• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

MSNBC Report: Al-Qaida aims to hit USA with WMDs

bombshoo

Never mind...
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
5,160
How likely do you think a WMD attack on the USA by a terrorist group actually is? What do you think American reaction, both domestically and foreign, would be? Despite the fact they deny it in the article, do you think this is fear-mongering to an extent? I haven't quite made up my mind on that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35072269/ns/us_news-security/

Spoiler :

updated 2:31 a.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 26, 2010

When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers.

The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.

The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda's leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties.

The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, draws on his knowledge of classified case files to argue that al-Qaeda has been far more sophisticated in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction than is commonly believed, pursuing parallel paths to acquiring weapons and forging alliances with groups that can offer resources and expertise.

"If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now," Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Deadly strains of anthrax
The report comes as a panel on weapons of mass destruction appointed by Congress prepares to release a new assessment of the federal government's preparedness for such an attack. The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration's actions so far in hardening the country's defenses against bioterrorism, according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.

The commission's initial report in December 2008 warned that a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction was likely by 2013.

Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year CIA veteran, led the agency's internal task force on al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and later was named director of intelligence and counterintelligence for the Energy Department. His report warns that bin Laden's threat to attack the West with weapons of mass destruction is not "empty rhetoric" but a top strategic goal for an organization that seeks the economic ruin of the United States and its allies to hasten the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Islamic world.

He cites patterns in al-Qaeda's 15-year pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that reflect a deliberateness and sophistication in assembling the needed expertise and equipment. He describes how Zawahiri hired two scientists -- a Pakistani microbiologist sympathetic to al-Qaeda and a Malaysian army captain trained in the United States -- to work separately on efforts to build a biological weapons lab and acquire deadly strains of anthrax bacteria. Al-Qaeda achieved both goals before September 2001 but apparently had not successfully weaponized the anthrax spores when the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan forced the scientists to flee, Mowatt-Larssen said.

"This was far from run-of-the-mill terrorism," he said in an interview. "The program was highly compartmentalized, at the highest level of the organization. It was methodical, and it was professional."

'Not just trying to scare people'
Mowatt-Larssen said he has seen no evidence linking al-Qaeda's program with the anthrax attacks on U.S. politicians and news outlets in 2001. Zawahiri's plan was aimed at mass casualties and "not just trying to scare people with a few letters," he said.

Evidence from al-Qaeda documents and interrogations suggests that terrorists leaders had settled on anthrax as the weapon of choice and believed that the tools for a major biological attack were within their grasp, the former CIA official said. Al-Qaeda remained interested in nuclear weapons as well but understood that the odds of success were much longer.

"They realized they needed a lucky break," Mowatt-Larssen said. "That meant buying or stealing fissile material or acquiring a stolen bomb."

Bush administration officials feared that bin Laden was close to obtaining nuclear weapons in 2003 after U.S. spies picked up a cryptic message by a Saudi affiliate of al-Qaeda referring to plans to obtain three stolen Russian nuclear devices. The intercepts prompted the U.S. and Saudi governments to go on alert and later led to an aggressive Saudi crackdown that resulted in the arrest or killing of dozens of suspected al-Qaeda associates.

After that, terrorists' chatter about a possible nuclear acquisition halted abruptly, but U.S. officials were never certain whether the plot was dismantled or simply pushed deeper underground.

"The crackdown was so successful," Mowatt-Larssen said, "that intelligence about the program basically dried up."
 
It's possible, but seeing as they cant do something as straightforwad as detonate a car bomb in the Us these days, its unlikely
 
It's possible, but seeing as they cant do something as straightforwad as detonate a car bomb in the Us these days, its unlikely

I do agree on this. Considering the state they appear to be in, in even their main bases of operation (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) its hard to imagine they can coordinate something this big over here. I think we tend to view Al Qaida as some sort of omnipresent super-connected force, when I really don't see how they should be any less effected by infighting and corruption than any other organization. That's the best reason I can think of why they don't pull off more successful attacks, since given the attempted Christmas Day attack we still have a long way to go in improving security measures.
 
