What does it take for us to realise that Saudi Arabia is virtually as much of a mortal threat to the West as Iran, and perhaps its time to get tough with that country and despatch that cleric to the firepit.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 22, 2006 4:55 PM

Perhaps OT, but everyone is getting too wrapped up in the story of Iran's response on nukes, so I'll post this here, even though it repeats what i've said in other threads, since this story reminds us, once again, of the bigger picture.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere:

The whole world has its problems with Islam. I decided to do some checking up on the recent history of the Muslims in China and, lo and behold, what did I find but the following statements, courtesy of the Islamic website "everymuslim.com" and Al-Islaah Publications!

"[The Chinese Muslims] actively struggled against communists before and after the revolution. In fact, in 1953, the Muslims revolted twice in an effort to establish an independent Islamic state [in regions where Muslims were an overwhelming majority]. These revolts were brutally suppressed by Chinese military force followed by the liberal use of anti-Muslim propaganda"

and

"Since religious freedom was declared in 1978, the Chinese Muslims have not wasted time in expressing their convictions. There are now some 28,000 mosques in the entire People's Republic of China, with 12,000 in the province of Xinjiang. In addition, there is a large number of imams available to lead the Muslim community (in Xinjiang alone there are over 2,800).
There has been an increased upsurge in Islamic expression in China, and many nationwide Islamic associations have been organized to coordinate inter-ethnic activities among Muslims"

and, finally

"As always, the Muslims have refused to be silenced. Several large demonstrations have been staged by Muslims to protest intrusions on Muslim life. Last year, for instance, Muslims staged a massive protest rally in Beijing to demand the removal of anti-Islamic literature from China's bookstores"

Now its possible that the Communist leadership will be willing to cut off its nose to spite its face", by continuning to indulge this population as another weapon in its ideological war with the West, but on the other hand, given that regime's paranoia about the growth of groups that could threaten its power and the repressive measures it was willing to take even against the Falun Gong sect (!), I wonder if there isn't a weakness here that the West should exploit.

What I know for sure is that China is not the only Asian nation facing an Islamic threat. Even the Phillipians has had its own insurgency by the 5% of its population that wants to set up their own Shari'a state. Surely the Russians' troubles with the Chechen's and others is another case in point.

Now that the August 22 threat seems to be winding down, we should not let down our guard, nor cease to prepare for the future that may be coming. In another thread, I waged a heated battle with the poster using the name August22 over the issue of whether to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, in which I argued for a calm, "wait and see" approach before doing anything, even using some arguments that I would not normally have relied on. I was motivated here by a sense of desparation of my own to cool the enthusiasm of August22 and others for the deployment of our nukes, simply because one has to recognize that if these weapons are ever used on any significant scale the damage to the world could be so immense, that life itself could cease to exist. So on that page I argued for calm, pointing out that the date could have some other significance, such as the end of the Persian calendar month of Mordad and the end of the year on that calendar. Now it appears that I was probably right about that (touch wood), but August22 made a number of valid points that I've since considered, among the best of which, was his observation that it was only by inflicting a massive and unconditional defeat on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan that we were able to turn them into the model citizens that these countries are today.

That said, the next thing for us to do is to force our Western governments to finally and definitively recognize the threat for what it is and stop speaking of the "war on terror" to call it what it really must be if its going to succeed: a "War on Islam!" From there, they've got to be willing to take two further steps.

1. Change the permissive laws that have allowed the terrorist threat to emerge from the permanently and innately alienated Islamic immigrants communities in Western countries to end this stupidity, and institute a massive campaign of repression against their Islamic communities, not because we hate all Moslems and want to wipe them out (since I doubt that this is true of most of us - I for one do not feel that way), but because if there really is such a thing as a "moderate" and "peaceful" Moslem, this type of measure is the ONLY thing that will allow them to hold their ground against the innate violence of their own Islamic societies. If this is successful, it may not be necesary to take step 2 because this in itself may be a convincing enough demonstration to the Islamic world that we mean business. However, just in case, here it is.

2. Pressure nations such as Russia and China, as well as Japan and all of Latin America, to recognize where there own best interests lie, break any defence pacts and alliances they may have with Islamic nations, and prepare to launch a massive, global crusade like the one that defeated Germany and Japan in the last century, targetting all the Islamic nations that sponsor terror attacks or that have links to threats within our borders. The ones that come to mind are Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, possibly Pakistan, and perhaps before long, Iraq. "Moderate nations" such as Jordan and Egypt could be left out as long as they behave themselves, but we have to let them know that if they involve themselves, or if they don't get their own militants under control within their own borders, we will step in there too, and do it for them.

Even if the threat of an Iranian attack against Israel appears to have passed for the moment, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons in a few years, and meanwhile, terrorist threats to airliners, subways - even parliaments if the charges in the recent Canadian case are true - continue, and these attacks give us all the reason we need to target these countries, especially the Saudis for an open and clear declaration of war fought according to the classic western traditions of warfare going back to Hoplite Greece - the shortest campaign possible defeating the most massive damage possible on the enemy.

The objective of this war must be nothing less than the total defeat and unconditional surrender of these nations, and an occupation that entirely breaks the will of the people who have adopted this monstrous ideology (here's where we'll be able to tell at last whether proposals for a "reform of Islam" can really succeed as we'll then be able to force this on them as one of the conditons for reconstruction and enforce it on the ground) and, that accomplished, their rebuilding and rehabilitation as respectable global citizens.

Posted by: templar at August 22, 2006 4:55 PM

This should surprise nobody. It is the prime strategy of the Islamists to "soften" us up enough that the Western world will crumble in upon itself out of fear and lack of fortitude in the face of death.

Once again, allow me to say it quite clearly: we have got to attack Iran NOW, Syria next and Saudi Arabia after that. If we do not remove these regimes from power then there will never be a true window for peace and prosperity in the Middle East and we will all one day be seeing our grandchildren growing up either Muslim or not growing up at all.

Islam is the enemy. Fight.

