(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what?

I suggest you brush up on your readings of radiological weapons. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

This ISIS is not only one of the most cruel groups, but one of the
smartest. They are a huge threat.

(07-10-2014 05:33 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

This is mostly correct. They could explode a shopping bag full of bananas, call it a dirty bomb, and people would fall over themselves in panic.

I'm allergic to bananas.

(07-11-2014 03:15 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what?

I suggest you brush up on your readings of radiological weapons. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What are you disputing?

(07-10-2014 07:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama INHERITED a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama withdrew everyone, and this is what you get.

Al Qaida was dessimated under Bush. Just two years ago, Obama said Al Qaida was on the run. ISIS is all on Obama.

And Boko Haram is all on Obama and Hillary.

This is Obamas issue. Even if we never went into Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't matter. We didn't go into Syria, and look at that place now.

And for those who continue to insist that Al-Qaida was never present in Iraq, this group used to call themselves Al-Qaida in Iraq. They are so vile that the real Al-Qaida wants nothing to do with them. Until we withdrew, these people knew to leave Iraq alone. Only a simpleton would be disconnected enough to not see the dotted line between our withdrawal and their appearance in Iraq. Delusional...

(07-11-2014 10:09 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  And for those who continue to insist that Al-Qaida was never present in Iraq, this group used to call themselves Al-Qaida in Iraq. They are so vile that the real Al-Qaida wants nothing to do with them. Until we withdrew, these people knew to leave Iraq alone. Only a simpleton would be disconnected enough to not see the dotted line between our withdrawal and their appearance in Iraq. Delusional...

Their argument is that it was bound to happen anyways...

*scoff*

Iraqis threw their weapons down and basically surrendered to this group. But it's Bush's fault, and don't you never ever forget it. He's the only one responsible for everything before AND after his presidency. Oh, and during.

(07-11-2014 03:15 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what?

I suggest you brush up on your readings of radiological weapons. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not sure who's arguing what anymore, but here is Stratfor's assessment from a few years ago...

It should also be noted that anyone could gather up similar amounts of Uranium as ISIS by sifting through their back yard. Separating it out is somewhat more difficult.

Dirty Bombs Revisited: Combating the Hype | Stratfor

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_...z37C1jZoVh Wrote:Just last week, we read a newspaper article in which a purported expert interviewed by the reporter discussed how a dirty bomb would "immediately cause hundreds or even thousands of deaths." This is simply not true. A number of radiological accidents have demonstrated that a dirty bomb will not cause this type of death toll. Indeed, the panic generated by a dirty bomb attack could very well result in more immediate deaths than the detonation of the device itself. Unfortunately, media stories hyping the threat of these devices may foster such panic, thus increasing the death toll. To counter this irrational fear, we feel it is time once again to discuss dirty bombs in detail and provide our readers with a realistic assessment of the threat they pose.
...
A dirty bomb is a type of radiological dispersal device (RDD), and RDDs are, as the name implies, devices that disperse a radiological isotope.
...
To cause adverse effects, radiation exposure must occur either in a very high dose over a short period or in smaller doses sustained over a longer period. This is not to say that radiation is not dangerous, but rather the idea that the slightest amount of exposure to radiation causes measurable harm is not accurate.

By its very nature, the RDD is contradictory. Maximizing the harmful effects of radiation involves maximizing the exposure of the victims to the highest possible concentration of a radioisotope.
...
The attackers hope that notice of their attack will cause mass panic -- in other words, the RDD is a weapon of fear and terror.

(07-11-2014 03:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:15 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Some people overreacted to a perceived threat. So what?

I suggest you brush up on your readings of radiological weapons. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not sure who's arguing what anymore, but here is Stratfor's assessment from a few years ago...

It should also be noted that anyone could gather up similar amounts of Uranium as ISIS by sifting through their back yard. Separating it out is somewhat more difficult.

