Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

abe · Apr 29, 2006, 06:02 PM

Hamad Mir - "Terrorists will Use Nukes in America if U.S. Bombs Iran!"
Terrorism Press COnference ^ | 4-28-06 | Bob J

Posted on 04/28/2006 9:03:39 AM PDT by Bob J

In a just concluded debate and press conference, author and FBI Consultant Paul Williams and Jeff Epstein of "America's Truth Forum" reveal they have been advised by Pakistani journalist and Bin Laden biographer Hamad Mir that Al-Qaeda will use smuggled nukes against the US if the US takes military action against Iran.

Mir established his credentials by correctly predicting that Egypt would be hit by terrorist action a full two weeks prior to the events of last week. Mir, a Pakistani journalist, has been in contact with high ranking Al-Qaeda officials for several years.

The debate (between Richard Miniter and Paul Williams) and press conference were webcast LIVE by Rightalk.com. Audio files of both events will be available for downloading by this afternoon.
----------------
http://www.rightalk.com/

LIVE Debate Friday April 29 @ 10am ET!

"Does Osama have Suitcase Nukes"

Richard Miniter vs. Paul Williams

Press conference follows with a BOMBSHELL announcement!

ARCHIVES: DEBATE, PRESS CONFERENCE, LOOPED FEED

turtle777 · Apr 30, 2006, 05:20 PM

I'm not worried, we have Jack Bauer

-t

maxx9photo · Apr 30, 2006, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I'm not worried, we have Jack Bauer

-t

Not Only that US will have superman, x-men, "Tom Cruise" this coming summer to save america

abe · Apr 30, 2006, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I'm not worried, we have Jack Bauer

-t

Oh, and one useful bit of advice I'll pass along from having listened to the conference...

After a nuclear blast stay indoors for three days. That's how long it will take for most of the fallout to fall and be somewhat dispersed. Hmmm, what if it's raining or snowing? Would that decrease the time needed before you'd be relatively safe to venture out? Hmmm???

Anyway, if you aren't killed or mortally wounded in the initial blast it's the fallout that will do you in. And hospitals will be flooded or inoperative, so just be able to survive three days indoors before going out.

Then, the regular disaster considerations will apply.

Doofy · Apr 30, 2006, 09:28 PM

Notice to terrorists: Nuke the US and the gloves will come off, none of this pussy-footing around any more. You have been warned.

Dr Reducto · Apr 30, 2006, 09:47 PM

Guys, don't worry, the UN is going to write them a strongly worded letter. And if that doesn't work, they will write another one!

turtle777 · Apr 30, 2006, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Guys, don't worry, the UN is going to write them a strongly worded letter. And if that doesn't work, they will write another one!

-t

tie · Apr 30, 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Notice to terrorists: Nuke the US and the gloves will come off, none of this pussy-footing around any more. You have been warned.

What would we really do? Say in the case that there is no obvious tie, or perhaps no tie at all, to the Iranian government? Would we attack Iraq again?

The biggest terrorism sponsor is our ally Saudi Arabia, and the biggest proliferator of nuclear weapons is our ally Pakistan. Pakistan has given nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran, and Pakistan doesn't even allow us to interview the head of their program to see who else was given technology.

Helmling · Apr 30, 2006, 11:52 PM

It would be World War III, and Doofy's right...the gloves would be off.

I shudder to think what would become of the world if this happens. I fear for my children.

Spliffdaddy · May 1, 2006, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Guys, don't worry, the UN is going to write them a strongly worded letter. And if that doesn't work, they will write another one!

And after 12 years of the UN writing strongly-worded letters, the USA will have to take action.

dcmacdaddy · May 1, 2006, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by tie

What would we really do? Say in the case that there is no obvious tie, or perhaps no tie at all, to the Iranian government? Would we attack Iraq again?

The biggest terrorism sponsor is our ally Saudi Arabia, and the biggest proliferator of nuclear weapons is our ally Pakistan. Pakistan has given nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran, and Pakistan doesn't even allow us to interview the head of their program to see who else was given technology.

Shhh, if the government finds out we already are consorting with terrorists they might have to do something drastic about it. And we can't have that now, can we?

abe · May 1, 2006, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Shhh, if the government finds out we already are consorting with terrorists they might have to do something drastic about it. And we can't have that now, can we?

The ones who can't take over the world aren't as much of an immediate concern or a long range problem. So you needn't worry bout them if theys the ones you was thinkin of.

PacHead · May 1, 2006, 02:42 AM

Hamad Mir - "Terrorists will Use Nukes in America if U.S. Bombs Iran!"