Posted by: Foehammer at August 22, 2006 4:56 PM

What if Mahmoud has had his Aug 22....maybe that was the day he gave Bin Laden the weapons Iran had made for him.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 4:58 PM

Did you expect a smaller number? Does the number really matter? We already knew this in principle and I've heard the number was 8 based on some al-gebra some imam did a couple of years back.

Syria and Iran need to be knocked down. We need to take away their ability to mount attacks on the free world. Now.. before the 10 million lives are taken from us.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 22, 2006 5:01 PM

Iran first...
then Syria ( maybe by proxy )

North Korea next, with a little help from our friends.

Then Pakistan ( maybe by another proxy )

then Saudi Arabia... viola! We have 80 to 90% of the problem taken care of for the free world.

Five nations cause most of the problems. It's time to take out their ability to attack, and in these areas: military, ideological, financial and networks of communications and contacts.

The educational system must be dismantled so that the brainwashing skips a generation at the minimum. Then we'll be heading in the right direction.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 22, 2006 5:10 PM

Fireangel, a lot of us feel the same way about the black rock. It's worthless, except for meteor hunters.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:14 PM

Maybe we need people to go in and rewrite the koran, take out the bloody murderous parts, leave in the silly, such as Satan up their noses, sun sets in a puddle, earth is flat, mts. hold the earth down and then hand it back to them. They would also be told that, to stay in OUR country, they will worship out of the new and improved sanitized version of the koran.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:17 PM

: freewoman.....dont forget never make urine in a snake hole.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 5:19 PM

Since when does Ben Ladden need permission from anyone? He's his own Allah, ya know.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 22, 2006 5:20 PM

Since when is this news? Back in 2001 AQ former spokesman (who is now in hiding) said they wanted to kill 4 mil Americans including 1 mil American children.The question I have is how many Muslims will die if AQ is foolish enough to launch such an attack?I would think 100 mil would be a likely number.

Posted by: Roxane at August 22, 2006 5:24 PM

O-K Storagemanager....my idea of roughing it is the Holiday Inn. But I will remember that bit..of advice. I don't want to be bit on the butt.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:24 PM

Quotes from Osama bin Laden:

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

``We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God." -- al-Jazeera, June 1999....Sorry Pelayo......his is the pure Islam.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 5:26 PM

I'm not buying into this one. Head of the CIA UBL unit huh, the same one who couldn't find him in 20 years? This is a scam to sell books just like UBL's so called sex slave, that old goat couldn't get turned on by anyone over the age of 6. Remember he follows the way of mohammad (he will not touch her until she is 9).

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 5:28 PM

Except, of course, for thighing them Ronin. They do like that when they can't wait.

Posted by: freewoman at August 22, 2006 5:30 PM

I've heard this before. 10 million dead, 4 million of the dead to be children.
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2762/history/3,2360,655,1701,2762

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 5:31 PM

"I'm not buying into this one. Head of the CIA UBL unit huh, the same one who couldn't find him in 20 years?"

Michael Scheuer is a shameless opportunist who was crappy at his analyst job at the CIA. He's just cashing in on his good fortune.

Posted by: Don Miguel at August 22, 2006 5:38 PM

Pakistan has nuclear, and al-qaida has bases in Pakistan. Is it far-fetched to speculate that al-qaida has been given nukes? And would it really be that difficult to smuggle a-bombs into US, and make, say, 5 of them go off at the same time in different cities?

Well, maybe, I don't know much about how difficult it is to detect something like that, but given that US can't stop millions of mexicans from entering illegaly, would it really be that hard to get a few nukes in? (Wasn't there something about unprotected harbours in the news a while ago?)

I fear that if Islam isn't stopped soon, the next thing we know 50 million US citizens will die in a nuclear strike of some sort. After all, that's what the muslims promise over and over again - "DEATH TO USA".

Time is running up, and the question is: do we want to live or die?

Posted by: XY at August 22, 2006 5:39 PM

this may sound absurd, then again so is killing 10 million people... but how is combatting muslim extremism different from combatting communism? and can we learn anything from what Reagan did in the 80s? Or how JFK avoided conflict in the Cuban missle crisis?

Posted by: hunginca10 at August 22, 2006 5:44 PM

Michael Scheuer looks like a wusslum, I googled his picture. I wouldn't worry about nuking the USA, even if they had 400, we would survive (the middle east would not). Think about the politics if one goes off, we will want blood and lots of it. Any party that did not support extreme punishment would be finished. I am old enough to remember the Murr attack, everyone blamed islam and all the muslims started crying "it wasn't us" because they knew somewhere planes where starting to take off. You kill our children we kill yours x 1000. I don't think islam hates us because we are free they hate the fact they had 1400 years to build power and we replaced them as the worlds dominant power in just a few generations. So much for allah, he can’t even control our fingers, not much of a deity is he?

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 5:49 PM

Ronin,please go to this site and read the first article on the scroll list called "dodging the nuclear 9/11" and comment for me. Thanks
http://www.howardbloom.net/

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 6:03 PM

Sad as it is, the reality is that Bush'a corrupt dealings with Saudi's will cost American lives. How else can anyone explain:
- Saudi, America's 'best friend' when Saudi sis not allow Khobar Tower bombing investigation?
- Saudi, America's 'ally' against terror when 15 Saidis attacvked America on 9/11?
- Bin Ladin's excorted out of US when America had just been attacked by the family?
- Saudi making Dubya, eat his own words of 'Islamo-Fascism'?

Bush is neck-deep in Saudi dealings and as long as Bush is at the helm, Saudi will get away with anything, including increased student's visas (does it make any sense)?, plethora of mosques across America and now, millions of dead Americans.

There is a distinct and a dangerous conflict-of-interest, between Saudi Arabia and US presidnt/commander-in-chief, the cost of which, time will tell.

