Karma: The guy singing the song is very funny. I have seen him on chat shows before. he should have his own telly program.  StuckInTheSixties: Martin Short. He's been around a long time, was in SCTV, SNL, had a few different TV shows, been in movies, etc. He ALWAYS does a special musical number every time he appears on Letterman. I love the guy. He's funny as hell, and really creative. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Short  FogofWar: "There is also a plethora of references pertaining to HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE for Al Qaeda, or the like, to actually impliment such a weapon, but no one seems to be claiming that they wouldn't want one, nor would they use it if they had it ... except Fog." I have never said they wouldn't use it if the could. Again; there is a difference between what they would be willing to do; and what they are seeking to do. They have not sought nuclear arms; for the reason of it being difficult for them to obtain; secure and hide; and nearly impossible; if not suicidal to use. "Another scheme revealed that Bin Ladin sought the capability to kill on a mass scale" As the 3000 lives he took on September 11 wasn't mass scale enough for you? It is possible to kill on a massive scale without nuclear arms. They achieved it during both World Wars. "So Fog apparently thinks all of those people were wrong to think terrorists would use nukes against us" I never said they wouldn't. I said there hasn't been any intent for them to obtain. Big difference; one I am sure you are capable of comprehending. "In the years since 9/11, the single person I've ever heard make the claim that no terrorist groups would ever want to nuke a western target is Fog." So wanting to is now intent? Let's see that one hold up in a court of law. How many people in the US get charged every year for wanting to assault someone? How many people in the US get charged for wanting to nuke the Middle East? How many people in the US get charged for wanting to kill someone? I am sorry if my having knowledge on the topic of the Middle East upsets you SITS.  StuckInTheSixties: Careful. You could pull a muscle or something patting yourself on the back like that. FogofWar: yet another irrelevant post. You know; age doesn't have to make you bitter. You can try sticking to commenting the thread; and not the person. StuckInTheSixties: Was that any less relevant than: "I am sorry if my having knowledge on the topic of the Middle East upsets you SITS." Hypocrite.  davidk14: . Excerpt from: Al-Qaida ‘Scammed’ in Its Quest for Nukes? • By Nathan Hodge • April 13, 2010 | • 11:32 am | In a press briefing yesterday, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s adviser on Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, made an interesting claim: “We know that al-Qaida has been involved in a number of these efforts to acquire it [nuclear weapons]. Fortunately, I think they’ve been scammed a number of times, but we know that they continued to pursue that.” (From the Obama administration, not the Bush administration) From Reuters: Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nuclear weapons By Inal Ersan DUBAI | Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:39am IST (Reuters) - If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday. So there is evidence that Al Quida would use nukes if they could get their hands on them. There are many other articles and references available to support this concept. . FogofWar: No one is saying they wouldn't use them IF they had them...but having them; and obtaining them is another story. davidk14: . Fog said: “…having them; and obtaining them is another story.” David responds: WANTING to obtain them "is" the story. They want nukes and “when” they do get one, they will use it. I didn’t say that, they did. . FogofWar: They want nukes in the same way you want to win the lottery. Are you going to plan your life around winning the lottery before you buy the ticket? They know it is not practical, at this time, to obtain nukes. That being said; yes; of course it would be a threat to us if they could obtain them....and maybe someday they may attempt to...but it is not currently in their interest. They need a permanent base first; and that means securing a nation somewhere. Top priority for them is, and always has been, tainting the American view; and turning our own people against our forces; as well as our allies against us. They want to create chaos; and disorder; and when we are incapable of defending; then attack. It is why Iran has been funding terrorist organizations. It is why Iran has been promoting revolts in nations like Libya; where they know dictators will lash out; and cause international intervention. Their objective is to spread the US too thin; so that they must rely on their allies; then strike such allies (Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.). This is why they have continually armed and trained; even supplying men for insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why they are trying to paint the UN resolution in Libya as evil. Yes; certainly; there is a threat of nuclear disaster from such organizations....but not at this time. The bigger threat right now is their continual propaganda; and the civil unrest they are deliberately creating in regions in the Middle East. You and I both know; if they built a giant missile silo in Sudan that we would know; and blow it the hell up. You and I both know that if this happened; many people that oppose our military intervention would begin to side with us as well (as they don't necessarily side with al Qaeda; but just do not agree with war in general)...Victory over a larger enemy is not achieved through uniting him; it is achieved through dividing him. They aren't stupid; they know this. StuckInTheSixties: Page 2 of this thread - SITS says: "But there is only one group of people in the world that wants to gain access to such weapons with the specific purpose of actually using them: fundamentalist Muslim extremists" Page 4 of this thread - Fog says: "There has been no intent on fundamentalist Islamists to gain such weapons. That is my point. They haven't shown an interest in 'wanting' to gain such weapons." Also on page 4 - Fog says: "I have spoken to several people from Afghanistan...and again; it matters not. Since you are the one claiming that they are trying to acquire these weapons. Where is your proof of this?" Page 5 of this thread - SITS says: "Here's a quote from the 9/11 Commission Report:" Another scheme revealed that Bin Ladin sought the capability to kill on a mass scale. His business aides received word that a Sudanese military officer who had been a member of the previous government cabinet was offering to sell weapons-grade uranium. After a number of contacts were made through intermediaries, the officer set the price at $1.5 million, which did not deter Bin Ladin. Al Qaeda representatives asked to inspect the uranium and were shown a cylinder about 3 feet long, and one thought he could pronounce it genuine. Al Qaeda apparently purchased the cylinder, then discovered it to be bogus.49 But while the effort failed, it shows what Bin Ladin and his associates hoped to do. One of the al Qaeda representatives explained his mission: "it's easy to kill more people with uranium."50 So ... The source of the claims you've made is "several people from Afghanistan" that you purport to "have spoken to." The source of the claim I've made is the official US Government 9/11 report. Gee ... which is more credible? FogofWar: and again; just like I stated before. If they had an interest in conventional war by now; we would have seen it on the battlefield...we haven't. It is far, far simpler to obtain (legally at that); store; and use chemical gas agents, that are capable of killing hundreds of thousands, easily as many as nuclear weapons...yet they haven't. It is as simple as putting pesticides into IEDs; yet why haven't they? Because they don't want to fight a real war...they cannot win a real war! StuckInTheSixties: Yes, as you stated before ...  about things no one brought up except for you ...Again, you're attempting to deflect the facts of what was, and what wasn't, said on this thread into other things. Sidestep all you want, but those quotes speak for themselves. FogofWar: I am not deterring anything. There are far greater nuclear threats to us than just al Qaeda. StuckInTheSixties: No biggie. Those other nuclear threats threats, such as from North Korea, Pakistan, China or Russia, etc. are OBVIOUSLY different in nature. You seem to be implying that I'm arguing those other threats don't exist. On page 3, you said: "Then you accept that not only Islamic extremists are a nuclear threat?" I never said, nor implied, anything of the sort. Obviously, nukes possessed by anyone impose a threat to anyone else. Hypothetically, even English nukes threaten us. And (to make a point) OBVIOUSLY, North Korean nukes are more of a threat than English nukes, etc. No one said otherwise. No one implied otherwise. That is why I said, also on page 3: "Stop trying to make an argument where none exists." | Politics Chat Room 35 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
