Brussels Bombers Filmed Nuclear Researchers, Hoped To Build A "Dirty Bomb," Expert Says (nbcnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The brothers behind this week's Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called "dirty bomb," an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats told NBC News on Thursday. Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher's house, according to Claude Moniquet, a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe's nuclear sector. This camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family. "The terrorist cell ... naively believed they could use him to penetrate a lab to obtain nuclear material to make a dirty bomb," Moniquet, CEO of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center privacy consultancy said. The researcher worked at a center which stored a "significant portion of the world's supply of radioisotopes," according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. These isotopes are used in hospitals and factories around the world but can also be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a device that could spread radioactive material across a wide area.

Comments

Naively?

[mveloso]

I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.

Re:Naively?

[khasim]

The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

It's the news shows that have played up the "threat" of a "dirty bomb".

Re:Naively?

[matbury]

If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

If their intent is to destroy ...

[Taco Cowboy]

I, as an immigrant to the West, appreciate what I have gotten, and am still getting, and I do my best to contribute back to the society

On the other hand, I do know that there are other immigrants who not only do not appreciate what the West has offered them, they intend to disrupt, even to destroy the very society that gave them a helping hand when they need it

The one thing that I find about the Western people - mainly the Whites - are that they are being very kind, too kind some times

While that might be a good trait, it might also turn into a weakness

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

I dunno

I, as an immigrant to the West, is very very angry with those motherfuckers --- if it is up to me, those motherfuckers would be deported yesterday, every single fucking one of them

I mean, if those immigrants don't appreciate what the West has given them, they should move the fuck OUT

Stop using religion or whatever fucking excuse to carry out their despicable act

I don't care who they are, if I invite a guess into my house and that guess start to make trouble, he or she will either be thrown out, or a bullet in the head

But the, I am only an immigrant from China --- and my opinion, of course, can not represent that of the hosts - the White folks who have endless tolerance towards motherfuckers who create troubles

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[dbIII]

In my opinion Islam is utterly incompatible with ANY other culture in the long run

Hundreds of years of history says otherwise. Various troubles have been equivalent to Christian groups fighting each other but we tend to forget that because it's easier to see problems on the outside.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Bing Tsher E]

It's a serious mistake to label the threat 'Islam.'

The terrorists are an extreme branch of Islam. They embrace an antiquated literal interpretation of the Koran. Most Muslims are not like them.

There are a huge number of Muslims in the world, and if you 'draw the line' by grouping them with the human-garbage terrorists of ISIS and Al Quida, you're pushing a lot of people who can and will be our allies over to the other side. The problems in the Islamic world won't be solved by killing them all or forcing them all to convert to another religion. We need their help to fix things.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Braintrust]

I disagree.

The mistake, in my opinion is not acknowledging that the problem IS Islam in its entirety.

There are currently 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Do I think every last one of them is out to kill the infidel with every waking breath? Of course not.

I am convinced, however, that Islam is not just a religion. It has no separation of church and state by its very nature, and it is the very definition of a totalitarian ideology.

How do I know this? I've done the reading.

When people compare Islam to Christianity (disclaimer, not a Christian), the only real way that comparison is even remotely sound is to compare something in its current form (Islam) to something as it existed centuries ago.

Even then, a pre-Reformation, height-of-the-Inquisition Christianity was a very different philosophy than Islam has always been and continues to be.

At the core, the teachings of Christ are very very different than the teachings of Muhammad. Source? Again, I've done the reading.

Muhammad carried a sword, personally led armies into battle, and one of the central tenants of Islam, and you can deny this all you want, is to spread that Ummah until it encompasses the whole globe.

What Jesus had to say was far, far more benign, and the proper comparison to make between Jesus and another religious 'prophet' is to compare his philosophy to that of Buddha.

Buddha and Jesus would have got along fabulously.

Muhammad would have tried to convert both of them to Islam at the tip of a sword.

As another point, Hinduism is also a quite benign theology in comparison to Islam.

I'm sorry, the history of Islam is predatory, expansionist, and almost always violent.

The only reason everybody seems to have forgotten that, is that with the gradual embrace of science by Christendom over the last few hundred years, the mostly-Christian West has been so wildly successful and advanced so far beyond the rest of the world technologically, that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire one hundred years ago, yes, Islam, for the first time since it's creation, didn't pose a material threat to everyone else.

Now, the West has shared their science with everybody, the playing field is again much more level, and once again, Islam has the means to try and spread that pesky Ummah, which again, is one of the sole doctrines of the ideology that is Islam.

Once again, Source? Did the reading.