Posted by: Alert at August 22, 2006 6:03 PM

Killing 10 million innocents sounds absurd, but rhetoric like that being spouted by hateful clerics and mullahs worldwide is killing innocent infidels hand over fist every day. This Islamic ideaology has to be stamped out - and fast. Far too many infidels have been rendered Islam-dumb by the global PC brigade to a dangerous extent. People who dare criticise Islam have been branded as fascists and racists for far too long - and sadly, these smug, self-satisfied poltroons won't realise that those they regarded as 'fascists and racists' were right all along until the blade is at their necks, and the necks of their children. This talk from the PC weenies enables terrorists, much to our peril. The best books on the subject of Islam have been criminally allowed to go out of print - books written by wise sages who, if they'd been thoroughly studied over the last 50 years, and their words of wisdom acted upon, might well have saved us so much pain. The result of this neglect has given us leaders who have been stupidly telling us that Islam is a religion of peace over the last 40-50 years. This isn't leadership talk from them but the talk of cultural and civilizational suicide.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 22, 2006 6:04 PM

When I think of how many Lefties like this thug Bin Laden, it makes me wonder whether Osama hasn't similarly gotten an authorization from Noam Chomsky on a cap of 10 million deaths.

"Osama, here at Berkeley campus, we'll call your attacks justifiable self-defense upto a maximum of 10 million casualties"

Posted by: sanman at August 22, 2006 6:08 PM

dms,

I don’t know why you wanted my comments but here goes: As far as propaganda goes it sucks. It amounts to a nice story but without any proof or a way to verify the “facts” it would be a hard sell. The arguments about NYC and Washington being close to the sea convinced me the entire article was just a typical scare tactic without any merit. Subs are standoff weapon platforms and cruise missiles are also used because of a standoff role. It doesn’t matter if the target is close to anything. The entire article was poorly thought out and barely researched. Feel better?

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 6:14 PM

Yes and thanks for your trouble.

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 6:18 PM

hunginca10,

The Communists were ideologically wedded to atheism and materialism. So they believed that life on earth is all that counts, and that their ideology would produce the best and most egalitarian human condition for all here on this planet. Aside from raw power, the Soviets wanted prosperity.

The Muslims, on the other hand, care nothing about the human condition in the temporal world, except that Islam is to be dominant everywhere. Economic development and material wealth mean absolutely nothing, except that Muslims must always be economically better off than their "filthy" dhimmi slaves--any other relative state of economic affairs is "injustice" to them. To the Muslims, the only meaning in life derives from its termination--a noble death in service to the goal of achieving Allah's triumphant universal rule.

Therefore, a Reaganesque economic offensive will have no influence on Islam. Neither will a military buildup, with its implied threat of violence, since the Muslims yearn only for martyrdom.

JFK gave concessions to the Soviets (withdrawal of missiles in Turkey, and a promise not to invade Cuba forever) that gave the Communists a fig leaf behind which to back off.

In contrast, any concesssions to Muslims would merely confirm their core belief--that Allah is behind them for an ultimate victory over the infidels globally. Any concession to them thus encourages Muslims to make even more demands and to mount even more aggressive and violent challenges to the West.

So the confrontation with Islam is an entirely different ball game from the Cold War. Unfortunately, a lot of people in the West, including apparently many high government officials, do not understand this. The result of that ignorance, in all probability, will be another bloody world war.

Posted by: Stendec at August 22, 2006 6:26 PM

And Human Beings would never crash a plane into a bldg on purpose....thats just fantasy....Oh wait 19 men with boxcutters changed the World....Nothing is unthinkable when it comes to Islam.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 6:27 PM

He has had the "right" to cause an American Hiroshima from some cleric for some time now, as pointed out in Nuclear Terrorism and a couple of Paul Williams books.

Some think they already have nukes and ex-Russian Spetsnaz technicians to service them.

If you follow this eye for an eye type of thinking and keep a ledger, I would still think that the Muslim invaders murdered, raped and executed far more over the centuries than 10 million that they claim the Infidels are responsible for.

What kind of monster would think like this anyway?

Posted by: amana39 at August 22, 2006 6:34 PM

NP dms,

I was thinking about the 10 million. I can’t think of any US population centers where you could guarantee 10 million dead. You would need a salvo of nukes or the ability to strike 20-30 targets in the middle of occupied areas. Pretty ambitious plan. I checked http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp to see what they can really do and I am even more convinced they can not kill 10 million. OTOH we can and I think would if attacked.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 6:35 PM

From a lexicon of Spanish words derived from Arabic, from the "Golden Age" of Andalus:

alcayde \Sp. alcaide, formerly alcayde, the captain of a castle, ad. Arab. al-qa‘id the leader, f. qada to lead.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Y5fuzGEetZ4J:www.hottopos.com/collat4/oxford.doc+assogue&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 6:52 PM

Yes, but does he have permission from his MOTHER to kill 10 million people. Don't they need permission from their mothers first before they go out and kill?

Posted by: Voltaire at August 22, 2006 7:01 PM

Kill an imam? They are simple minded homicidal sex starved perverts attempting to eck out a living controlling mindless drones. How heartless of you.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 7:14 PM

This sounds suspiciously like something out of an Austin Powers movie. >.

UBL has proven he's far more effective with actions, not words. He's never been a verbally brash master of terror nor is he a fiery orator. The inspiration of his spoken word remains most deadly when it's at its softest and most secretive. This ridiculous comment leads me to believe that he's either reading Propaganda 101 from a Dr. Seuss book or is simply desperate for attention. His minions are still hung up on dropping airplanes and IED's. I hope we don't find out he's kicked it up a notch with a 20-kiloton airburst over Manhattan.

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 22, 2006 7:24 PM

And as far as this Scheuer guy is concerned... the CIA and its Directorate of Intelligence is a step above the State Department which is just a notch above the JonBenet investigative team.

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at August 22, 2006 7:32 PM

Translation: Saudi cleric approves the death of 100 million muslims.

