Al-Qaeda May Have Just Gained The Ultimate Feared Weapon - The Grail - Polidicks

[QUOTE]TIMBUKTU, Mali (AP) -- The photocopies of the manual lay in heaps on the floor, in stacks that scaled one wall, like Xeroxed, stapled handouts for a class. Except that the students in this case were al-Qaida fighters in Mali. And the manual was a detailed guide, with diagrams and photographs, on how to use a weapon that particularly concerns the United States: A surface-to-air missile capable of taking down a commercial airplane. The 26-page document in Arabic, recovered by The Associated Press in a building that had been occupied by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in Timbuktu, strongly suggests the group now possesses the SA-7 surface-to-air missile, known to the Pentagon as the [B]Grail[/B], according to terrorism specialists. And it confirms that the al-Qaida cell is actively training its fighters to use these weapons, also called man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS, which likely came from the arms depots of ex-Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mali-manual-suggests-al-qaida-feared-weapon-19373136[/URL] [URL]http://www.wtop.com/289/3354224/Mali-manual-suggests-al-Qaida-has-feared-weapon[/URL]

I immediately thought of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

I figured it was relating to this somehow. [video=youtube;xOrgLj9lOwk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk[/video]

This will not end well.

How fortuitous that all this suspiciously scary news about al-qaeda's chemical/surface to air armaments just happens to arrive at a time when public support for the drone war/war on terror is utterly dwindling.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;41000583]How fortuitous that all this suspiciously scary news about al-qaeda's chemical/surface to air armaments just happens to arrive at a time when public support for the drone war/war on terror is utterly dwindling.[/QUOTE] Believe me that the concern with non-government groups having access to MANPADS is not about drones...

SA-7 Grail, also known as the Strela 2, hasn't Al Qaeda's Afghanistan branch had these things for a long time now?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41000632]SA-7 Grail, also known as the Strela 2, hasn't Al Qaeda's Afghanistan branch had these things for a long time now?[/QUOTE] The civil wars in Libya and Syria have given Al Qaeda greater access to such weapons.

Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000790]Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.[/QUOTE] Or just put flares.

you know, the laser defense system that boeing(?) was developing a few years back would be nice to have now why did that get scrapped anyway? too ineffective?

[QUOTE=scout1;41000623]Believe me that the concern with non-government groups having access to MANPADS is not about drones...[/QUOTE] It's utterly irrelevant news, anybody's chances of being killed by al-qaeda with a strela are likely similar to the chances of choking to death on a gas station sausage roll. These news releases are just a weak ploy to generate fear and sensationalist hype in some vein attempt to justify whatever flimsy pretexts are still being used to carry on with this self-fulfilling prophesy of manufactured terrorism.

[QUOTE=Griffster26;41000833]Or just put flares.[/QUOTE] Eh, yeah flares would work too if the missile was simply a heat-seeker, though if it was the kind of missile that homed in on radio signals then flares wouldn't work out so well; communications blackout might work but that's also pretty dangerous. Then again, are there even missiles that home in on radio signals from enemy aircraft? If so, I dunno if Al-Qaeda has that kinda tech; hell they'd probably just have them be remote-controlled at best. I dunno, it's like 2am, not a time when my thinking is perfect.

How did they manage to get into the French castle and steal it from the guards in Monty Python without getting arrested by the police?

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;41000889]you know, the laser defense system that boeing(?) was developing a few years back would be nice to have now why did that get scrapped anyway? too ineffective?[/QUOTE] Probably got scrapped when they realized passenger planes are 500x more likely to crash than get shot down by an anti aircraft missile.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;41001031]You mean previous surface to air missiles couldn't? I mean surely it doesn't take much to take down a commercial plane.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but you gotta hit it. And as was stated earlier this sort of thing will just get worse if anyone arms the various factions of rebels unless they are fully and utterly regulated.

We need a "crusade" to get the grail back. To pakistan! (Most Al-Qaeda activity seems to happen there these days)

[i]oooh nooo a few commercial planes[/i] sensationalist as fuck

[QUOTE=Griffster26;41000833]Or just put flares.[/QUOTE] And be banned from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Guard#Controversy]half of the worlds airports[/url].

