Posted on 07/18/2005 3:39:51 AM PDT by Man50D
Al-Qaida's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents.
As first revealed last week in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND, Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with thousands of sleeper agents.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Ahh, a little Wacko Nut Daily with my coffee.
Can you provide documentation for the "thousands" that have snuck into Iraq.
Pat, there simply is NO moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein and the USA. I know you will never believe this. But fortunately you are way outnumbered and good men will continue to fight and die to defend moral relativists who would paralyze us from acting against great evil until we have achieved some utopic moral perfection.
With your reasoning, we and Britain had no standing to confront Nazi German and Imperial Japan and later, Stalinist Russia, until we had become a "perfect" societies with no circumstances of even small instances of inhumanity by any of our own hundred million souls.
Our people who have committed abuses and excesses at Abu Ghraib are being prosecuted for it. Compare the evidence at their trials to that of Saddams activities at Abu Ghraib in his soon upcoming trial and tell us with a straight face that we had no moral high ground from which to act. Better yet, tell it to the Iraqi people.
Sorry, but you extended, stretched my arguments up to a point where I begin to feel inclined to not agree with them anymore myself (LOL). Of course no society ever is perfect. Of course there are greater and lesser evils. Of course removing Hitler and Mussolini couldn't be done without causing suffering and harm to others. No dispute about that.
My great trouble with Guantanamo Bay is that some hundreds of Afghans were incarcerated without any process and are there now for four years. The great rights that are allowed to suspects in peace and wartime in the West have been denied to them, and the Geneva Convention has been circumvented by a dodgy trick: re-naming them 'illegal combatants'. They are, by all accounts, subjected to mental torture (sensory deprivation round the clock, or super-bright lighting round the clock, or American rock music (sorry, couldn't resist the last one)). America respects freedom of religion, so the cheap Koran-bashing that occurred there is a sign of weakness and a moral crime. The normal support of lawyers and a normal proceeding of court cases is being denied to them, and this goes also for normal application of military law. It doesn't wash, and it's a mess. Where are the great revelations that were expected from the Guantanamo Bay way of doing things? Have we found major info on what Islamist plans are, or where the main perpetrators reside? I don't think so.
As for Abu Ghraib: I can't believe that Graner, England and co. acted the way they did out of their own invention. The articles by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker point towards commands from very high ranks. And Rumsfelds declaration that he was fully responsible for the aberrations, and the fact that he did little of consequence for himself: in my country, Holland, declaring that you are fully (100 and not 95 percent) responsible, in politics and military, means only one thing: that you are doing the honourable thing, and resign. Not so in America: only one day later President Bush named Rumsfeld an outstanding Secretary Of Defense, the best the country had ever seen.
Later, Pat.
Well, you failed to answer my questions and I was not addressing DCPatriot. Dutch quality or "rightist orientation" are nonspecific, nonquantitative, subjective terms that do not answer my questions.
What documented information do you possess to suggest that Tony Blair fabricated said stories? We learned long ago in this country that reporters often have a personal agenda. Why do you think people reporting the news have any more credibility than Tony Blair or George Bush? Do you understand the difference between a refereed report and one accepted as truth because the reporter says it is so?
Well, I don't have the time to collect all articles to substantiate my arguments, apart from the fact that many of them are in Dutch anyway. However, I will do some research tomorrow and see if I can come up with something useful.
Same goes for the Blair issue. What has been determined, though, is that the first major report used by Blair and co. to underscore their claims was a hasty and very dodgy remake of a bad report by, I think, a student in the USA. The UK administration even preserved the linguistic errors contained therein. Blair's claims on the 45-mins-before-launch-missles MUST have been fabricated, however, because he's on record as having made them in a Parlamentary hearing, and neither Hans Blix (about 6 weeks before finishing his search) nor his American successor has found these missiles. Had they done so, then we would have been literally showered by photos, stories, and triumphant comments from hundreds of US and UK officials about how right they are. So well... said stories were fabricated under the supervision of mr Blair. If MI5/6 did so without his knowing, he still is 100% responsible politically; in a proper democracy it goes without saying that a politician must always act as if what he claims is by himself held to be completely true, and if his servants were the ones who fabricated, it still is so that the PM has to act as if he himself can validate the claim.
"Kill them all and let God sort it out"...as someone once said.
Eh...
the drama shown in the photo is the most efficient way to quell violence (...)? I beg you... that's tantamount to saying that drinking a lot of alcohol is the best way to stay sober, or something like that.
And I think that 'kill them all and let God sort it out' won't be appreciated by God. He may well send proponents of such a line of reasoning to eternal damnation...(no personal offense intended, but a means to say that not one line in the Bible motivates towards something like this; it could well be a motto thought up by a Muslim radical like Mohamed Atta, remember him?).
Muslim countries are walking a fine line, taking up unrestricted warfare on our civilians and cities; but since most of them are ignorant of history past the 14th Century, and are illiterate in any language but their own to boot, they invite a kind of warfare that they cannot even envision.
The Germans and to a lesser extent the Japanese introduced the theory of "unrestricted warfare" in WWII, to their eventual regret: They forgot that the United States invented "scorched earth" warfare during the Civil War. (Sherman's march to the sea) The Germans never even managed to destroy London, even using everything from manned bombers to the precursors of Cruise Missiles and ICBMs. The US became City-Killers beyond their wildest dreams, which essentially put paid to their ideologies.
On the other hand; Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia contain no cities that even rate a 10-kiloton pony bomb. They manufacture nothing, they make nothing, there are no industrial centers that could benefit from the application of a nuclear weapon. (Well, perhaps Teheran, where they are attempting to build one, and a single 20-megaton would solve that problem, likely forever)
The thing to remember about these people is that they are the ultimate parasites, technologically. H*ll, if Toyota stopped selling them trucks and SUV's, they'd be as militarily effective as, say, the Comanche were. The much more efficient method of dealing with them would be using Fuel-Air Explosives and the occasional MOAB. This would have the additional advantage of being environmentally friendly.
How do you know there were no WMDs? Saddam had enough time to smuggle them to neighboring countries like Syria. ALso, Iraq isn't exactly a small country...it's about the size of California. Do you think it would be hard to fill just one trailer with chemical and biological agents and bury it somewhere out in the middle of an uninhabited, and isolated desert.
"According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.
However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers.
"
This is the real disturbing part. After Sept 11th one would think a President would do what he swore to uphold. However, he just lets the boarder go. Our governement has sold out our security. There will be hell to pay if this nightmare scenario happens. This leads me to the ultimate question. How many more Americans will have to die in the name of political correctness?
Keep drinking that Kool Aid in Europe. You obviously not research the facts. Virtually everything you said is wrong. I just do not even know where to begin. I love it when leftist try to talk military history. It's like listening to a salesman try to tell a doctor how to do his job. Its just too funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.