And the USA will use Nukes, a great many Nukes in various, unspecified shady places around the globe if terrorists use nukes in the USA. The terrorists and their helpers and anybody who is even remotely associated with them, including countries, will glow. It will be an awesome fireworks display, the likes of which has never been seen before, and HDTV is highly recommended for all home viewers if this were to occur.

tie · May 1, 2006, 03:18 AM

I still haven't seen any specific answers to my question. PacHead: "various unspecified shady places"? Please.

We know who is sponsoring terrorism and who is spreading nuclear weapons now, and they are our best allies. They are neither unspecified nor shady.

Maybe you are right, though. Maybe the government would just use it as an opportunity, and make up lies and deceipts to invade some country in order to boost Exxon's profits even higher. The suckers in this forum would lap it right up, as we bombed the "unspecified shady places." A few days later, we could proclaim "Mission accomplished!"

Meanwhile, as usual, the people really responsible would sit uncaught and unpunished.

abe · May 1, 2006, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Hamad Mir - "Terrorists will Use Nukes in America if U.S. Bombs Iran!"

And the USA will use Nukes, a great many Nukes in various, unspecified shady places around the globe if terrorists use nukes in the USA. The terrorists and their helpers and anybody who is even remotely associated with them, including countries, will glow. It will be an awesome fireworks display, the likes of which has never been seen before, and HDTV is highly recommended for all home viewers if this were to occur.

And what if that's what will make their fantasy come true?

abe · May 1, 2006, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by tie

I still haven't seen any specific answers to my question. PacHead: "various unspecified shady places"? Please.

We know who is sponsoring terrorism and who is spreading nuclear weapons now, and they are our best allies. They are neither unspecified nor shady.

Maybe you are right, though. Maybe the government would just use it as an opportunity, and make up lies and deceipts to invade some country in order to boost Exxon's profits even higher. The suckers in this forum would lap it right up, as we bombed the "unspecified shady places." A few days later, we could proclaim "Mission accomplished!"

Meanwhile, as usual, the people really responsible would sit uncaught and unpunished.

Why is it you guys all talk alike? Never a straight answer, always some bs riddle that pussy foots around the topic? Is that what they teach in the 'Hate America' books and classes? It's boring and it likes you look silly.

fwiw

FireWire · May 1, 2006, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

It would be World War III, and Doofy's right...the gloves would be off.

I shudder to think what would become of the world if this happens. I fear for my children.

Einstein once said: "I do not know with what kind of weapons World War III will be led, but the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones." He couldn't be more right... Ouch!

Leopard Employee · May 1, 2006, 04:14 AM

Assuming the terrorists have the ability to launch a neuclear attack on US soil, America would not retaliate with neuclear weapons. Whats the point of running the world if you can't live in any of it and strive towards the American which I guess would be the idea.

The only people stupid or desparate enough to launch neuclear attack today would be terrorists and this is because they are fighting an idealogigial war not a terrotorial/ energy war like the states. What is the point of winning the oil if you have to dawn a radiation suit to gas up the Chevy.

Though the states technically doesn't have any I think you would be more likly to see a chemical or biological retaliation from the US which can be blamed on other groups and has a much shorter disapation time than the half life of Uranium 237

Still messes the world up but tacticaly it is the better move

I'm moving to New Zealand

Peteso

abe · May 1, 2006, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Peteso

Assuming the terrorists have the ability to launch a neuclear attack on US soil, America would not retaliate with neuclear weapons. Whats the point of running the world if you can't live in any of it and strive towards the American which I guess would be the idea.

The only people stupid or desparate enough to launch neuclear attack today would be terrorists and this is because they are fighting an idealogigial war not a terrotorial/ energy war like the states. What is the point of winning the oil if you have to dawn a radiation suit to gas up the Chevy.

Though the states technically doesn't have any I think you would be more likly to see a chemical or biological retaliation from the US which can be blamed on other groups and has a much shorter disapation time than the half life of Uranium 237

Still messes the world up but tacticaly it is the better move

I'm moving to New Zealand

Peteso

Art Bell moved to the Philippines.

von Wrangell · 07:37 AM

If terrorists already had nukes they would have used them.

But continue to be afraid. Your government wants that.

Kevin · May 1, 2006, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If terrorists already had nukes they would have used them.

Have you talked with them personally?

But continue to be afraid. You're government wants that.

Actually Iran wants that.

von is getting fuzzier by the day.

Wiskedjak · May 1, 2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by abe

Why is it you guys all talk alike? Never a straight answer, always some bs riddle that pussy foots around the topic? Is that what they teach in the 'Hate America' books and classes? It's boring and it likes you look silly.

fwiw

Ok. Let's make it easy for you. If the gloves come off, who is the US going to attack?

Leopard Employee · May 1, 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ok. Let's make it easy for you. If the gloves come off, who is the US going to attack?

I saw a Vox pop video I can't find the link right now but some of the countries fingered by joes on the street in Houston TX included France, Ireland, Brazil and China. (I think)

Obviously the lucky charms just aint enough anymore

Doofy · May 1, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ok. Let's make it easy for you. If the gloves come off, who is the US going to attack?

