Al-Qaida's U.S. Nuclear Targets

WorldNetDaily ^ | 7/18/05 | FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

[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.

[Normal4me]

It's worse than that. Farrah WROTE the bulletin to which he is using as a source in this article! "As revealed by one of the posts I wrote days ago, Farrah is an assclown". ;-)

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

He intends to implement his North American Community Hell, whether we're all killed or not.

[DM1]

" believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers."
i spoke with a neighbor of mine who is an immigration officer regarding an Al Qeada - MS-13 link. he said that this was media hype - basically an unsubstantiated rumor

[Man50D]

Once again Farah comes out almost hoping for a nuclear attack on the Untied States. Last time it was the Iranian EMP strike he was predicting now it is Al Qaeda nukes. Farah is nothing but an fear mongering, attention seeking whore, who writes for a kook website. Anyone who takes him seriously :cough, cough: Tom Tancredo :cough, cough: needs to have their heads examined.

Farah Maybe everything you state.Only time will tell. It Is reasonable to consider if we assume there will never be a nuke attack in the U.S. and don't plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is many people die, however if we assume a nuke attack may occur and plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is nothing happens. I chose the latter.

[DCPatriot]

Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists, although Saddam did support anti-Israel forces. But now it IS a breeding ground and training camp for such sick souls.

Any country that sees a government overthrown will breed "terrorists". The Baathists and supporters of Saddam have lost jobs, homes, and lives. Thry're pissed.

Germany, post-Hitler took years to root out the Nazi supporters.

Are you disputing the claim that thousands have snuck into Iraq after the statue came down to raise havoc?

[silverleaf]

It is time to sit down and talk about why they hate us...sarc

[DCPatriot]

To conclude my message: there were no WMDs. In fact, Saddam was on his last legs. As the sad comedy performed by his information minister abundantly showed.

Nonsense, IMO.

If you personally witnessed humans being fed feet firest into a shredder, your oratory as Saddam's information minister would probably surpass Baghdad Bob's in levels of lunancy.

[Dallas59]

If it ever happens here...

Bye Bye Mecca...

[Neoliberalnot]

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? Do you understand the difference between a refereed report and one accepted as truth because the reporter says so?

[FreedomPoster]

The last I looked, Chamberlain-style appeasement in the 30s resulted in a huge problem in the 40s. So you would have rather we repeated that course?

And your response also ignores the many documented instances of Saddam supporting Islamic terrosts, and not just Palies. And the pre-existing causus belli via GWI and the oft-violated ceasefire agreement.

[SlowBoat407]

I am afraid that this type of thinking (which is extremely fearful) serves as a brilliant excuse to whitewash the atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (why the playful Gitmo for such an inhuman camp by the way? The cowardice is visible in that it's on Cuban ground). Germany and France are top countries. I love them.

Sniff... Sniff...

Meekie? You want this one?

[Pat The Postman]

It's just my point that thousands snuck into Iraq after Saddam was toppled! The War On Iraq opened up a rather closed state for all kinds of sick people to either train or perform horrific acts of terrorism (perhaps a good 1,000 of aspiring policemen, fully supportive of the USA, have been slaughtered by now). Al Zarqawi committed atrocities against good civilians. All that, and the Iraq muslim community (by far the majority there, and entitled to vote) has sought close contact with its brethren in Iran after Saddam was caught. I don't think that Americans are feasting in the streets as to celebrate these events.

[silverleaf]

But now it IS a breeding ground and training camp for such sick souls.
Not to argue with you about the documentable intelligence showing Saddam's support for antiWestern terrorism-

but for right now, at the present, You are correct about the above.

Iraq IS the focal point for sick souls to launch their jihad against western ideals making inroads into the heart of Islam....and we have 50,000 US combat troops to fight back. Guess it didnt shake the world''s conscience before 911 when that front was in Israel and Israeli men, women, children and babies in strollers were on the frontlines.

