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?

[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 ...

[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

[khasim]

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective.

But they aren't. In the USofA, you are more likely to be killed while moving furniture than by a terrorist.

If someone kills you tomorrow, it will probably be someone you know (friend or family) or a traffic accident.

I used to work for an insurance company. You could get a "terrorism" rider on your policy at additional cost. That cost? $1. And it was pure profit for the company.

The problem is that our news agencies and politicians are SELLING the idea of a terrorism threat for their own benefit.

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.

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.

Not So Fast...

[IBitOBear]

Nuclear Material in/near Reactors Secure's Itself.

Dry fuel pellets are harmless.

Fuel rods are made by welding dry pellets into steel I-Beams or similar big, heavy, structures.

Used (wet) fuel pellets are _fantastically_ _dangerous_ to handle, so much so that they have to kept wet at all times to keep them from roasting everything while they cool.

Back in the seventies my father (nuclear engineer) said he'd love to stage, and televise, a "raid" on a nuclear power facility... The _months_ necessary to get the stuff off the premises (let alone ground up into nuclear dust) would have probably lost its audience. But the "Fast As Possible" "Smallest Crew" version of the raid that the anti-nuke people were putting in movies and scare politics would be thoroughly disproved.

Even if I installed a pebble-bed reactor in your garage (and one _would_ fit), any attempt to turn it into a "dirty bomb" would fatal to the person attempting it. Someone could blow up the pebble-bed itself, but that would move a few of the "pebbles", if any, a short distance. Someone with a radiation counter and a radiation suit could then just go pick them up with tongs.

So the terrorists "want{ed} to build a dirty bomb" is about as likely to lead to that end as my personal desire to own all of Google _and_ Tesla Motors outright as a pure proprietorship.