I don’t know anything about Tatayna Sinitsyna or her commentary for RIA Novosti. I tend not to prejudge writers because of where they’re publishing; however, this opinion piece raises a couple of questions which have already occurred to me.
Nuclear physicist Alexander Borovoi, a professor at the Kurchatov Institute research center, pinpointed my cause of concern: “The worst part of the story is that it was like a rehearsal for a dirty bomb. The incident shows that something dangerous is cooking in the terrorist kitchen, with menacing ideas and plans that can generally be described as a crime.”
Experience and history tell me not to have a whole boatload of confidence in the ethics of any nation’s security services. But, the requisites for wacking an individual — Litvinenko or whoever — are as simple as Borovoi said. Why use something so expensive and dangerous?
Certainly, the Russian government benefits from pointing blame in another direction. But, what if they’re correct?
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Uh, Lamont Cranston
Eidard, I think you pegged this as misdirection by the Russian govt.
Check a recent Popular Mechanics podcast in which they discuss the KGB’s history of using radioactive material to assassinate defectors. Also, polonium is non-lethal unless it is ingested, so not exactly ideal dirty-bomb material.
The media’s missing the boat on this one. This wasn’t murder. Nobody’s going to use polonium as a poison when there are far better poisons that don’t cost millions of dollars.
These assholes were smuggling, most likely. For what ends? That’s the mystery.
Dirty Bombs don’t exist. They are a useless tool of terror as they are not as efficient as a regular explosive with immediate results. Our media just makes them sound very scary.
#4. except that the KGB definitely used radiological materials to assassinate defectors during the Cold War. This was not just a murder, it was a message – you dissidents are no more safe now than you were then.
1, dirty bombs do work, and they dont need to be big…Just something that can cause havok and disperse airborn material(which isnt that easy)
2. Iv pointed out before, that there are easyier, cheaper, ways to cause terror then to WIPE 2 large buildings off the planet.. Give me access to about 150 people, and I waill cause more Havok, terror, and really cost alot to the US economy. And the odds are I would survive.
And the best part is that its been proven, twice, to work.
People see terrorism in everything nowadays. Bin Laden got what he wished for.
More people would die from the mass panic and evacuation of a large city because of a “dirty bomb” scare then died in the WTC. The financial damage would be 100 times what the WTC cost as all that real estate, buildings, and contents now become worthless.
It doesn’t matter that the amount would to be too small to actually injure anyone, too many people would just refuse to have anything to do with it.
Thank you for the fear factor Mr. Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney.
Somebody with the funds needed to buy this type of radioactive material is not having any problem using it. Who that is may be impossible for the moment to find out. But eventually it will become known.
What makes it look bad for Russia is that to many of those who thumb their noses at Putin are becoming the victims of one form of death or another.
Mr. Fusion……it would be nice if you could learn some new notes in your same old song. You blame Bush, Cheney, Rummie and Ashcroft for everything that comes down the pike. Terrorism and fear of them has been a fact of life since the late 60’s. Back then they were called left wing death squads or right wing death squads, or plane highjackers or numerous other things, but they were mostly middle east terror groups.
Bush and company didn’t cause them or precede them, they didn’t invent war or stupid goverment. Maybe, if your hero Clinton HAD gone to war in the mid-ninties maybe there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, or a 7/11 or a Madrid, or a Bali, or a Turkey or 1000 Iraqi’s a week dying……who knows….9/11 happened 9 months into Bush’s first term, it wasn’t planned during that time, it was planned long before…..as much as I hate this war, I don’t see what Bush did as anything that any sitting President wouldn’t have done, or been expected to do.
People forget that when Bush first came into office he was tested by the Chinese, and he handled it very well, no loss of face for anyone and the issue was resolved….peacefully….but when you have an enemy, strike at the heart of your largest city, kill 3000 people, attempt to destroy your military headquarters and possibly even your legislative buildings or the White House……one of Bill Clintons, **I feel your pain** speechs wasn’t going to cut it. How the war has progressed is another story, and how it could have been done differently is also another story. But hindsight is 20/20 as they say. But blaming the hatred of this country totally on Bush and Co. is just factually wrong.