Dirty Bombs Revisited: Combating the Hype | Stratfor

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_...z37C1jZoVh Wrote:Just last week, we read a newspaper article in which a purported expert interviewed by the reporter discussed how a dirty bomb would "immediately cause hundreds or even thousands of deaths." This is simply not true. A number of radiological accidents have demonstrated that a dirty bomb will not cause this type of death toll. Indeed, the panic generated by a dirty bomb attack could very well result in more immediate deaths than the detonation of the device itself. Unfortunately, media stories hyping the threat of these devices may foster such panic, thus increasing the death toll. To counter this irrational fear, we feel it is time once again to discuss dirty bombs in detail and provide our readers with a realistic assessment of the threat they pose.
...
A dirty bomb is a type of radiological dispersal device (RDD), and RDDs are, as the name implies, devices that disperse a radiological isotope.
...
To cause adverse effects, radiation exposure must occur either in a very high dose over a short period or in smaller doses sustained over a longer period. This is not to say that radiation is not dangerous, but rather the idea that the slightest amount of exposure to radiation causes measurable harm is not accurate.

By its very nature, the RDD is contradictory. Maximizing the harmful effects of radiation involves maximizing the exposure of the victims to the highest possible concentration of a radioisotope.
...
The attackers hope that notice of their attack will cause mass panic -- in other words, the RDD is a weapon of fear and terror.

All I'm arguing is that a radiological weapon is more dangerous than people think. People underestimate the chaos that would ensue upon dispersion of radioactive materials. The primary function of a radiological weapon is more statement oriented, and not designed to kill mass quantities (there doesn't even have to be physical damage). An effective radiological weapon will incite fear and panic, and cause extensive economic loss. It isn't always the case that an RDD non-explosive. --Imagine that being the case on Wall st in NYC. Lots of damage, radioactive materials dispersed through the air in NY, mass panic, chaos and confusion as people flee the area. Many would not return to work or the city for quite some time. The amount of death, destruction and economic loss from something like that would be extensive.

There's a big push right now to increase the security of all radioactive materials.

(07-10-2014 07:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 07:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  They could kill more people with a typical roadside bomb.

Indeed.

But even a relatively ineffective dirty bomb exploded in Times Square is going to cause far more panic than a conventional bomb.

Remember, terrorism isn't about causing the most casualties, it is about causing the most panic. The 9/11 jihadists could have caused far more casualties has they waited until the following Saturday and flown just one plane into any number of football stadiums.

In the article they said it wasn't even suitable for a dirty bomb.

And in case you guys forgot, Bush had lots of years to have his people destroy every bit of uranium - let's see, 5 years? Why is it suddenly Obama's fault? Besides, if the stuff is radioactive enough to harm other people, it's going to harm the ISIS guys handling it, unless they have NBC outfits for everyone. I'm sure that wouldn't attract attention.

You guys are just looking for stuff to blame Obama for because Bush's war ended up like some predicted, and completely different than the neocons thought it would.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Obama INHERITED a stable and democratic Iraq. Obama withdrew everyone, and this is what you get.

Al Qaida was dessimated under Bush. Just two years ago, Obama said Al Qaida was on the run. ISIS is all on Obama.

And Boko Haram is all on Obama and Hillary.

This is Obamas issue. Even if we never went into Iraq in the first place, it wouldn't matter. We didn't go into Syria, and look at that place now.

Iraq was more stable under Hussein than it's ever been since. And it's never been much of a democracy unless you consider a Shia government a democracy. It was such a wonderful democracy that as soon as we're not there to hold their hands, after 10 years no less, it falls apart.

Bush spent so much time worrying about Iraq he forgot that it was Bin Laden that attacked us. And it only took him a few months, if that, to forget.

So it was more "stable" under Hussein (forget war with Iran, forget invading Kuwait, forget gassing 10's of thousands of his "own" people) and clearly more stable under Bush than it is now, by a long shot. And you want to place the blame where? Why aren't we there to "hold their hands"? Which of course is a preposterous notion.

We needed a credible number of troops there to keep things moving in the direction they were. When it was clear that we were going to cut and run, guess what? Opportunity presents itself, opportunists will gleefully take advantage.

Did you expect Hussein to remain alive forever? If we hadn't gone in when we did, (irrelevant at this point, though) according to you this would have come about with his death anyway. So, again, what do we do NOW? Nothing? allow indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people we told we were there to liberate? Resigning our credibility to the dust bin of history for a generation or more?

