Nukes Already in U.S. Ready to Go Off

So let’s see if I understand this. If a bunch of Muslim wackos set off a nuclear device in New York or Chicago, it’s Ted Kennedy’s fault? And if they don’t set off a nuclear device, then it’s only thanks to George Bush.

OK, I’ve come to understand “Rush Limbaugh logic.” Everything bad that happens is the fault of liberal leftists, and everything good is thanks to conservative wing-nuts. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.

It’s hard to argue with this. I give up. But one question: Whose fault is it going to be when we run out of oil and our civilization collapses?

ush will invade Britain for North Sea oil, of course.

But what that has to do with nuclear bombs and terrorists is beyond me.

If terrorists do have the capability to detonate a nucular device, which I’m sure they do, I doubt very much that the devastation would be anywhere near that which a “government” nulclear device is capable of.
The device would be crude and although devastation would be severe, it would only be limited to half a city, not the whole bleedin country.

IMO, the backlash against the Islamic faith would be so severe that it wouldn’t be worth their while to detonate such a bomb.

“Dirty bombs” are more of a valid threat: a step down from nuclear bombs. They can infect a small area with radiation which although is not as potent as a real nuclear bomb, can still close the centre of a major city down for some 10 or 20 years.

I seem to recall that Bin Laden said something about wanting to ignite a holy war between Muslims and Jews/Christians. A fight to the finish. And of course, with Allah on his side, the Muslims couldn’t lose, right?

It’s insane of course, because if it was really full-scale anything-goes war, the Muslims would lose (after all, who has the most nukes?). But there isn’t very much about Bin Laden that I would describe as “sane”.

So yes, following the “logic” of terrorists, I think it would be “worth it” for them to set off a nuclear weapon in a western city if they had that capability. I don’t think they can do it yet, but perhaps eventually. If they succeed, there will be cheering in the streets of Mecca/Cairo/Karachi/…etc. At least, until the retaliation comes.

There is very little about terrorism that is logical.



ush will invade Britain for North Sea oil, of course.[/quote]

Hehe :bravo:

He certainly did do that. He went so far as to be the first US president to endorse a Palestinian state. However, Bush recognized that in order for the creation of a new Palestinian state to take place, such a state would have to be free and democratic, and would need to co-exist peacefully with Israel. Bush understands that no peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians can succeed while other states sponser terrorism committed by Palestinians against Israel. Saddam Hussein actively supported and sponsored such terrorism against Israel. As such, while Saddam was not the only one of such sponsors, he needed to go before the peace process can have any chance of moving forward in Israel-Palestine.

Some have replied to my statements above by pointing out that Saddam’s ouster has not resulted in a complete end to terrorist acts in Israel. That observation, however, misses the point completely. Taking out Saddam was meant to achieve not only the end of sponsorship from Saddam, but to send a message to other sponsors that such support will not be tolerated.

On what grounds? How can you complain about the detainees at Gitmo and then advocate the detainment of persons who likely have no connection or role in OBL’s activities?


That is not a very convincing argument.

bush understands nothing, his aides do.

[quote]bob wrote:
He could have kept Osama Bin Laden’s family in custody after 911 rather than escorting them safely out of the country at a time when no other aircraft was allowed to leave the ground. You’re loco…

On what grounds? How can you complain about the detainees at Gitmo
and then advocate the detainment of persons who likely have no connection or role in OBL’s activities?

I think the crux of this argument is that OBL’s family were flown out immediately following the events of 911 when all other flights had been suspended.
Why not put them under house arrest? Protective custody?
What’s so important that the family had to be flown out so quickly?