PDA

View Full Version : ISIS magazine calls for attacks on Canada



RWGR
11-23-2015, 12:02 PM
The latest issue of Dabiq, a magazine published by the Islamic State, is again calling for attacks on Canada.

A professional looking magazine available in English, and other languages, Dabiq is used as a tool to attract recruits and provide messages to followers.

The latest issue, released Nov. 18, is titled “Just Terror.” Included among the 65 pages of propaganda is a reprint of words first spoken by ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed Al-Adnani referencing Canada.

It calls on “mujahadeen” — meaning jihadi fighters — in Western countries, including Canada.

“Your state is facing a new campaign by the crusaders ... we call you up to defend the Islamic State ... Rise and defend your state from your place wherever you may be.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/22/isis-magazine-calls-for-attacks-on-canada

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 01:59 PM
If terror is their object, it looks like they're winning.

BFLPE
11-23-2015, 02:07 PM
I'm not scared. Are you?

RWGR
11-23-2015, 02:20 PM
Barry's living in terror?

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 02:37 PM
Did you guys know that bridges make excellent radar targets for atomic missiles??

As far as fear, sure, some, but I trust God!!

BFLPE
11-23-2015, 02:45 PM
Oh my Barry, now I'm scared. It just occurred to me that Putin may launch the ICBM's in response to ISIS calling for attacks on Canada.

You mentioned the nukes a couple times now. How about a little insight into how you think a scenario will play out that involves the big ones being launched.

Anapeg
11-23-2015, 04:11 PM
It is not that great a stretch if you think about it. An international crossing, the locks and a steel plant. The 'trifecta' for any good union terrorist.

BFLPE
11-23-2015, 04:26 PM
It's a huge stretch IMO.

It's a legitimate target but in the context of ISIS calling for attacks on Canada the idea of a nuke taking out the bridge here doesn't fit.

The only way it's getting taken out with a nuke is if Russia decided to launch an all out attack and even then it falls short of being a priority I would think.

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 05:27 PM
It's a huge stretch IMO.

It's a legitimate target but in the context of ISIS calling for attacks on Canada the idea of a nuke taking out the bridge here doesn't fit.

The only way it's getting taken out with a nuke is if Russia decided to launch an all out attack and even then it falls short of being a priority I would think.

When the big boys, Russia and the USA are both fighting in the same area, there might be friction leading to a conflict.

Who knows, but seemingly minor events have changed into major wars.

Let's hope not.

Hans
11-23-2015, 05:29 PM
It is not that great a stretch if you think about it. An international crossing, the locks and a steel plant. The 'trifecta' for any good union terrorist.

I think NY or Washington would be their primary targets.
Not to mention the fact you can't just launch a nuclear missile, even if you had one available to you.
And they do not have one or have access to one to begin with anyways.

BFLPE
11-23-2015, 05:43 PM
When the big boys, Russia and the USA are both fighting in the same area, there might be friction leading to a conflict.

Who knows, but seemingly minor events have changed into major wars.

Let's hope not.Never say never, it could happen.

MADD still exists though and a scenario that leads to that is so unlikely that I wouldn't waste a second worrying about it.

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 06:30 PM
Never say never, it could happen.

MADD still exists though and a scenario that leads to that is so unlikely that I wouldn't waste a second worrying about it.

Oh, I'm not worried about it. One flash and we're done!!!

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 06:33 PM
It is not that great a stretch if you think about it. An international crossing, the locks and a steel plant. The 'trifecta' for any good union terrorist.

Locks, plant, bridge, rail bridge, two power plants, two towns, lots of target value. And another one at the old air base.

Hans
11-23-2015, 06:33 PM
It is not that simple Barry. Chances are you survive.

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 06:34 PM
It is not that simple Barry. Chances are you survive.

NOBODY lives closer to the bridge, remember??

RWGR
11-23-2015, 06:37 PM
When the big boys, Russia and the USA are both fighting in the same area, there might be friction leading to a conflict.