Scotland. They're behind it all, mark my words.

abe · May 1, 2006, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Peteso

I saw a Vox pop video I can't find the link right now but some of the countries fingered by joes on the street in Houston TX included France, Ireland, Brazil and China. (I think)

Obviously the lucky charms just aint enough anymore

That is SO DAMNED FUNNY!!!!

Leopard Employee · May 1, 2006, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Scotland. They're behind it all, mark my words.

Just in case you didn't know all of the cool stuff that has ever been invented including penicilin, TV, the phone, the bycycle and sarchasm were invented by scotsman some of whom were working in the states cos thats where the money was.

Look it up Fleming, Bell and Swan were all edinburgh uni grads who moved the the US for the cash

You guys do get the light bulb Edison was all American

So in a way yes we are behind it all

We also run the world Dr Evil style from our mountain layer surrounded by liquid hot magma!!

Peteso

olePigeon · May 1, 2006, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Peteso

You guys do get the light bulb Edison was all American

The incandescent bulb was first invented by Henry Goebel, from Germany, in 1854. Then Swan developed it independently, shortly after Edison introduced his in 1874. Kinda sucks for Henry, gets almost no credit.

Edit: Here's a nice wiki.

Doofy · May 1, 2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Peteso

Just in case you didn't know all of the cool stuff that has ever been invented including penicilin, TV, the phone, the bycycle and sarchasm were invented by scotsman some of whom were working in the states cos thats where the money was.

Look it up Fleming, Bell and Swan were all edinburgh uni grads who moved the the US for the cash

You guys do get the light bulb Edison was all American

Bzzzt. I'm from south of the wall.

I'm surprised we still let you northerners still wear those funny little skirts, to be honest.

Wiskedjak · May 1, 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Originally Posted by abe

Why is it you guys all talk alike? Never a straight answer, always some bs riddle that pussy foots around the topic? Is that what they teach in the 'Hate America' books and classes? It's boring and it likes you look silly.

fwiw

Ok. Let's make it easy for you. If the gloves come off, who is the US going to attack?

And yet another question you're dodging ... seems like it's you who "never [gives] a straight answer, always [with] some bs riddle that pussy foots around the topic?

abe · May 1, 2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And yet another question you're dodging ... seems like it's you who "never [gives] a straight answer, always [with] some bs riddle that pussy foots around the topic?

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Obviously the challenge would be to determine who was behind a nuclear blast. To that question I haven't an answer.

Maybe we would know who to retaliate against if SOMEONE didn't leak to the press the existence of our wiretapping program!

Or maybe we might have caught them BEFORE they were able to detonate a nuclear device or devices.

But nooooooooo! Someone was more worried about the temporary erosion of civil liberties and so a few hundred thousand Americans are vaporized. Brilliant.

Leopard Employee · May 2, 2006, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bzzzt. I'm from south of the wall.

I'm surprised we still let you northerners still wear those funny little skirts, to be honest.

Sorry Doofy so many yanks round here it easy to assume.

No tarring intended

PacHead · May 2, 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ok. Let's make it easy for you. If the gloves come off, who is the US going to attack?

What kind of a silly question is that ? The answer is whoever is responsible and their friends.

Dark Helmet · May 2, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Guys, don't worry, the UN is going to write them a strongly worded letter. And if that doesn't work, they will write another one!

True enough.

But ya, if anyone is stupid enough to Nuke North America they can kiss their country goodbye.

Doofy · May 2, 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Peteso

Sorry Doofy so many yanks round here it easy to assume.

No tarring intended

No worries ducks.

abe · May 3, 2006, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

True enough.

But ya, if anyone is stupid enough to Nuke North America they can kiss their country goodbye.

Let's assume that some of OBL's guys nuke America.

Who do we attack?

Which is what Wiskedjak asked.

Powerbook · May 3, 2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by abe

Let's assume that some of OBL's guys nuke America.

Who do we attack?

Which is what Wiskedjak asked.

That's easy. We attack the stinking Frenchies!

PB.

Doofy · May 3, 2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by abe

Let's assume that some of OBL's guys nuke America.

Who do we attack?

mecca.
Cue World War III.

And Paris. Just to make sure we get the right Paris, we'd have to take out Paris Hilton too. Just to be on the safe side.

Y3a · May 3, 2006, 12:19 PM

We would most likely Nuke Tehran, then the mountains between Iraq & Afghanistan and anywhere else that we thought terrorist cells and leaders were hiding. But don't forget the other types of weapons like Bio and advanced tech type weapons.

I think we should BOMB EARLY to avoid the rush.....

abe · May 3, 2006, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

mecca.
Cue World War III.