Given all our national security objectives and concerns, and a true honest assessment of what modern 21st centruy political changes would begin to make this world a better place, what better or more appropriate battleground or cause would YOU choose? I am among those who believe that GWB and his advisors,looking at the big picture for the next century, with nuclear/bio attack by islamist terrorists now not only possible but likely- GWB and his advisers have chosen "wisely" to try to preempt armageddon. Alternative views about passivity and hunkering down and moat building around America (diplomatically) were considered and rejected as unacceptably risky.

Given that 9-11 "happened", what better time would you have suggested for this clash? After the re-election campaign? Maybe during some future administration? 9-11 made it intuitively obvious the war of civilizations was in play on THEIR side - despite our head-in-the-sand posture during the Clinton era.

And finally, WHY are your views that we have or are "failing"....so far at variance with the almost universally-held views of the men and women who are actually fighting in Iraq? What will "victory" in Iraq look like? Did you expect to see Islamic enlightenment and nationbuilding in a place like Iraq....within 36 months? How long did this take in Europe? In America? How long is it worth struggling and working for?

[Pat The Postman]

Sorry, I am not impressed. A country which is all for justice simply can't fool around with its own principles when things get tough. The pictures taken in Abu Ghraib are, and will be forever, testimony to the fact that human rights were abused on a large scale. Especially the fact that people were tortured to death is unbearable. That's operating in the good ole'Saddam style. Guantanamo is terrible, and if all USA lawyers and law professionals who protested against that camp are left weasels or liars, then my name is Archie Bunker. It often seems like American rightwing hardliners who run out of arguments for defending Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo, or excusing them, start hurling abuse or poking misguided fun in short, simple sentences.

[SlowBoat407]

Pat, you may be a soft-spoken man, but that is not what is called for in defeating terrorism. Even in your country, the fires are burning. The assassination of one of your countrymen for making a documentary critical of Islam should be warning enough that there is an aggressive movement by radical muslims on a par with the initial spread of the religion across Africa, Asia and Europe. The U.S. has taken a stand and declared that they shall not have that which they most desire - a world dominated by Islam. We cannot do this by being soft-spoken. We must be resolute and willing to withstand the condemnation of appeasers, pacifists, and the "useful idiots" of this century to ensure that the world is free to choose its own way, and not shackled by a religion forced on us by fanatics who worship death.

[DCPatriot]

It is documented that Saddam Hussein...in his attempt to terrify his enemies or political opponents tortured and killed thousands.

The Romans fed Christians and defeated enemies to the lions or forced them to fight as gladiators to the populace's amusement. Saddam had thought of an industrial shredder to strike fear.

They said that during the height of Saddam Hussein's rule, nobody had to lock their doors, and could leave a running vehicle unattended without fear of loss.

Clearly understandable, IMO.

As far as another of your assertions that the general population isn't supportive of the American GI's efforts in Iraq, there have been many personal accounts from soldiers of crowds impulsively cheering and waving as they ride by.

Of course, the BBC will not televise or report such events.

[Man50D]

It's just my point that thousands snuck into Iraq after Saddam was toppled! The War On Iraq opened up a rather closed state for all kinds of sick people to either train or perform horrific acts of terrorism (perhaps a good 1,000 of aspiring policemen, fully supportive of the USA, have been slaughtered by now.

You forget sick people ran a tyrannical dictatorship for tweenty five years! The sickness was already in Iraq! Your suggestion the U.S. was a party to terrorists acts is ludicrous!

Al Zarqawi committed atrocities against good civilians. All that, and the Iraq muslim community (by far the majority there, and entitled to vote) has sought close contact with its brethren in Iran after Saddam was caught. I don't think that Americans are feasting in the streets as to celebrate these events.

Al Zarqawi is attacking good citizens and the U.S. is tyring to stop him! He would be attacking targets in the U.S. if he didn't have a reason to attack in Iraq. Some terrorists have sought contact with Iranians and we are in the process of stopping them also.