It's possible, but seeing as they cant do something as straightforwad as detonate a car bomb in the Us these days, its unlikely
Anyone can detonate a car bomb, if he wanted. The point is that they probably don't. The damage would be completely negligible and there is severe risk the perpetrators would be traced back to masterminds, or at least to "mid-level" management, who are probably too valuable to compromise for such irrelevant reasons. It would also lead to strengthening of security measures, which I am quite sure is not their goal, no matter what some people love to say. Laying low and planning an ultimate biological attack would be smart thing to do.
Then again, it could be just a bluff a la "Iraq swims in WMD-s" for all I know.

Just to illustrate my point: one who plans to rob a bank won't waste time and take risks shoplifting cookies.
 
Then why did the Provos do it so often?
1) Afaik, they tried to "scare" Britain into withdrawing from Northern Ireland, by turning British public opinion against holding it. Al Qaida apparently does not seek to only scare the US and manipulate its public opinion, but to seriously harm her.
2) The Provos failed.
 
Just to illustrate my point: one who plans to rob a bank won't waste time and take risks shoplifting cookies.
The problem with this hypothesis is that based on how the US overreacts to any threat, it would seem to be in their best interests to continue to even have even ill-conceived and poorly executed attacks, such as the last one.

I think a far better hypothesis is that the Al-Qaida have never been a real threat to the continental US, except for one daring plot. That isn't to say they would not try to acquire a nuke and explode it in a major city or unleash sarin in the NYC subway system.

But I think that it should be rather obvious to anybody they would try to get their hands on a nuke. Nevertheless, I guess it is a good thing the intelligence services found evidence the Al-Qaida may actually try to do so, just so the administration couldn't claim afterwards "nobody tired that before" after they are found to be asleep at the switch once again.
 
Underpants WMDs?
 
The problem with this hypothesis is that based on how the US overreacts to any threat, it would seem to be in their best interests to continue to even have even ill-conceived and poorly executed attacks, such as the last one.
It would be so if their real aim was to merely annoy American public. Presumed they actually want to badly harm American public instead, overly draconian security measures are probably not their desired result. These could actually fail the master plan.
 
Why is this news?
 
It would be so if their real aim was to merely annoy American public. Presumed they actually want to badly harm American public instead, overly draconian security measures are probably not their desired result. These could actually fail the master plan.

Though if they scare the U.S. enough and force them to take overly draconian security measures, they kind of destroy themselves in many ways don't they?

Why is this news?

It isn't really the story itself, I more posted it to go along with a discussion on the plausibility of a WMD attack and what American reactions to said hypothetical attack would be.
 
I do agree on this. Considering the state they appear to be in, in even their main bases of operation (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) its hard to imagine they can coordinate something this big over here. I think we tend to view Al Qaida as some sort of omnipresent super-connected force, when I really don't see how they should be any less effected by infighting and corruption than any other organization. That's the best reason I can think of why they don't pull off more successful attacks, since given the attempted Christmas Day attack we still have a long way to go in improving security measures.

Given how far the wouldbe terrorist had to go to get explosives onto a plane -- and that the method he resorted to ruined them -- speaks volumes to how well security is working.

[/liberalapologist]

I'm more scared of driving than of terrorism. I'm not scared of driving.

I'm curious, what would the political fallout be. Blame Obama? Blame Bush for not focusing on AQ?
 
Anthrax Beta upgrade ready.
 
I think a far better hypothesis is that the Al-Qaida have never been a real threat to the continental US, except for one daring plot.

How is it "daring" to subdue unarmed civilians (who think the plane is merely being hijacked) and fly them into buildings? You sound like you think these guys were heroes or brave or something other than cowardly murderers of women and children.


------

If FoxNews made this article, we would have cries of republican fearmongering.
 
I'm thinking more of a Mini-Nuke launcher. Would Al-Qaida have the know how to make a contraption like it?

 
Seriously, what's the daring part?

Sneaking box-cutters past security and into a crowd of scared civilians who didn't know what was going on? Oooohhh! Real commandoes!
 
Seriously, what's the daring part?

Sneaking box-cutters past security and into a crowd of scared civilians who didn't know what was going on? Oooohhh! Real commandoes!

Well, it was a bold attack. Bravery has nothing to do with it.
 
Bold. Hah. Stupid is more like it. Anyway, then use that word; "daring" has other connotations. Don't pretend those connotations do not exist.
 
Top Bottom