????

Hans
11-23-2015, 06:38 PM
NOBODY lives closer to the bridge, remember??

I don't remember, trigger my memory?

RWGR
11-23-2015, 06:42 PM
"Yes, supreme commander, by the will of Allah we have pulled off our major attack in North America. Praised be Allah"

"Well done, Soldier of the Caliphate. What major targets did you take out? The Pentagon? The White House? Times Square? Downtown Dallas?"

"No, supreme commander, we took down a bridge that connects an American and Canadian city. In a very remote part of North America. Black Friday shopping will be a *****"

"Splendid, Soldier of the Caliphate! The terror this will strike in all non-believers will make 9/11 seems like child's play!! Allah Akbar, Soldier of the Caliphate!!"

"Allah Akbar, supreme commander!"

Hans
11-23-2015, 06:47 PM
Here Barry, you can see the effects of nuclear blasts on an actual map: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
It should set your mind at ease to see how powerful a nuclear weapon needs to be to do any real damage to those 3 targets you mentioned.

Anapeg
11-23-2015, 08:21 PM
I think NY or Washington would be their primary targets.
Not to mention the fact you can't just launch a nuclear missile, even if you had one available to you.
And they do not have one or have access to one to begin with anyways.

Are New York or Washington in Canada? I didn't think so...

Anapeg
11-23-2015, 08:24 PM
It's a huge stretch IMO.

It's a legitimate target but in the context of ISIS calling for attacks on Canada the idea of a nuke taking out the bridge here doesn't fit.

The only way it's getting taken out with a nuke is if Russia decided to launch an all-out attack and even then it falls short of being a priority I would think.

No one would waste a Nuclear device on a Canadian target, but a terrorist would gladly sacrifice himself for the greater good and hit three for one.
.

Anapeg
11-23-2015, 08:25 PM
I think NY or Washington would be their primary targets.
Not to mention the fact you can't just launch a nuclear missile, even if you had one available to you.
And they do not have one or have access to one to begin with anyways.

I said nothing regarding nuclear weapons, did I?

Anapeg
11-23-2015, 08:26 PM
It is not that simple Barry. Chances are you survive.

He is right you know, look to Nagasaki and Hiroshima for examples.

Barry Morris
11-23-2015, 10:20 PM
Here Barry, you can see the effects of nuclear blasts on an actual map: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
It should set your mind at ease to see how powerful a nuclear weapon needs to be to do any real damage to those 3 targets you mentioned.

I don't think you actually went through that info, did you.

According to what I see, ALL of those sites would be levelled by a 350 kt weapon.

Hans
11-24-2015, 07:23 AM
You are correct. Now where would you get a 350 kt weapon?

Barry Morris
11-24-2015, 07:50 AM
You are correct. Now where would you get a 350 kt weapon?

That was an average from the list.

Hans
11-24-2015, 08:26 PM
Exactly. You will need a large nuclear weapon to hit all 3 targets. Those are out of reach for any terror organization.

Barry Morris
11-24-2015, 08:52 PM
Exactly. You will need a large nuclear weapon to hit all 3 targets. Those are out of reach for any terror organization.

Obviously.

But I was never referring to the strike capability of a terrorist organization.

Incidents like today's fighter jet downing can lead to larger conflict.

RWGR
11-24-2015, 09:24 PM
Incidents like today's fighter jet downing can lead to larger conflict.


or not

Barry Morris
11-24-2015, 10:09 PM
or not

Or not. Quite right. But you can't say it hasn't happened before.

Barney Rubble
11-25-2015, 12:57 AM
I would think ISIS would want to enact terror in Canada & not nuke strategic locations if they even possessed such weapons.
They would go after high populated areas such as Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal not a declining population such as SSM .
If they wanted strategic, hit Edmonton. That would cripple the oil refineries & put a kink in that important industry.
Any hoot...not very realistic but definitely / maybe a scenerio like as was in Paris.