Posted by: angryeagle at August 22, 2006 7:44 PM

I sit here as an American, first and foremost. Stating multiculturalism is destroying our great country. Don't be mislead by my name, I stand for America, and its freedoms. Nowhere can a man,woman,looser,winner,repubilican,democrat,or if you choose not to be involved in anything. Your still an American, but at this time if you fail to head the warnings, we're all lost

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 7:55 PM

"What does it take for us to realise that Saudi Arabia is virtually as much of a mortal threat to the West as Iran, and perhaps its time to get tough with that country and despatch that cleric to the firepit."

and the 911 hijackers were mostly Saudi.
i think you invaded the wrong country.

Posted by: archduke at August 22, 2006 7:59 PM

l dont think OBL needed any ones clearance to kill any non muslim or bad muslim. well Aug.22 has come and gone, l dont think Iran will do much, till after the Nov. elections. if the Dems get control over the House and or Senate, Bush will be kept busy with all their investigations. Iran will go ahead and do their best then. for all the Bush haters, Iran is more afraid of Bush, than the Dems. so if God forbid the Dems are in control like JohnKerry's,Algores, you will see a much more in your face Iranian government. right now they are all words, deed will follow though. Bush should strike while the iron is hot!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 22, 2006 8:00 PM

It ain't the 23rd yet!

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:01 PM

This is so stupid. From what I can tell, Mohammed and allah gave unlimited permission to kill whoever you wanted. Any of this psychopaths could kill you for any reason they wanted and if they can justify it in their own brains using logic then they don't feel guilty. I would propose that ALL muslims justify the acts of their brethren in some form or ashion. They may not go out and do the killings themselves, but their silence is deafening. It's the west that gives these guys a free pass, from the smallest incident like the jerk Seattle to the worst of the worst in Iran. I guess we'll need a huge mushroom cloud over NYC to kick peoples brains into gear. Appeasers of this type are like a b*tch that rolls over every time her master comes by. I dread the day that my great grandchildren give up and become Muslim....unless we stop things now.

Posted by: Tomilio at August 22, 2006 8:08 PM

and the 911 hijackers were mostly Saudi.
i think you invaded the wrong country.

Posted by: archduke..............I still think that was rope a dope....Bin laden is working with Iran to overthrow the royal family...Bin Laden plays the bad guy and takes the heat off Iran....time will tell.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 22, 2006 8:10 PM

Freewoman:

"Thighing" - I've never actually encountered that expression before finding these pages.

I mean, I'm not entirely stupid, so I can take a flying guess at it, but I'm not entirely certain. Is it ... like ... you know (or maybe you don't?) the sort of thing those yappy little dogs do to your shin if you stand still for too long?

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 22, 2006 8:15 PM

It's all misdirection designed to draw our attention away from irans goal of becoming a nuclear power.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 8:16 PM

Ronin they are allready a power, they should be dust allready.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:19 PM

Sir Henry Morgan,

Do a Google search of "thighing" + "jihad watch" + "television" (my other nickname)

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 8:26 PM

Also I'll say what stupid s*&#, like binlakin would need a reason to kill anyone or anything. Any one who will not heed any warnings at this time, will reap what they sew.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 8:29 PM

I sit here as an American, first and foremost. Stating multiculturalism is destroying our great country.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 07:55 PM

Well said Sir.

Posted by: km at August 22, 2006 8:30 PM

Thighing
http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/more-on-pedopheliaand-thighing.html

Posted by: dms at August 22, 2006 8:30 PM

Islamic justification of genocide.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 8:39 PM

AMartinez,
For the sake of argument, I don’t think dust is practical. We can destroy infrastructure, historical places and the ability to conduct commerce. Turning 1.2 billion into dust is not necessary. We remain a threat as long as the few with the wisdom to question old zealots claiming to know allahs will but never having done it, do just that, question. Let the imams spread hate, we learn from every action. The truth spreads daily. Some muslims are starting to realize they have to pick a side, millions will leave islam never to return. It is getting harder for muslims to recruit. Look at some of the most remote areas on the planet and you will find muslims, why? Because they know westerners are increasingly seeing the truth and worse we are explaining it to others. Why attack this site, why attempt to defend islam here? There are plenty of sites like it but Robert is a power they fear the most, he is unflappable. They are scared and all this posturing amounts to little more than a bluff. An imams power base is based on fear, threats sell, young muslims suck it up but suicide is a different story. I have never heard of any imam or his son fighting the jihad, not one. They are cowards who trick others into action. Young muslims are not blind, some will realize they are going to far and entire muslim countries will pay if they don't reel in their so called religious leadership. I’m not convinced muslims are ready to see mecca burn.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 8:39 PM

I keep mentioning that allah need be declared a myth but so few are interested in solidifying this with me. Is this because "god" must remain a sacred cow? Must this sacred cow be worshipped up to and beyond the point of nuclear genocide? What kind of god would desire this, want this or pre-ordain this kind of suffering, mass violence and death? Make a world, fortell an "armageddon" and then blow it all up? What a load of holy shit and what a waste of time. Imaginary allah can stick his dead prophet up his non-existant arse.

Destroy Muslim honor so that they have nothing left to kill for by philosophically destroying the idea of this useless non-thing.

1) If "allah" is omnipotent yet does not intervene to end suffering, allah is malevolent evil.
2) If "allah" is omnibenevolent yet has no power to stave off the suffering of living beings, allah is powerless.
3) Suffering exists without intervention of any "creator" therefore "allah" is completely unworthy of any form of worship.

Period.

This, of course, can apply to any faith and any god yet it is not ANY faith or god that espouses hyper-violence. It is Islam and it's silly desert fairy called "allah".

Kind of hard for Muslims to fight for a deity that so many people call an outright non-existant lie...but this appears to still be a sacred cow among believers in "god". If Muslims are insulted to the point of murder - their beliefs need to be held accountable.

Call it what it is - Islamic Arabian Mythology, lies of a dead pedophile, a 1400 year old cult of hatred. Whatever - call it what it is and take away their right invoke any and all actions for the sake of this imaginary spook!