We have already taken a large step in that direction with the Red Line stupidity in Syria, Putin making a fool of our liar in chief and back to back incompetent Secretaries of State and having NO response to Russia invading their neighbors. We can't even get a Marine out of that cesspool below us and schitty little countries like Guatemala and Honduras make a mockery of our federal laws and federal government.

You think all this stuff happens because America is too strong? We, following the lead of the least qualified person to ever occupy the White House are now simply a paper tiger.

As good a place as any, why did this not get more coverage than it has, as in NONE? They found, what, where? Not only does the terrorist army now have uranium, they have also seized a CHEMICAL WEAPONS cache with mustard, sarin and sodium cyanide. Funny, I didn't think there was any WMD in Irag???...

http://rt.com/news/171388-iraq-loses-che...ons-depot/

(07-10-2014 11:27 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 05:16 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

We shouldn't have gone in the first place. No matter how many troops we sent in or how long we stayed, their government would have fallen and country exploded into war. Many said this would be the out come before we went in over a decade ago. The only thing that kept them from fight was the fear of Saddam and his Fedayeen. He was terrible and needed to die, but in a place as unstable as Iraq he is, as bad as it is to say, the only type of person who can keep both sides in check by making fear him. Iraq and Afghanistan have never had a stable government last more than 50 years in their history. I hate so say because there good people there that just want to live their lives and be left alone, but those are two places that should be walled off from the rest of the world. There is no fixing or stabilizing them.

Looked pretty good until Obama phucked it up.

I just desise the pompous, self fulfilled liberal response to the debacle brewing in Iraq: "Iraq is a catastrophe. Told you so"

WUT? 600,000+ dead. sectarian violence, rape, murder, kidnappings, IEDS, Fallujah, UN office being bombed, the bombing of the Al-Askai Mosque (the Golden Mosgue), Sadr City. Things were a chite sandwich long before 2008.

Try reading the history of the area, it was going to happen, said before we even went in. Unless you want to keep a permeant force there of around 60,000, then maybe.

Another straw man argument. You're good at those.

I'm not looking but pretty sure the Generals in charge at the time put the number at around 20-30k. That's the size of one small town or city in this Country, AND it's what those guys do. It's an all volunteer force and instead we're firing a bunch of them indiscriminately. Certain recipe for disaster and only invites more of this world wide.

The world does NOT love us simply because your savior arrived on the stage with the fake Greek columns. Matter of fact, a lot of people out there would like to see me, you and everyone else around here dead.

Keep giving them an inch...

(07-11-2014 05:29 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  All I'm arguing is that a radiological weapon is more dangerous than people think. People underestimate the chaos that would ensue upon dispersion of radioactive materials. The primary function of a radiological weapon is more statement oriented, and not designed to kill mass quantities (there doesn't even have to be physical damage). An effective radiological weapon will incite fear and panic, and cause extensive economic loss. It isn't always the case that an RDD non-explosive. --Imagine that being the case on Wall st in NYC. Lots of damage, radioactive materials dispersed through the air in NY, mass panic, chaos and confusion as people flee the area. Many would not return to work or the city for quite some time. The amount of death, destruction and economic loss from something like that would be extensive.

There's a big push right now to increase the security of all radioactive materials.

I'd quibble with your wording... You seem to argue that it poses more risk than people think, not that it is more dangerous. I think it is far less dangerous than most people think by a long shot. But I will agree that the risk is due to evacuation and cleanup... The chaos is due to irrational fear of any radiation whatsoever.

I also think you need to distinguish between a low yield nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb.

But, it looks like your objection is to (paraphrasing) "people will panic, so what?"

I get a little bit careless with my wording here..let's see. Are we arguing all radiological weapons here? explosive & nonexplosive RDDs?

(07-11-2014 09:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  You seem to argue that it poses more risk than people think
Yes
not that it is more dangerous. I think it is far less dangerous than most people think by a long shot.
Yes and no, it depends on the audience. Those who don't the effects of dispersing radioactive materials may think the worst possible scenario. So in that sense, I agree it's not as dangerous as most people think. Those who brush off the idea simply because some don't go "bang" seem to underestimate the potential for danger. An IED (let's say a fertilizer truck or something similar) fixed with radioactive materials is still a radiological weapon. That can be physically destructive and have other adverse effects.