RWGR
11-25-2015, 09:08 AM
Or not. Quite right. But you can't say it hasn't happened before.

True

Official Cat of Soonet
11-25-2015, 10:25 AM
I see someone here has taken the almighty leap off the deep end.

Official Cat of Soonet
11-25-2015, 10:27 AM
New york, Washington, London, Paris, Sault Ste Marie

RWGR
11-25-2015, 10:27 AM
It just makes sense

Barry Morris
11-25-2015, 11:05 AM
I see someone here has taken the almighty leap off the deep end.

We're talking about hypothetical strategic nuclear targets.

People seem to think that Sault Ste. marie has no such value.

Is that your opinion too?

RWGR
11-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Strategic value? Yes, in the locks. shut them down and you put a relatively sizable kink in the North American economy.

But I'd have to think it ranks very, very low in importance compared to other targets.

Terrorists have shown they like to go big, or stay home. White House (where Pennsylvania plane was heading) and Pentagon. They like really, really big targets.

Barry Morris
11-25-2015, 11:52 AM
Strategic value? Yes, in the locks. shut them down and you put a relatively sizable kink in the North American economy.

But I'd have to think it ranks very, very low in importance compared to other targets.

Terrorists have shown they like to go big, or stay home. White House (where Pennsylvania plane was heading) and Pentagon. They like really, really big targets.

Makes you wonder why go into a concert hall??

To spread terror, that's why.

That bridge is the only crossing point in almost a thousand mile stretch. The power plants serve a large area. The steel plant supplies industry. The rail link connects that.

No, I believe the Sault to be a major target. Maybe not for terrorists, but that was not my point.

Remember how Oklahoma City was damaged??

Official Cat of Soonet
11-25-2015, 01:14 PM
Makes you wonder why go into a concert hall??



Because that has the maximum number of people with the weapons they have. They want to kill people.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-25-2015, 03:01 PM
Makes you wonder why go into a concert hall??

To spread terror, that's why.

That bridge is the only crossing point in almost a thousand mile stretch. The power plants serve a large area. The steel plant supplies industry. The rail link connects that.

No, I believe the Sault to be a major target. Maybe not for terrorists, but that was not my point.

Remember how Oklahoma City was damaged??

The Sault is not really that strategic, if you nuked Thunder Bay and Duluth the locks are pretty much pointless. Both highways 11 and 17 go through Thunder Bay and if you Nuked Winnipeg you would essentially cut Western Canada From Eastern Canada. Then you nuke Sudbury and North Bay essentially cutting off Northern Ontario and it's resources. Basically you want to cut off supply lines and cripple your opponent by targeting major transportation hubs which SSM isn't. The same thing would be happening in the states, which would include big cities. Once you did all that people wont be going to work at a steel plant. If they did how long do you think the plant would run with no supplies coming in?

Barry Morris
11-25-2015, 04:24 PM
The Sault is not really that strategic, if you nuked Thunder Bay and Duluth the locks are pretty much pointless. Both highways 11 and 17 go through Thunder Bay and if you Nuked Winnipeg you would essentially cut Western Canada From Eastern Canada. Then you nuke Sudbury and North Bay essentially cutting off Northern Ontario and it's resources. Basically you want to cut off supply lines and cripple your opponent by targeting major transportation hubs which SSM isn't. The same thing would be happening in the states, which would include big cities. Once you did all that people wont be going to work at a steel plant. If they did how long do you think the plant would run with no supplies coming in?

With all those attacks, you'd only cut highways, which are easily repaired.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-25-2015, 05:37 PM
With all those attacks, you'd only cut highways, which are easily repaired.

Both the CP and CN run through Winnipeg, CP through Thunder Bay and Sudbury and CN through North Bay. Thunder Bay and Duluth/Superior are the only shipping ports on Lake Superior. Plus I said, "Basically you want to cut off supply lines and cripple your opponent by targeting major transportation hubs", and I'm talking about nuclear missiles. Do you really think a road repair crew is gonna come to the rescue?

