Wmd @ MindSay 
iraq
A: Because they had weapons
of mass destruction honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn’t find
any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t
find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden.
Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right
before the election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those
weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they
planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they
use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know
they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the
thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn’t make sense Daddy.
Why would they choose to die
if they had all those big weapons to
fight us back with?
A: It’s a different culture.
It’s not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think
they had any of those weapons our government
said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not
they had those weapons. We had another good
reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is
another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that
makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq.
China is a good economic competitor,
where millions of people work
for slave wages in sweatshops to
make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for
American corporate gain, it’s a good country,
even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to
prison and tortured.
Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the
Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government
in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor.
Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government
passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to
trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped
being communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with
Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t
that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don’t be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn’t think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have
freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China.
Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a
military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What’s a military coup?
A: That’s when a military general takes over the government
of a country by force, instead of holding free elections
like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to
power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf?
Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend
if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes
to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate
government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein.
Pervez Musharraf is our friend,
because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of
them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and
flew three of them into buildings, killing over
3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained,
under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics
who chopped off people’s heads and hands?
A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were.
Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands,
but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban
43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because
they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping
people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies,
the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands
for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s
heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut
off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if
they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands
and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical
patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to
wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death
by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional
Islamic body covering.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women
is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a
woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.
The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s
body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on
September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too.
But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets?
Was that the Evil Communist Empire
Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up
in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and
capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really.
You see, they were our friends for many years after they
stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support
our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now.
We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because
they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough
that we had to rename French fries and
French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another
country doesn’t do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends.
Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran,
which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time,
we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies
automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends
is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American
corporations can profit by selling weapons to both
sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means
war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s
side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American
Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so.
We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to
George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq
because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes!
You finally understand how the world works.
Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable,
and go to sleep.
Good night.
Today we will look today at what you need
in order to make a nuclear fission bomb.
First you need some money, as it would really help
if you were the prince, sultan or other royalty of
a small, but rich state. If not, you need to know
on a first name basis some evil leader with lots of cash,
oil, diamonds and so on, of a small but ambitious country,
with a need for revenge on the world.
Step 1 - What is a nuclear fission bomb?
Fission bombs derive their power from nuclear fission,
where heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium) are bombarded
by neutrons and split into lighter elements,
more neutrons and energy.
These newly liberated neutrons then bombard other nuclei,
which then split and bombard other nuclei, and so on,
creating a nuclear chain reaction which releases large
amounts of energy.
These are historically called atomic bombs,
atom bombs, or A-bombs, though this name is not precise
due to the fact that chemical reactions release energy
from atomic bonds (excluding bonds between nuclei)
and fusion is no less atomic than fission.
Despite this possible confusion, the term atom bomb
has still been generally accepted to refer specifically
to nuclear weapons and most commonly to pure fission
devices.
Step 2 - What do you need?
a. The fissionable material
Plutonium239 isotope. Around 25 pounds (10 kg)
would be enough. If you could find some Uranium235,
that would be good, but not great.
You would need to refine it using a gas centrifuge.
The uranium hexafluoride gas is piped in a cylinder,
which is then spun at high speed.
The rotation causes a centrifugal force that leaves
the heavier U-238 isotopes at the outside of the cylinder,
while the lighter U-235 isotopes are left at the center.
The process is repeated many times over through a
cascade of centrifuges to create uranium of the
desired level of enrichment.
To be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon,
the uranium has to be enriched to more than 90 per cent
and be produced in large quantities.
You could try buying it from a former Soviet Republic,
or from Iran, since they're trying so hard to produce it.
North Korea is not ready yet, and unfortunately,
Iraqi dealers retired from the business.
b. The explosive to start the nuclear chain reaction
100 pounds (44 kg) of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
Gelignite (an explosive material consisting of
collodion-cotton (a type of nitrocellulose or gun cotton)
dissolved in nitroglycerine and mixed with wood pulp
and sodium or potassium nitrate) would be better.
Semtex would be good too, but it's a bit hard
to get, these days.
c. The detonator
To fabricate a detonator for the device,
get a radio controlled (RC) servo mechanism,
as found in RC model airplanes and cars.
With a modicum of effort, a remote plunger
can be made that will strike a detonator cap
to effect a small explosion.
These detonation caps can be found in the electrical
supply section of your local supermarket.
If you're an electronics wiz, you should be
able to make it using a cellphone.
d. The pusher
The explosion shock wave might be of such short duration
that only a fraction of the pit is compressed at any
instant as it passes through it.
A pusher shell made out of low density metal such as
aluminium, beryllium, or an alloy of the two metals
(aluminium being easier and safer to shape but beryllium
reflecting neutrons back into the core) may be needed
and is located between the explosive lens and the tamper.
It works by reflecting some of the shock wave backwards
which has the effect of lengthening it.
The tamper or reflector might be designed to work as
the pusher too, although a low density material is best
for the pusher but a high density one for the tamper.
To maximize efficiency of energy transfer, the density
difference between layers should be minimized.
Step 3 - How to build the nuke?
You will need to get the fissile material to the critical
mass in order to start the chain reaction, which depends
upon the size, shape and purity of the material as well
as what surrounds the material.
Your weapons-grade uranium will have to be
in subcritical configuration.
First, you must arrange the uranium into two hemispherical
shapes, separated by about 4 cm.
Since it's highly radioactive, the best way do it
is to ask the friend owning the small country to let
you use one his facilities.
You could use a nuclear plant, a steel factory
or even a well equipped pharmaceutical installation
as a disguise for your plans.
It is not sufficient to pack explosive into a spherical
shell around the tamper and detonate it simultaneously
at several places because the tamper and plutonium pit
will simply squeeze out between the gaps in the detonation
front.