#10, joshua, you really aren’t taking the Republican lose of Congress very well.
You blame Bush, Cheney, Rummie and Ashcroft for everything that comes down the pike
Have you forgotten the press conference where Ashcroft wanted us all to duct tape ourselves in the closet? Cover our doors and windows with plastic sheeting? Spy on our neighbors? Color code the risk level with no explanation what it meant? Fear is a greater source of danger then most attacks. Hey, the paranoia is working.
Gee, that sure wasn’t Clinton who ignored the August Security briefing to take another vacation in Texas.
Maybe, if your hero Clinton HAD gone to war in the mid-ninties maybe there wouldn’t have been a 9/11, or a 7/11 or a Madrid, or a Bali, or a Turkey or 1000 Iraqi’s a week dying……who knows….
Or we could have had ten 9/11s, our streets could be littered with radio active waste, our hospitals filled with anthrax victims, no airplanes flying because of the danger. Right, we don’t know and to suggest such and such would or would not have happened is pure speculation. Something worthy of Fox News talking heads.
Clinton gave us prosperity. He made Americans proud. Well, except for the sexually frustrated evangelicals and neo-cons. America had good relations with other countries and was highly respected by most countries as a world leader. Not to mention the dollar was worth a lot more.
I don’t see what Bush did as anything that any sitting President wouldn’t have done, or been expected to do.
I wouldn’t have expected my President to continue reading a story about “My Little Goat”. I wouldn’t have expected my President to allow the mastermind to escape because he wouldn’t send sufficient troops to Afghanistan. I wouldn’t have expected my President to arrest and hold thousands of middle eastern men and Muslims solely because of their race and religion. I wouldn’t have expected my President to alienate most of the world’s nations. I wouldn’t expect my President to ignore the law and Constitution he was sworn to uphold. I wouldn’t have expected my President to lie to Americans and Congress in order to start a war.
And I wouldn’t have expected my President to spend almost as much time relaxing in Crawford Texas as working in the White House.
People forget that when Bush first came into office he was tested by the Chinese, and he handled it very well, no loss of face for anyone and the issue was resolved….peacefully….
After our airmen were held for several days and the plane was stripped by the Chinese. America lost face on that deal. Instead of sending several carriers to the area, Bush backed off and talked nicely with the same people that caused a serious mid air collision.
…blaming the hatred of this country totally on Bush and Co. is just factually wrong.
Bush was the man who told us he would unite Americans. He lied. From the time he entered office, he worked to divide Americans. Republicans in general have been trying to alienate the middle class. True, they don’t get 100% of the blame, but since they controlled the government, they had the onus to offer the olive branch.
OK
WOW, I got edited.
Lets see now…
Its NOT what they say, its what they DO.
And they Only Show the Good stuff, and Hide and bury the BAD.
THEY now want to keep the secrets act from 20 years to 50, WHY??
Did they REALLy screw up back then?? Or really bad now.
Lets not forget,
They dumped the Utility controls and regulations, and that electricity is NOW a commodity, to be bought sold, and then SOLD to you after its gone up 2-3 times, then profit added.
HOW about the idea that we see prices in the stock exchange going up for GAS, but OPEC keeps their prices around $23-25 per barrel, and we are paying Commodity prices for OUR OWN OIL(at an average profit of $1 per gallon, PROFIT)
That the USA gov SAVED the airlinesand AUTO industry years ago, and they STILL havent learned good busness.
Why is our gov trying to protect BUSINESS from falling/failing.. When it doesnt compete, and those at the top want more money then ALL of us put together.
#10, seems to me Clinton did in fact send a few rockets over to wipe out what had fairly reliably been reported as a WMD plant. Forget where. I do remember Republicans pulling their standard sneer-n-smear against him, buying into the cover propaganda – the whole “bombed an aspirin factory” canard.
Then there was the Kosovo involvement. Do you recall what Dubya said about that?
“Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President of the United States to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” Dubya said that.
The man sure can posture.
but even with his Posture, He still slumped over…
There is so much evidence that it was not terrorists who are committing acts of terrorism, but rather Western spy agencies.
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/911.html