And Paris. Just to make sure we get the right Paris, we'd have to take out Paris Hilton too. Just to be on the safe side.

But then we'd have not only vaporized Paris, but her little dog, too!

And then we'd have to face the wrath of you-know-who!

abe · May 3, 2006, 12:53 PM

CODY DAWG!!!

abe · May 3, 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

We would most likely Nuke Tehran, then the mountains between Iraq & Afghanistan and anywhere else that we thought terrorist cells and leaders were hiding. But don't forget the other types of weapons like Bio and advanced tech type weapons.

I think we should BOMB EARLY to avoid the rush.....

Remember what happened to Michael Corleone when he killed everybody?

Lateralus · May 3, 2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Notice to terrorists: Nuke the US and the gloves will come off, none of this pussy-footing around any more. You have been warned.

Indeed. Using a nuke on the US would be like smashing a beehive.

Y3a · May 3, 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by abe

Remember what happened to Michael Corleone when he killed everybody?

You mean the FICTIONAL MOVIE??? What about REALITY?

Leopard Employee · May 3, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

You mean the FICTIONAL MOVIE??? What about REALITY?

Iran and possibly North Korea, maybe Pakistan who are behind a lot of the nuclear prolifaration and have top Jihad training centres

Oh what the hell anwhere with a name that ends in "an" or "q" why get picky at this stage

Dirka Dirka

Dirka Dirka Baccalak, jeehad

olePigeon · May 3, 2006, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Peteso

Dirka Dirka Baccalak, jeehad

Dirka dirka, Muhammad jihad!

abe · 12:53 AM

I suppose the only thing we really CAN do is to threaten to completely destroy everything a potential opponent holds dear and then hope for the best.

No, make that pray for the best.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-08

Big Mac · May 4, 2006, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by abe

Remember what happened to Michael Corleone when he killed everybody?

He lived happily ever after? abe, I got to tell you I tried to give III a chance, to watch it with your perspective in mind, but any way you look at it that film is an utter disgrace and POS in comparison to the masterpieces that preceded it. Copolla should remain eternally ashamed of that utter abomination. It has to be the worst sequel ever.

We all knew that once one Muslim country had the bomb, more would follow. And it does seem to be inevitable that as part of that process terrorists will eventually get their hands on some. America need credible deterrence against such a threat, as we had with MAD. And unfortunately the only credible deterrence of which I can conceive is stating that Mecca and Medina are in our sights in the case of a first strike from a Muslim state or terrorist group. That would be a terrible thing to have to place on the table, but that's the only kind of deterrence that would cause the terrorists to think twice.

Y3a · May 4, 2006, 08:31 AM

BOMB EARLY.....avoid the rush!

von Wrangell · May 4, 2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We all knew that once one Muslim country had the bomb, more would follow. And it does seem to be inevitable that as part of that process terrorists will eventually get their hands on some.

Why?

America need credible deterrence against such a threat, as we had with MAD. And unfortunately the only credible deterrence of which I can conceive is stating that Mecca and Medina are in our sights in the case of a first strike from a Muslim state or terrorist group. That would be a terrible thing to have to place on the table, but that's the only kind of deterrence that would cause the terrorists to think twice.

If you only had the slightest clue about the way the terrorists think you'd realise what utter crap that proposal is.

They want people like me to get involved. If the US says Mecca and Medinah are "in their sights" the terrorists will do everything possible for you to try to take out those cities. For two reasons and two reasons only.

1. Most of them believe God would stop any such attack (such as they and many Iranians believe a US operation in Iran was stopped by God) and that you would never be able to hit those cities.

2. Those who don't (calculating bastards like Zawahiri et al) know that any attempted US attack on Mecca and Medinah will bring Muslims like me and probably all Muslims in this world into this war.

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

abe · May 4, 2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

He lived happily ever after? abe, I got to tell you I tried to give III a chance, to watch it with your perspective in mind, but any way you look at it that film is an utter disgrace and POS in comparison to the masterpieces that preceded it. Copolla should remain eternally ashamed of that utter abomination. It has to be the worst sequel ever.

We all knew that once one Muslim country had the bomb, more would follow. And it does seem to be inevitable that as part of that process terrorists will eventually get their hands on some. America need credible deterrence against such a threat, as we had with MAD. And unfortunately the only credible deterrence of which I can conceive is stating that Mecca and Medina are in our sights in the case of a first strike from a Muslim state or terrorist group. That would be a terrible thing to have to place on the table, but that's the only kind of deterrence that would cause the terrorists to think twice.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Michael killed ALL his enemies and when the time came that someone wanted to reach out and touch Michael in a way he was sure to notice, it turned out that HE wasn't the one who was killed. It was the daughter he loved so much.

What benefit will it be to you if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

That was the point I was making originally but things are changing in the world right now and I am not current with my knowledge.