The western world needs to be Islam-free, doors to CAIR and all other .orgs need to be nailed shut and Muslims who disagree need to return to Dar Al-Islam. If Muslims wish to worship their imaginary god, his pedophile inventor and that harem of celestial whores in the sky, they need to either show proof of existence or reform their moral faith. Before the bombs fly, if ever they do, Muslims better take stock in what they believe and adjust their holier-than-thou opinion of themselves before we are forced to crush and censor their culture for sake of our survival.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at August 22, 2006 8:47 PM

Here is a quick question: If UBL has a nuclear weapon by chance and does find a way to detonate it in a metropolitan area, who do we nuke back? UBL is not affiliated with any country, so do we kill millions in a region just because?

Posted by: afkbrad at August 22, 2006 8:50 PM

I just looked up "thighing." Our professor never covered THAT in my Middle Eastern studies class! You learn something new every day. Evil, evil, evil.

Posted by: SpongeMom at August 22, 2006 8:55 PM

Remote control, Carolyn2:

Thank you. An education - and here was me at 54 thinking I'd already heard it all, seen it all, done it all.

This is a RELIGION?

Right, logging off and going to bed, but I'll have difficulty getting the picture of sodomy with a goat out of my head. Don't think I'll be eating much tomorrow ... It's not often I'm stumped for words. Well done. Nobody else has ever been able to render me unable to find the words to express my thoughts. And THEY claim moral superiority over US?

G'night everyone. I'll look in on this thread tomorrow.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 22, 2006 8:56 PM

"UBL is not affiliated with any country, so do we kill millions in a region just because?"

We did that in World War II. Unless you think we were wrong (and only Leftists think that), then we would have the moral high ground to strike back at any given petri dish in the Muslim world that has nourished the Jihadist virus.

But even then, we probably won't, because the PC Multiculturalist template which dominates most of our thought and feelings about this issue persistently insists on separating Islam itself from the "tiny minority of extremists" pullulating out of Islam. And everywhere we would train our sights is a country practicing "mainstream Islam" (with only pockets of "tiny extremists"), which by PC Multiculturalist definition cannot be culpable. And since the goalpost markers of our "moral high ground" has been unfairly shifted upfield since World War II, we cannot strike against those who are not ostensibly "culpable".

We will simply have to wait until ten million or more Westerners are murdered before thawing out our rationality which has been put into the walk-in freezer for the past 50-odd years.

Let us thank those 10 million + of our fellow Westerners now, for making that involuntary sacrifice which our dominant PC Multiculturalism irrationally has imposed upon them.

Posted by: remote_control at August 22, 2006 9:01 PM

From my link above:
IV. The Annihilation Will Be Mostly By Your Hands
Some Islamic clerics emphasize that the annihilation of the West, the Jews, and the infidels will come about – according to the divine decrees – largely by the hands of the Muslims, who will torment them by means of Jihad.

In an article headlined "Allah Will Torment Them By Your Hands" that appeared on August 24, 2002 in the Al-Qa'ida-affiliated online magazine Al-Ansar, Seif Al-Din Al-Ansari wrote: "I would like to emphasize that the annihilation of the infidels is an unshakeable and inarguable truth. It is a valid and existing divine decree… It should be noted that total annihilation by heaven was stopped after the descent of the Torah, that is, since the time of Moses, peace be upon him. Allah said [in the Qur'an], 'We did reveal to Musa [Moses] the Book [i.e. the Torah] after We had destroyed the earlier generations…' Of course, the decree to annihilate [the infidels] still exists, and still applies in full, as it existed even before the descent of the Torah. This decree will not be completely implemented, to include all members of the infidel nation; rather, Allah will annihilate the infidels by means of torment [with which He will strike them], whether by destroying their country or by less than this. But in general, He will not completely eliminate them…

"When Allah announced to us that the annihilation of the infidels is certain, He did not use ambiguous terms; rather, he clearly said that it would take place in one of two ways: Either it would be done by Allah directly, or it would be done by the Muslim community, in compliance with divine law, in order to carry out the decree. [As it is said in the Qur'an], 'We can expect for you either that Allah will send His punishment from Himself, or by our hands' [9:52]…

"But the question is how the torments that Allah wants carried out by our hands will be implemented… The torments certainly will not be carried out by means of da'wa [preaching to Islam]… [but] by means of Jihad will Allah torment the [infidels] by killing, by means of Jihad will Allah torment them by financial loss, by means of Jihad will Allah torment them by loss of power. That is, Allah will torment them by means of Jihad… [Allah] said: 'Fight them, Allah will torment them by your hands' [9:14]. Ibn Kathir [37] said about this [in his Tafsir, or commentary, on the Qur'an]: 'After the descent of the Torah, no nation was struck with torments, but Allah has commanded the believers to fight the enemies of Allah'…

"The annihilation of the infidels is a divine decree, until the Day of Judgment. A large part of it will be carried out only by the believers – that is, by means of Jihad, as Jihad is also until the Day of Judgment, as [the Prophet Muhammad] said, peace be upon him, 'The Jihad is until the Day of Judgment'…"

Similar statements were made by Islamist preacher Hussein bin Mahfouz in a sermon posted on www.alminbar.net. In it, he said: "It is a divine decree from Allah that the believers close to him will be saved and that his infidel enemies will be annihilated and destroyed. Since Allah created all mankind, as well as the struggle between truth and falsehood, he intended to destroy the infidels and save the believers… We are a people whose strength is in Islam and in waging Jihad. It is an honor for us that Allah set us to be like his torment of the infidels by deciding that the infidels will be annihilated by our hand."

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 9:02 PM

I thought my grandma had thighs. As a kid I went grocery shopping with my grand father Calvin, I said daddy Calvin whats chicken thiggs? Ahh innocense is bliss for children. allah is a piece of S#%~.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:04 PM

"I dont think OBL needed any one's clearance to kill any non muslim or bad muslim"

It is a requirement of Islam -- that an act of jihad needs to be approved by a muslim cleric. Behind every act of muslim terrorism there is an imam. When we take down terrorists we should also trace them to the imam and take him down too.

