previous post next post  

Wahabism Delenda Est!

By The Armorer on December 31, 2005 | | Comments (4)
Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam Muslims and non-Muslims must unite to defeat the Wahhabi ideology.

BY ABDURRAHMAN WAHID
Friday, December 30, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

JAKARTA--News organizations report that Osama bin Laden has obtained a religious edict from a misguided Saudi cleric, justifying the use of nuclear weapons against America and the infliction of mass casualties. It requires great emotional strength to confront the potential ramifications of this fact. Yet can anyone doubt that those who joyfully incinerate the occupants of office buildings, commuter trains, hotels and nightclubs would leap at the chance to magnify their damage a thousandfold?

Imagine the impact of a single nuclear bomb detonated in New York, London, Paris, Sydney or L.A.! What about two or three? The entire edifice of modern civilization is built on economic and technological foundations that terrorists hope to collapse with nuclear attacks like so many fishing huts in the wake of a tsunami.

Just two small, well-placed bombs devastated Bali's tourist economy in 2002 and sent much of its population back to the rice fields and out to sea, to fill their empty bellies. What would be the effect of a global economic crisis in the wake of attacks far more devastating than those of Bali or 9/11?

It is time for people of good will from every faith and nation to recognize that a terrible danger threatens humanity. We cannot afford to continue "business as usual" in the face of this existential threat. Rather, we must set aside our international and partisan bickering, and join to confront the danger that lies before us.

Read the whole thing here, if you haven't already.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

4 Comments

By Larry Knudson on December 31, 2005 5:13 PM
Just think what might happen if a small nuke, or simply a dirty bomb, went off in a New Jersey or Carolina port and another one went off in San diego or Los Angeles. Our economy would be effectively shut down. Commerce into and out of our country would stop - perhaps for a very long time. The economy couldn't take it. Millions would be out of work and the cascading effect of that disaster would be awful to behold. The United States should do everything in it's power to ensure such a thing never occurs. And people, who whine about the president authorizing wire taps, should fall on their knees to thank him for doing so.
 
By Chris Denny on December 31, 2005 7:33 PM
I don't see adirty bomb deployed by terroists as big a threat as many other people do. First it is largely a pschylogical ploy based on the fact that most people don't have a decent understanding of radiation and fallout. A dirty bomb would do minimal damage to building etc and spread fallout over a fairlt small area unless it is detonated at medium altitude where the wind can spread the fallout, and even then unless you have a massive amount of radioactive material the concentrations of fallout will be fairly low. Also since terrorists would likely use such a weapon ina city the would be doing themselves no favors because modern construction techniques result in building with fairly high PF's in regards to radiation. Finally obtaining enough radioactive material would be both expensive and difficult, not mention unlikely to go unoticed. The only economical way to build a dirty bomb is if you have ready access to areacor where you can irradiate material fo use in a bomb. But if you have access to a reactor you would be better served to build and deploy conventional nuclear weapons.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 31, 2005 9:21 PM
Actually, the whole rationale for using a "dirty" bomb is the difficulty in assuring a reaction in a conventional nuke (there's an oxymoron for you--John knows...). If one of the imploders is off by a nanosecond or so, you just wind up with a very expensive dirty bomb. The Fear Factor won't come into play once the initial panic has subsided--unless the MSM plays it as the arrival of the Apocalypse. Which it just might, as long as there aren't any recent Elvis sightings. Depending on the size of the bomb, the location, the weather, the amount and type of radioactive material, the hot zone will range from a high rem-count in a relatively small area, diminishing with distance or something a bit higher than normal background radiation spread over a wide area. And anything in between. Cleanup will be a bear because everybody will be screaming NIMBY--although I know of a hot spot from a nuke accident involving a Nike-Herc warhead in the early fifties that could serve. The thorium could probably use the company. I used to play with the Green Beanies doing simulated terror attacks in the late 80s and I can think of a couple dozen pieces of devastating nastiness we performed (using dummy explosives and "You've been had" notes) that didn't involve anything more complicated than the IEDs going off in SWA. But if the threat of dirty bombs keeps our HLS folks on their toes, I won't kibitz one bit...
 
By big al on January 1, 2006 5:09 PM
You know,they way some of these leaders obtain their fatwas,makes you think,doesn't it?...it's like the the President getting International Relations advice from a small travelling,hell spouting,tent revivalist.(and I mean the real off the wall,racist type,whites are people only,extremists)