But I will agree that the risk is due to evacuation and cleanup... The chaos is due to irrational fear of any radiation whatsoever. Completely agree, although with a non-explosive device, most of the harm will be economic and psychological.

I also think you need to distinguish between a low yield nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb. Not talking nuclear at all.

But, it looks like your objection is to (paraphrasing) "people will panic, so what?" I certainly do object to that.

Just my two cents from the week of summer school I spent reading about these things. That's certainly not enough time to get a good grasp on all things radiological, and I've got a lot to learn.

I think the bigger question surrounds successful use. Many have argued terrorists make the attempt, but I'm not sold on the chances of that happening (I hope not anyway).

Anyone with a basic understanding of how a dirty bomb works knows that the bomb itself isn't the most dangerous component, it is the panic and chaos that will ensue after the device is detonated.

As relatively harmless as this material ISIS now possesses is, all any of the general public has to hear is it was used as a dirty bomb in Manhattan, Los Angeles, etc. and the panic would be at an unprecedented level in this country. Everyone alive today has been conditioned that anything radioactive is deadly, despite the fact that we are exposed to radiation constantly in our everyday lives. Mass panic is as dangerous as anything there is as witnessed by the Bethnal Greene air raid shelter disaster in 1943, the Al-Aaimmah bridge disaster in 2005, and the Khmer Water Festival disaster in 2010.

obama created isis when he killed bin laden*.


*makes at least as much sense as "bush created isis when he deposed hussein". dumba$$es

Heck, why are you all so nervous? You die, you die. Everyday there are gays performing sex on themselves without protection, risking aids. Everyday there are mosquitoes biting people giving them so many illnesses with unpronounceable names (and these mosquitoes kill 2.7 million people worldwide), everyday there are dumb S's drinking and driving, texting and driving or drinking and texting and driving. Everyday a whole bunch of deer are running into cars on highways and killing more people than tornadoes yearly. Don't be afraid of a little ol' bomb.

Don't be afraid to die, it's natural.

(07-12-2014 10:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Heck, why are you all so nervous? You die, you die. Everyday there are gays performing sex on themselves without protection, risking aids. Everyday there are mosquitoes biting people giving them so many illnesses with unpronounceable names (and these mosquitoes kill 2.7 million people worldwide), everyday there are dumb S's drinking and driving, texting and driving or drinking and texting and driving. Everyday a whole bunch of deer are running into cars on highways and killing more people than tornadoes yearly. Don't be afraid of a little ol' bomb.

Don't be afraid to die, it's natural.

It is, indeed. I'm also starting to think its the zerOcare health plan.

If you do not believe blowing this uranium up in a bomb would create a choatic situation, just look what a pressure cooker filled with nails did in Boston. Then, consider whether you believe Uranium being confirmed to being blown up would have a larger or lesser impact than the pressure cooker.

And forget about it being in a bomb, what would happen if it was poured into a water supply.

(07-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/10/...ay-threat/

This is why you dont pull all of the troops out. THis is also why we should be scared sh*tless that this guy keeps getting surprised by actions occurring in the world under his watch.

You know the man is so busy creating Sandyhook conspiracies, I'm amazed that he still has time to deliver Uranium to ISIS.

(07-11-2014 10:11 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I get a little bit careless with my wording here..let's see. Are we arguing all radiological weapons here? explosive & nonexplosive RDDs?

(07-11-2014 09:14 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I also think you need to distinguish between a low yield nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb.

Not talking nuclear at all.

I was addressing your prior comment...

(07-11-2014 05:29 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  It isn't always the case that an RDD non-explosive. --Imagine that being the case on Wall st in NYC.

I think you meant that some RDDs are non-explosive? With that comment, I thought you were referring to a low-yield nuclear device.

At any rate, I don't think it matters whether it's a bomb or someone with a salt shaker and a bunch of dried, ground up, bananas.