Posted by: skidd at August 22, 2006 9:07 PM

Carolyn2,

"Since Allah created all mankind, as well as the struggle between truth and falsehood, he intended to destroy the infidels and save the believers..."

So - Allah created all mankind to therefore invoke a struggle between truth and falsehood.

Allah is all knowing yet allah allows us to fight out true/false?

Allah created infidels and intends to destroy those siad infidels?

So "Allah" is a drama queen and the earth his little petri dish?

What a joke.

BTW, it wasn't a war on Islam we've been fighting these past few years but it certainly is now.

Either we define this ideological enemy called Islam and defeat it as we did Nazism and bury it or it will bury us in the blackness of moral retardation.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at August 22, 2006 9:11 PM

Sort of OT but dealing with the "WOT"
Pro-war Buddists...hooray!
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
This was posted at LGF

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 22, 2006 9:13 PM

Mr. Quantum, it will not end that easy. Its gonna take the deaths of many. And again most will argue, we as Americans, deserve whats happened. Why we only have to look at how we support Israel. We've stood back again, waiting for an outcome.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:23 PM

As much as I don’t think we have to kill 1.2 billion people, I do think a WMD attack would require the complete destruction of at least one nation. UBL is stateless so whom do we attack? Simple, any nation that supported him directly or indirectly is game. That narrows it down to most muslim nations which we will narrow to three. The rest will find all aid gone, not cut, gone! We would look at what was used to attack us blame someone for giving to them and whammo. Trade will not happen, mosques will close and support for liberals will also be gone. The UN and world will scream and we can always say “sorry, and we promise to be good” reality is they need us more than we need them. We would also claim reparations. It would not be a good day for muslims in or out of the US. It would not hurt our economy to lose muslim money, they get more from us than we do from them. A few trade deals with non muslim nations and we would be back in the black. We go back to the “with us of agin us”, pick islam and you can trade with them, pick us and live in the 21st century.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:28 PM

I forgot, I am running for Governor of Florida, lol.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:29 PM

"Islam practices patience ... remember it was more than eight years between attacks on the World Trade Center. They are in no rush. They will attack when they are ready." -Paul Williams

Saudi Cleric: "Osama, you're go for 10M Yankee infidels."
Osama Bin Laden: "Roger, that."

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."
-George Bush

A suitcase sized tactical nuclear bomb, weighing 35 pounds or less, with an explosive strength of 10 kilotons could easily level Manhattan and spread lethal radiation throughout the New York City area.

This country is not prepared for the horrors waiting to befall it.

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at August 22, 2006 9:33 PM

Wait, just had to look at cairs website, wtf is rosa parks doing there. Thats total bullsh*^.

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:33 PM

I think the suitcase nuke has been proven to be a myth and it would take much more than 10 kilotons to knock out Manhattan, I think they have proved themselves tough.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:37 PM

Any nuke in manhattan and theyed kill each outher just to say they were nuked lol

Posted by: AMartinez at August 22, 2006 9:40 PM

I really don’t fear crazed muslims, I fear them turning us into blood thirsty Americans out for revenge. We only went all out once in our entire history and that was against ourselves. Once the rest of the world reads our history it should scare them as much as it does me. No one can withstand an all out no holds barred fight with the USA; it can not be done.

Posted by: Ronin at August 22, 2006 9:45 PM

I read in the paper today this bin Laden guy is the wealthiest guy in Afghanistan. That's when you know your government is no good, when the wealthiest guy in the country lives in a cave.

There's a new comic book where Batman goes after Osama Bin Laden. You thought radical Muslims hated cartoons before?

Posted by: Iranaway at August 22, 2006 9:52 PM

Ronin, let's not underestimate the destruction that can be caused by nuclear weapons. We can debate the level of devastation, but multiple, simultaneous detonations by dispersed terror cells must be considered.

Bomb-A-City Calculator

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at August 22, 2006 10:20 PM

Ronin, i would like to think that the US would flatten a muslim country in the wake of a nuclear attack, but I'm afraid no president will have the balls to order such a thing.

Back in the days of the arms race, a nuclear attack even on one city was to be answered with an immediate massive counterattack killing tens of millions of Russians. The response time was supposed to be minutes.

Fast forward to today.

If a nuke goes off in NYC, the president will not know exactly who did it. Consequentely, there will be no immeditate counter strike. The only thing that will follow such an a blast, would be an investigation. By the time such an investigation was completed and it was decided that say, the bomb came from Pakistan, but may have been used by Al-qaeda, which may have had some help from Iran, with some funding from Saudia Arabia, who the hell does the US strike?

That's the problem. Morally, we should flatten all of them. But in reality, that would not happen. No president would want to order the killing of 100 million people. Since Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are supposed to be allies, they would get off scott free. Iran would get a few conventional missiles aimed at command and control targets. Tehran would not be hit, much less nuked. And as for Al-qaeda, since they have no state, they are untouchable. Their leader sits in a cave in Pakistan, so US troops have no legal access to him.

So what this all means, quite depressingly, is that NYC could be nuked, and unlike the MAD situation of the arms race with the soviets, nothing of substance would result from such an attack on our soil. And certainly nothing would happen immediately.

This is what I believe that China and Russia want. That is why they support Iran or any other terrorist nation. They want their proxies to nuke us so that they can enjoy the benefits without paying the penalty they would have paid during the arms race if they did it themselves.