BFLPE
11-25-2015, 08:52 PM
ISIS calls for attacks on Canada and we're discussing strategic nuclear strikes of the type only Russia could pull off.

Though unlikely, a Paris type attack can't be ruled out. Montreal, Vancouver or Toronto would be the most likely targets I would imagine. The type of planning and resources needed wouldn't be spent on the Sault.

A lone wolf type attack could happen anywhere. Station mall perhaps. Or, if they wanted to really instill terror in Canadians, they would shoot up a Timmies. The whole country would panic then.

Barry Morris
11-25-2015, 11:41 PM
.... Or, if they wanted to really instill terror in Canadians, they would shoot up a Timmies. The whole country would panic then.

I'd hope they'd shoot up a Starbucks!! No loss there!!!

Barry Morris
11-25-2015, 11:45 PM
Both the CP and CN run through Winnipeg, CP through Thunder Bay and Sudbury and CN through North Bay. Thunder Bay and Duluth/Superior are the only shipping ports on Lake Superior. Plus I said, "Basically you want to cut off supply lines and cripple your opponent by targeting major transportation hubs", and I'm talking about nuclear missiles. Do you really think a road repair crew is gonna come to the rescue?

We're just talking hypothetically here. As I read it, most damage from a nuke is from over-pressure from the shockwaves. buildings go down for sure, but I suspect roads and railroads would actually take little damage.

Official Cat of Soonet
11-26-2015, 08:57 AM
I'd hope they'd shoot up a Starbucks!! No loss there!!!

Baristas don't have souls anyway

Barry Morris
11-26-2015, 09:45 AM
Baristas don't have souls anyway

I've never been bitten by a barista!!!

RWGR
11-26-2015, 12:21 PM
My god, I want to puke

RWGR
11-26-2015, 12:23 PM
I'd hope they'd shoot up a Starbucks!! No loss there!!!

just a reminder: Barry wants everyone to be a good Christian, just like him

Barry Morris
11-26-2015, 01:57 PM
just a reminder: Barry wants everyone to be a good Christian, just like him

I get a chuckle out of people who have no sense of humor!!!

RWGR
11-26-2015, 04:17 PM
When does constant laughing at oneself become insanity?

Barry Morris
11-26-2015, 07:20 PM
When does constant laughing at oneself become insanity?

...or I could attack you back.

No.

Nihilistic Heathen
11-26-2015, 07:56 PM
We're just talking hypothetically here. As I read it, most damage from a nuke is from over-pressure from the shockwaves. buildings go down for sure, but I suspect roads and railroads would actually take little damage.

Oh, are the building falling straight down like in a controlled demolition? Who's gonna clear the debris?

here' something for you think about, the effect of a one megaton bomb on Sault Ste. Marie (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/?&clat=46.4829203348399&clng=-84.29660920669116&calt=8421.803235550895&chdg=-53.5241587779365&ctlt=17.692944715645016&crll=-0.03105657407828518&mlat=46.50335727699614&mlng=-84.3540725178432&mtyp=2&malt=182.7044876512127&kt=1000).

Estimated fatalities: 61,520Estimated injuries: 27,280

In any given 24-hour period, there are approximately 106,816 people in the 1 psi range of the most recent detonation. Modeling casualties from a nuclear attack is difficult. These numbers should be seen as evocative, not definitive. Fallout effects are ignored.

Effects radii for a 1 megaton bomb (smallest to largest):
Fireball: 0.97 km (2.93 km²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation.

Radiation: 2.5 km (19.7 km²)
500 rem radiation dose; between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone; dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Air blast: 2.82 km (25 km²)
20 psi overpressure; heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

Air blast: 6.96 km (152 km²)
5 psi overpressure; most buildings collapse; injuries universal, fatalities widespread.

Thermal radiation: 13.5 km (571 km²)
Third-degree burns to all exposed skin; can start fires.