The paper offers such useful advice as:[ul][li]Wash your hands after handling plutonium.[]Left-over plutonium is an excellent insecticide.[]It can be stored in an old coffee can.[]But let your children or pets eat any of it.[]An old briefcase or breadbox is good for a housing-- Don’t use construction paper.[/ul]BBC correspondent John Simpson is accused of exaggerating the import of the papers for the the sake of a “scoop.”[/li][quote]
BBC press officer Chris Reed in London: “It’s safe to say that he chose his words with care. I need to get to the bottom of it.”
[/quote]
Apparently not. Asshole. You don’t even care if influences other nations’ foreign policy.
What an eerily prescient statement, John. Well, nobody needed to worry then. Say, can you help me convince my aging mother to get out from under her bed, where she’s been cowering since your self-serving report last week, dickhead?
So, the gist of the instructions is accurate. It is written in a humerous fashion. Can you tell the difference between a device fashioned from an article written in a sombre vs humerous fashion?
There have been numerous reports that al-Qaeda have been attempting to source nuclear material.
I find it incredible that people wouldn’t be at the very least concerned. Whether this article is all they have (I very much doubt it, but can’t cite) it certainly shows some aspiration, even if they haven’t got the material or expertise to build anything.
Which nations? What is the change in policy, and can you show that it was the result of Simpson’s piece?
“Mix eggs, sugar, milk and 2 teaspoons of plutonium with half a cup of U238.
Knead thoroughly in a large mixing bowl
Bake at 350 for 1/2 hour. Coat with chocolate sprinkles.”
Only in the most general terms. For christ’s sake, the instructions say to put 110Kg of plutonium and 100Kg of TNT in a coffee can.
Read the article. Then build a bomb. Go ahead. The publisher seems to be pretty confident that anyone (short of a lobotomy patient) would be able to tell it’s a joke:
It does? They downloaded a joke of the internet. Thousands of other people have the same material in electronic or print form. Do they “certainly” have aspirations to build a nuclear bomb? Statistically, it’s pretty certain that someone working at Microsoft has got this joke at the office. The Feds assume that Gates is actively seeking nukes? As an exercise, spend a minute on the internet trying to find out how nukes are made. I remember this text file from the early 80’s. I downloaded it off Blue Hell, a BBS running on a commodore 64. I was thirteen. I still haven’t got any closer to becoming a nuclear power. The information in it is available in the encyclopaedia. There’s no way it would be of any practical use. You could find information that would actually be useful if you spent a few minutes. The people at the al-Qaeda recruitmant office didn’t spend that time. Ergo, they weren’t trying.
Nuclear material is dangerous even if fission is not achieved. Given that building an accurate trigger is difficult, some believe that all that is necessary for a terror weapon is, literally:
What you quoted. It would spread radioactive material over quite a wide area. Granted, you’d need to acquire a large enough coffee can. And perhaps to be able to smuggle it into a sports stadium during a large event.
Yes, they did. Do you know for a fact that this was all they had? A simple google search will turn up any number of these cites. Or these. Or perhaps here. Take your pick.
You don’t have his resources, or his quoted objectives. To build a terror weapon (fission or not) you’d presumably have to have both.
False premise. Because the focus was on a document which turned out to be a spoof, you assert that no other documentation/information was acquired by al-Quaeda. I don’t think you can logically make that jump.
xerxes, you misunderstand the point and the target of my OP. John Simpson was deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the “document” found, to make a “big story” out of an otherwise mediocre one. You remember those closeups of the pages on the floor that were all over the news last week? (Here and here.) Notice how most of the page is deliberately obscured, leaving only the scary words clear to demonstrate that it’s about Nuclear technology. Presumably, they fudged the rest of it out to keep dangerous information out of the hands of other terrorists? No, actually, just to hide the nature of the complete document.
(With “is a radioactive metallic element formed by the decay of Neptunium and is similar in chemical structure to Uranium, Saturium, Jupiternium, and Marisum.” BLURRED OUT.)
Syllogism:[ul][li]Anyone wishing to find more useful information about nuclear technology will do so within seconds with a simple internet search.[]No seriously intended instructions or instructions yielding any significant data were found in the Kabul recruiting office.[]Therefore, there is no indication that anyone in the Kabul recruiting centre was trying to find out how to make a nuclear bomb.[/ul]I make no assertion that al-Qaeda has no interest in nuclear weapons. Notice that the three links that you cited were all examples of responsible journalism:[/li][quote] Eagle Tribune:U.S. intelligence agencies believe Osama bin Laden has a secret nuclear weapons laboratory inside Afghanistan and may be working with the Russian mafia to acquire chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, according to a report today in The Washington Times.
There is no hard evidence that bin Laden or his terrorist group, al-Qaida, have actually produced chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a U.S. official said there have been contacts between bin Laden and the Russian mafia/
[/quote]
You can see the difference between reports like that, and saying “We found nuclear plans in an al-Qaeda office!” when you’ve taken steps to conceal that the “plans” are actually a joke. I hope.
John Simpson is a War Correspondant. His reports inform the public about what is and is not happening with regard to a war. Policy (in most nations) is influenced by public opinion. John Simpson knows this. He doesn’t care.
Actually, having re-read the OP, + your cites, I find I agree with you. JS’s piece doesn’t seem to be responsible journalism. Not that that means there’s nothing to worry about, just that his piece does seem (as you put it) self-serving.
John Simpson is a bastard. No really, I’ve checked his family background, and well–but that is getting off the point.
I am exposed to far too much Simpson, whether it’s on BBC World or CNN International (being interviewed after single-handedly liberating the city, a claim for which he later apologized), and every time I see him he annoys me more. How is it that this guy wins so many awards? Brits, help me out here. Seriously, did he used to be a brilliant journalist before he turned into a “superstar”? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him opening the secret vaults of the Kray brother in Geraldo-esque style in the years to come.
I don’t know…I’m American, but I live in Europe and I watch BBC most of the time for my news and, I have to say, I quite like John Simpson. Yeah, he can be an arrogant prick sometimes and I couldn’t help but bust out laughing when I heard the live report about the BBC and him “liberating Kabul,” but, hey, he’s interesting to watch. Now, the subject of this OP does disturb me. I didn’t see that report and it seriously disturbs me, as a journalist.
However, the reason I like John Simpson most of the time is because of the format of his show and his style. In “Simpson’s World” you pretty much get an unedited story or interview and I find it interesting to see how the man works. It’s not quite the slick, polished 3-minute CNN piece that I find totally mind-numbing. It seems somehow more genuine to me. But I am specifically talking about “Simpson’s World.”
I too like ‘Simpson’s World’. I find it quite fascinating to see how reporters live and the kinds of relationships they form with the local people during these conflicts. I also like the effort he and his crew put into the long, unedited walkabout chats.
I also agree he can come across as arrogant but, well, he is usually very good although the ‘liberating Kabul’ thing was over the top – I put that down to a lack of sleep, adrenalin and general euphoria. But he should still have exercised better judgement, IMHO.
I don’t yet know very much about this particular incident. It’s safe to assume some very searching questions will/are being asked and I haven’t seen any reports from him since that first day in Kabul. Something is clearly afoot.