Both China and Russia have designs. And both would love to see the US taken down a few notches. And such a thing could occur, I believe will occur, without any US counter nuclear retaliation. Who do you nuke when a cochroach from al-aqaeda flattens Manhattan with a bomb from an ally like Pakistan funded by money from an ally like Saudia Arabia, whose oil we seem to need? The geopolitics that the US has created the past 50 years, ironically, makes it impossible, or at the least highly problematic, for the US to defend itself through the principle of deterrence, as it did vis-a-vis the USSR. In order to hit islam and its terrorist minions, the US will have cut all alliances and reliances, on all muslim and OPEC countries. That means, quite simply, that we will have to get off OPEC oil before we can defend ourselves. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Posted by: August22 at August 22, 2006 10:22 PM

bin Laden is starting to remind me a lot of an old "Gilligan's Island" episode during which a Japanese WW2 soldier who arrives on the island (and doesn't know the war ended 20 years before),captures the 7 castaways there, angrily informs Ginger (after she unintentionally insults him) that he has "a good mind not to torture her!" If bin Laden gets disgusted enough with us, he may decide Americans aren't good enough to blow up!

Although, seriously, this is supposed to frighten Americans into Islamizing, the hard fact is that Muslims have been plannng to destroy America and kill off all the American people since the 1930s, if not before. Hitler himself had plans of obliterating US cities with the "blood of the American people" flowing down the city streets like rivers. Hitler, of course, was Haj el-Husseini's best buddy(one of the Muslim Brotherhood's 'leaders')--and this man is no doubt where this lovely idea came from. Almost certainly, the Third reich's blitzing of London with V-2 rockets was a dry run for attacks on American cities utilizing V-2 rockets loaded with nuclear explosives--and just as certainly Hitler was doing the Muslim Brotherhood's bidding. Notice that the Muslim Brotherhood itself is the wellspring of al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

So, let's deploy our EMPs and go get them apes!

So I see there's nothing new under the sun. bin laden himself must be looking like an Afghani-grown raisin these days...

Posted by: pythagoras at August 22, 2006 10:31 PM

I am reposting this from the 'Muslims in Europe, not European muslims' article from yesterday.
(-thanks for your approval henry)

With just one update. From a nuke perspective it would be a fast destruction of civilization, from an immigration perspective it would be a slow destruction of civilization. Devastation either way.

[---]
There is a plan. Read this.
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/92/europe-remains-center-of-islamist-focus

[---]

I have been hearing people complain about the terror threat not being real.

Or that a change in foreign policy would stop the terror threats. Which is what the muslims are saying.

Or that when Bush and Blair get voted out it will stop.

Or that if Israel didn't exist things would be calm.

They haven't looked at history.

They just don't get it.

It really doesn't matter if there is EVER another attack.

IF muslims gain power in any country the life of anyone who is not a muslim will never be safe again. Just think back to the horrible injustices which occured in the 7th century. THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE BACK TO LIVING LIKE IF MUSLIMS HAVE CONTROL.

Most muslims would not kill you, but they would not stop the one who would.

Most muslims would not plant a bomb, but they would not stop the one who would.

Most muslims would not overthrow the government, but they would not stop the one who would bring sharia to your country.

Most muslims would not rape your daughter, but they would think she deserved it.

Most muslims would not slap you down and humiliate you while you pay your taxes like a beaten slave but would agree that you should be humiliated per the koran.

Most muslims would not demand that you cut your hair and wear the zunnar, but would be glad that their iman would demand it.

Most muslims would be happy for you to look at the koran, if you convert, but would scream if an infidel touched the arabic version which would be polluted by your touch.

Most muslims would not throw stones at your funeral procession but they would demand that you be buried somewhere else so you don't pollute their cemetaries.

Most muslims won't burn your church down but would gladly watch as it falls down because repairs have been forbidden by the muslim powers that be.

A non-muslim can't safely enjoy life under muslim control.

So, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ANOTHER ATTACK EVER HAPPENS.

---
(addendum to my repost - Muslims will destroy civilization as we know it, one way or the other. And yes of course I know it would matter to those attacked, but I am referring to the big picture of history. The 'War on Terror' is really a war against moving backwards, a war to preserve freedom, civilization and a future free from forced submission.)

Posted by: Borg at August 22, 2006 10:35 PM

hunginca10:

how is combatting muslim extremism different from combatting communism? and can we learn anything from what Reagan did in the 80s? Or how JFK avoided conflict in the Cuban missle crisis?

It's totally different.
It was the economic failure of the USSR that finally caused Gorbachev to remake the Communist system (which caused it to collapse). Whereas these radical Muslims don't care if their economies succeed or fail. Some of their firebrands actually think that petrodollars have made the Muslims soft and docile, and that "pure, true Islam" is best found in primitive backward societies like Afghanistan. I'm not making this up.

And when you're dealing with an enemy that actually looks forward to an afterlife, threatening to kill them (deterrence) does not work. The Soviet Communists were atheists; they believed that if they died in war, that was the end of them. So they weren't in any particular hurry to die. Whereas we know how much these Muslim jihadists actually look forward to those 72 virgins in Paradise.

A better analogy is with the Japanese fanatics of World War II. They used suicide-bombers too (kamikaze planes). They also had a mystical view of combat (believing that their dead warriors' spirits would be floating around Yasukuni Shrine). And very few of them surrendered.

It took a ruthless war by the U.S., including the dropping of two atomic bombs, to finally get them to throw in the towel. The Japanese surrendered because Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced them that the U.S. would actually take the ultimate step--systematic genocide of the Japanese people--if they didn't surrender. I don't think anything less than a similar willingness to devastate entire Muslim societies if need be, will get our jihadist enemies to throw in the towel.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:41 PM

Remember...the Saudis were the distributors of the anti American and hate propaganda found by Freedom House in dozens of mosques across the U.S. Also, aren't they sending a herd of students in an exchange program this year with U.S. universities? They know the soft spots in American armor: the media, universities and then a shield by the American legal system, probably in the form of the ACLU.

Posted by: Briars at August 22, 2006 10:44 PM

Alert writes:

"Bush is neck-deep in Saudi dealings and as long as Bush is at the helm, Saudi will get away with anything, including increased student's visas (does it make any sense)?, plethora of mosques across America and now, millions of dead Americans."

Whenever anybody says that any part of the threat we face is "all about Bush," an automatic alarm should go off in sane people's heads.