Re-read my first post in this thread. Learn about the Crusades. Learn about Vienna, Tours, the Barbary Pirates, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not making this shit up. I wish I were. I really do.

TL:DR You are the one making the serious mistake.

p.s. Most estimates (did the reading) put the percentage of Muslims that we would consider 'radical' at about 20-30%.

That's 300-500 million 'radicals', and if you think that sounds preposterous, you're not paying attention to everything that's going on in the world.

Most estimates (DTR) put the percentage of 'radical' Christians world-wide at a fraction of 1%. There are 2.2 billion Christians, so you're still talking about 10-20 million potentially dangerous Christians, just to be fair. There are indeed nutjobs to be found everywhere. Islam just has far, far more than everybody else.

Cheers.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Again, I've done the reading.... you can deny this all you want

It doesn't matter if some internet poster is in denial about what the book actually says or not. However it very much matters if believers deny it, and many do. Something nearly all religions have in common is there are people who will bend, reinterpret, or ignore what is supposedly written in stone. If someone read the Bible cover to cover, do you expect them to predict and understand what various Christian sects and people say and believe? I've seen Jewish, Christian and Muslim arguments where both sides were claiming the exact same passage was proof the other is wrong. People can have vary widely different views of what the gist of a bunch of text is too. "Doing the reading" can't and won't teach you that.

Re:If their intent is to destroy ...

[Tom]

If Christians were in the same social and economic situation as the Muslims are right now they would behave exactly the same.

There are Christians living in the Middle East. A minority yes, but a few millions. Never heard of them becoming terrorists, maybe you can enlighten us?

Stop the excuses. Christians might react violently as well, yes. But claiming they would behave exactly the same is the exact reductionism you rail against. No, they would not. Maybe similar, maybe not, but definitely not exactly.

Islam is part of the problem. Maybe a small part, maybe a big part, that's an interesting discussion. But claiming its contribution is zero is delusional.

Re:It's not forever a pipe dream

[Zontar The Mindless]

Thereby guaranteeing the enmity of every Muslim on the planet. Which is exactly what Daesh want. Thanks for letting us know who you're working for.

Terrorism

[Etherwalk]

The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

You're thinking like an engineer, not a terrorist. The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic, and in this case overreaction that ultimately leads to an invasion which they can claim is a holy war against Islam.

A bomb the press can call "nuclear" will get more press coverage and a LOT more concern and reaction than an IED. Not necessarily because of a worse effect, but because laypeople are afraid of and do not understand science. That's why MRI's are called MRI's today instead of nMRI's. That's why a movies and television shows can warn against reactors exploding, when nuclear reactors do NOT explode. A dirty bomb can scare people more, and that helps terrorists.

You've also got the possibility of a propaganda radiation murder like when Putin had that guy in the UK murdered with... I think soup? That gets a lot of coverage.

Re:Terrorism

[dbIII]

when nuclear reactors do NOT explode

One did. It may have been a steam explosion but bits did go everywhere at high speed. Going off like an atomic bomb is of course a different story.

Here is why that did not happen

[dbIII]

Bin Laden was one of those "1%", an oil millionaire from a family that are still oil millionaires. The people in Saudi Arabia who were found to be funding ISIS were also part of that "1%" - more accurate to say 0.01% or far less though.
Bin Laden did not want to blow up the people in the middle east who made the decisions he disagreed with by inviting the west in, he wanted to kill some of us "worthless" westerners to scare us into actions that would force the people in the middle east to kick westerners out. He liked the "1%" but the "99%" were targets.

There's no point looking at it like a popular uprising instead of bloodthirsty games played by medieval style aristocrats or proxies of them - the "99%" are just targets and useful idiots and not active participants who are influencing the situation.

So somehow beyond all logic those really smart terrorists who plan these attacks are really, really stupid because they make smart plans to attack stupid targets, targets that gain them nothing but do ensure more money, a lot more money is spent fighting those terrorists

Useful idiots sent in to stir up trouble and drive a wedge between the west and anyone in the middle east that will work with us.

Here comes the apologist ...

[Taco Cowboy]

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them ... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on ...
 
Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

Get on with REALITY, folks !

Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!

Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[dbIII]

To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse. In no way am I an apologist for them and I find it incredibly insulting that you wish to pretend that I am. I also pity you for falling for the excuse from those pig fucking pieces of shit that their God told them to do it. How can you swallow that shit? When Manson said that shit we didn't fall for it - why should we fall for it with this bunch of killers instead?

Re:Not an apologist, don't pretend I'm strawman

[Barsteward]

if you are going to blame Islam then you have to tar all the abrahamic holy books with the same brush. they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people, none of those books/ideologies are innocent. All those books should be burnt as books of hatred.