Instead, the shock wave must be carefully shaped into a
perfect sphere centered on the pit and traveling inwards.
This is achieved by using a spherical shell of closely
fitting and accurately shaped bodies of explosives of
different propagation speeds to form explosive lenses.
After a few careful calculations, all you need now is to
carefully pack and transport your nuclear bomb to the
targeted location.
If you happen to be an Al-Qaeda fan, you should try to
infiltrate a military facility, for the psychological effect.
Watch it, though, they are usually well guarded!
Step 4 - Disguising the bomb and placing it for detonation
The smallest nuclear warhead deployed by the United States
was the W54, which was used in the Davy Crockett recoilless
rifle; warheads in this weapon weighed about 23 kg and had
yields of 0.01 to 0.25 kilotons.
This is small in comparison to thermonuclear weapons,
but remains a very large explosion with lethal acute
radiation effects and potential for substantial fallout.
It is generally believed that the W54 may be nearly the
smallest possible nuclear weapon, though this may be only
smallest by weight or volume, not simply smallest diameter.
The best way to disguise it would be in the form of
an ordinary appliance, like a copier, a widescreen TV set,
or any other inconspicuous electronic device.
Now, all you have to do is transport it to the selected
location and get to a safe distance of a few tens of miles,
but not far enough to get out of the range of the remote
detonator. That is why a cellphone is strongly recommended
for its wide range capabilities.
Thats about all there is to it,
Well gotta go, I hear some one knocking at my door.
For those of you who do not follow the news very much or possibly you follow only selective portions of the news because in this day and age local political and geopolitical news is so immense that Joe American must pick and choose the news to follow as one perceives the effect the information has on our interests or lives.
Thus here is a tidbit of news you may have heard or not heard of: old Usama bin Laden (UBL) from location unknown but probably the Waziristan region of Northern Pakistan created an audio message to Pakistanis proclaiming President Pervez Musharraf as an a fakir (infidel) and a shirk (polytheist). Due to this proclamation Pakistanis should rise up and depose and assassinate Musharraf.
Also the audio addressed the Pakistan military to stand down and do nothing as the people rise up to through out the American loving apostate Musharraf.
Since the thrill of hearing UBL for the first time in years is wearing off the news coverage of the implications of how this may affect Pakistan and vis-a-vie the United States has somewhat worn off.
Steve Schippert writing for ThreatsWatch.org offers a remarkable analysis of Pakistan’s potential future which would not be good for America. Schippert believes Al-Qaeda has been operating a patient campaign to win the allegiance of various tribal territories in Pakistan. The Musharraf signing away of government control of Waziristan is an example of Al-Qaeda/Taliban interests gaining autonomous victory over the Pakistan military.
Here is something to think about that Schippert may not have known when writing his Pakistan threat analysis: Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto intends to return to Pakistan after being in exile since 1999. Benazir is the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Ali Bhutto served both as President and Prime Minister of Pakistan. Ali Bhutto was quite popular with the Pakistani people, however the will to retain power led to a clash of wills with other ethnic elites in Pakistan led to Ali Bhutto’s demise. In a dubious trial that was considered rigged by Bhutto ethnic enemies found him guilty of corruption and murder. The military dictator of the time General Zia-ul-Hak made the execution was carried out.
Daughter Benazir Bhutto has also been popular, yet unproven accusations by the Bhutto family enemies had her deposed for charges of corruption. There is an underlying implication that Benazir’s exile is ending to counter the growing popularity of radical Islam in Pakistan. The Pakistan military and Musharraf have not publicly welcomed her back. Nawaz Sharif is another deposed Prime Minister who was sent back into exile to Saudi Arabia has Benazir not to trust Musharraf. Time will tell just how desperate Musharraf is.
WorldNetDaily has sourced the London Sunday Times report of Alexis Debat of the Nixon Center alluding that the Pentagon is planning a three day blitz to cripple the Iranian military and knock out Iran’s capability.
I realize this is a he-said she-said line of reporting which usually ends up adding or leaving out details by the time the last media source publishes what they know; however the talk has been in the background for some time.
Often times these are clandestine government releases intended as warnings or to get a feel for the potential public reaction by individuals and various nations. If the intent is a warning to Iran of imminent hostilities the War on Terror is about to move up to the next level.
The next level response is really unknown. Many experts believe Iran is capable to escalate the stakes themselves. Some experts believe such a military strike will ruin the Iranian economy thus neutralizing Iranian responses.
Time will tell if America’s intentions are ready to initiate the next level or if it is merely saber rattling to match Iranian saber rattling.
There is something fishy about George Tenet. He has begun his public appearances to publicize his tell-all book “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA.” Tenet is basically lining up on the Democratic Party side pertaining to the invasion of Iraq.
My first reaction is: What in the world was President Bush retaining an intelligence Director from the Clinton Administration. That was dumb.
My second reaction is: Tenet is telling a different story in his book than what he told Congressional hearings that led to the invasion of Iraq. That makes Tenet a liar who does not want history to blame him if the Democrats write the history books.
Tenet originated the expression that it was a “slam dunk” that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Saddam’s Iraq. There is even an implication that the lack of finding WMD was a cover-up (by unknown agencies or people) because lack of military man power allowed Saddam loyalists, Syria or Russia to covertly extricate the WMD. That would be a screw-up that Tenet would probably be aware of.
Victor Davis Hanson castigates Tenet on differences from book and public statements of record pertaining to al Qaeda involvement in Saddam’s Iraq.
Thanks to Sandy Berger (Clinton’s Chief of Staff) shredding classified documents that never made it to the pertinent commissions, thus inaccurate conclusions was made pertaining to WMD and al Qaeda involvement.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
