[hflynn]

If Osama Bin Laden had nuclear weapons he would have used them on 9/11, or in Afghanistan, or in Yemen or in Qatar, or Saudi Arabia. Instead we are to believe he has them but elected not to use them while the United States ousted the Taliban, bombed Al-Qaida back to the stone age, and continues to conduct a massive build-up in the Middle East to oust the goverments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc? I don't thing so.

[hflynn]

thing = think

[Stefan Stackhouse]

If Osama Bin Laden had nuclear weapons he would have used them on 9/11, or in Afghanistan, or in Yemen or in Qatar, or Saudi Arabia. Instead we are to believe he has them but elected not to use them while the United States ousted the Taliban, bombed Al-Qaida back to the stone age, and continues to conduct a massive build-up in the Middle East to oust the goverments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc? I don't thing so.

The error of your assumption is in assuming that they think like you do. They do not. You think that a massive hit with everything that they have is the only strategy that could possibly "work." You may very well be right. But they might be thinking that hitting us with one thing at a time, slowly building up the level of terror, and disabling one piece of our economy after the other, is the best way to go. They might think that such a strategy would be easier for them to pull off (which might be true), and they might think that such a strategy might result in our demise (which it would not). That it might not "work" is not the point -- the point is: do THEY believe that it might work. If they do, then that is what they will do, whether or not it makes sense to you and I.