Haven't they had that shit, and the American Stingers, ever since the war with the Soviets? Even so, they aren't THAT effective against commercial airliners. You wouldn't have a prayer of shooting down a 747 at cruising speed and 30,000 feet, the AA missiles that are capable of getting to that altitude are the size of telephone poles. You would have to shoot at it while it takes off or lands, which means being close to an airport that flies large enough planes to be worthwhile targets, which means firing from within a city where everyone who ever saw a movie or played a game knows what a Stinger looks like. Even if you did all of that, your missile would go right up the back of an engine and explode, which works out nicely because exploding engines are EXACTLY what airliners are designed to survive and keep flying. From what I see on Wikipedia, the only airliners ever brought down by man-portable SAMs are 737s or smaller, which hardly seems worth it when you can build a large truck bomb for less than the cost of one SAM that may or may not work. The whole 9/11 operation probably cost less than one new off-the-shelf Stinger. It's not like I'm a terrorist mastermind or anything, but anyone basic logic and Wiki access could probably conclude this is not much of a threat, and it's a stupid and overly expensive and difficult means of attack.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41002196]Haven't they had that shit, and the American Stingers, ever since the war with the Soviets? [/QUOTE] Those stingers would be rather old and probably not in good enough condition to be used; not to mention they were fairly ineffective in the 80s for the Afghans, they'll probably be utterly useless by today's standards.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;41000684]The civil wars in Libya and Syria have given Al Qaeda greater access to such weapons.[/QUOTE] Not even close. It's seen pretty much widespread use since well before these relatively recent wars. Do you not remember that Iraq wasn't and (still) isn't stable?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41002196]Haven't they had that shit, and the American Stingers, ever since the war with the Soviets? Even so, they aren't THAT effective against commercial airliners. You wouldn't have a prayer of shooting down a 747 at cruising speed and 30,000 feet, the AA missiles that are capable of getting to that altitude are the size of telephone poles. [B]You would have to shoot at it while it takes off or lands, which means being close to an airport that flies large enough planes to be worthwhile targets, which means firing from within a city where everyone who ever saw a movie or played a game knows what a Stinger looks like.[/B] Even if you did all of that, your missile would go right up the back of an engine and explode, which works out nicely because exploding engines are EXACTLY what airliners are designed to survive and keep flying. From what I see on Wikipedia, the only airliners ever brought down by man-portable SAMs are 737s or smaller, which hardly seems worth it when you can build a large truck bomb for less than the cost of one SAM that may or may not work. The whole 9/11 operation probably cost less than one new off-the-shelf Stinger. It's not like I'm a terrorist mastermind or anything, but anyone basic logic and Wiki access could probably conclude this is not much of a threat, and it's a stupid and overly expensive and difficult means of attack.[/QUOTE] I don't think you should discard that idea quite so much, if I recall correctly Heathrow airport as at the centre of a threat based on an (apparent) similar idea. Not to mention the people who actually tried it in Kenya. It was also the plot of an episode of spy TV show.. I know its a fictional TV show and all but the basic idea would be quite doable, hiding in a forest. All that said though, I agree that it isn't a huge threat but it shouldn't be underestimated.

one of the most sensationalist headlines of 2013, congratulations

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000915]Eh, yeah flares would work too if the missile was simply a heat-seeker, though if it was the kind of missile that homed in on radio signals then flares wouldn't work out so well; communications blackout might work but that's also pretty dangerous. Then again, are there even missiles that home in on radio signals from enemy aircraft? If so, I dunno if Al-Qaeda has that kinda tech; hell they'd probably just have them be remote-controlled at best. I dunno, it's like 2am, not a time when my thinking is perfect.[/QUOTE] Oh, you were being serious. How would a sniper firing a rifle on a moving plane that's ascending or descending at a moving target work out. It wouldn't.

Seeing how the title says "ultimate feared weapon" I was worried they got their hands on an atomic bomb

And sarin isn't feared?

[QUOTE=laserguided;41003503]And sarin isn't feared?[/QUOTE] I'm more afraid of an atomic bomb than sarin

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41003512]I'm more afraid of an atomic bomb than sarin[/QUOTE] Yeah but Al-Qaeda actually recently setup labs to make Sarin, its way more accessible. I don't think they have nukes.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000790]Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.[/QUOTE] That sounds expensive and complicated. How about we just have guys with jetpacks who can punch the missiles out of the air follow the plane?