Sucking up to Saudi Arabia is bipartisan; the Democrats do it as much as the Republicans. Saudi Arabia's "special relationship" with the U.S. started with a sordid deal made by the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt way back in the 1940's. And it has continued, ever since, no matter who was in the White House or Congress, no matter what parties they belonged to.

Right now, Bush is taking tremendous political heat from the Democrats over Iraq. None of them has criticized his Saudi policy. The only one who dared to question our relationship with Saudi Arabia was Howard Dean, and the political establishment sure got rid of him fast.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:48 PM

For the vast bulk of the world's Christian population the authority of the Pope is paramount - as it always has been throughout the ages. For many protestants, even, the pronouncements of His Holiness have weight and significance when they come to formulate an approach to, or a point of view about, a problem confronting Christianity. The words and the pronouncements of the other Patriarchs, too, are weighed and summed carefully by most Christian communities. The words of the leaders (Patriarchs?) of more modern Christian communities, such as Baptists and Quakers, are also evaluated by rational Christians when trying to arrive at a point of reason.

However, for many Christians, perhaps for most Christians, the continuing authority of previous far seeing Popes' and Patriarchs' pronouncements is at least as important as the pronouncements of those august few who currently occupy these great offices. To be more specific, the passage of centuries together with the evolution of Christian Jurisprudence have taught us that, for example, the Bulls of Eugenius (Quantum predecessores issued in December, 1145) and the Bull of Nicholas (Romanus Pontifex) and the lesser Bull of Alexander (Inter caetera) with many, many others too numerous for me to list here, by many, many other Popes and Patriarchs, that the world of islam is our mortal enemy and must be confronted and challenged and fought and defeated where-ever it is encountered.

Quite categorically, with no room to manoeuvre, the Christian faith has taught us that islam is the work of the devil and that it must be destroyed utterly - that it, and all its believers, should be destroyed completely and utterly. No mainstrean Christian leader has ever preached otherwise, though many have chosen to hide or obfuscate that teaching.

The Bulls that preach the crusades are still in force. They cannot be rescinded without the Church - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jamesian, Antiochan, Russian, Anglican, Coptic, Maronite, Aethiopian, Syriac or whatever (with suitable apologies to those I have not mentioned) - lapsing into heresy.

We Christians need no excuse to fight the devil worshippers of islam, no excuse to attack them (within the bounds of law as we agree to in our various and separate countries), no excuse to render them into a ruinous and parlous state and, if necessary, to force their conversion to the one true faith - or to no faith at all if one is of a secular persuasion, as the command is to 'defeat utterly' not to convert. The crusade against islam has been Bulled, sent forth and preached. This crusade has never been rescinded, nor can it ever be. I do not, for the life of me, understand why any Christian has any difficulty with this.

Have at them. They have no worth and in them is no goodness.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 10:50 PM

"What if there are ten million and one?"
Allah says "10,000,001? No raisins for you!

Posted by: AnneCrockett at August 22, 2006 10:57 PM

Steven L.- The ONLY reason they surrendered was because the emporer finally admitted that he was not a god. Until then they were fighting for their god and that is why they fought so fiercely. I spoke with a bombing survivor once and was told that they never would have given up without the bombing and the emporer admitting he was not devine. Although fairly young at the time of the bombing and being devastated by it, the realization that nothing else would have stopped the fighting was clear.

Posted by: Borg at August 22, 2006 11:05 PM

The West needs to establish a retaliation doctrine now to make clear to the world that an attack against a population center would result in a disproportional response. It should be introduced to a prime time audience and lay out the realities of a WMD attack and the deterrent value of the retaliation doctrine. The target sets should be named and include religious sites, military sites, and capital cities of the countries deemed by a preponderance of evidence to be involved in the attack.

‘How would you react to a nuclear explosion in one of our Cities?’ is a great question to ask politicians in this and all future elections.

Posted by: limes at August 22, 2006 11:07 PM

Borg/

You're quite right, but try 'emperor' and 'divine' - I think you'll find that they work better as English spellings.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 11:09 PM

StevenL: You are correct about Howard Dean. But there could be other reasons he was disposed of besides the one you mentioned (although it probably helped that he brought up and dared to criticize Washington's suicidal, one-sided relationship with the Saudis).

I am not sorry that Dean has been uprooted. But for the time being, we have a 'Friendship Treaty' with the Saudis -which we signed in 1932-- that we are stuck with and need to repeal. I think if enough voters pressure their representatives we can do as much or more than Dean could have to resolve the US' Saudi Arabia problem.

Posted by: pythagoras at August 22, 2006 11:16 PM

August 22 -

So -- don't keep me in suspense -- what's your new username gonna be starting tomorrow? How about OOPS?

Posted by: champ at August 22, 2006 11:19 PM

Dominic,

I wish I had time to write at length. A few thoughts.

1) Forced conversions are false conversions.
2) You seem to have left out the entire history subsequent to the 95 theses and the Protestant reformation. Protestants may at times or to degrees may appreciate the accomplishments, pronouncements, or opinions of Popes, but do not feel under their authority, ascribing instead to doctrines of autonomy/priesthood of the believer.
3) I personally have never sat under the tutelage of any Christian teacher or leader who knew much at all about Islam, and spoke even less about it. The trend in current American protestantism is not so much about theological hegemony as it is fractious divisions and anthropocentric esoteric satisfaction garbed in religiousity.
4) From a perspective of an American protestant, while I believe a great front which should meet Islam (being both religious and political) is the religious ideological battle, there is no mainstream leader who can or should lead a militaristic "crusade" at this juncture (Christ's kingdom is "not of this world"), and I believe even this ideological battle, will be most effective personally, either "one on one" or through preaching.
5) The great difference between Islam and Christianity is that we have no injunction to commit violence; the armor and the swords referred to in the New Testament are allegorical. We really need to keep it that way, and not drag Christ's name through the mud.

That said, we should still, as nations, utterly defeat them, as we have done before.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 22, 2006 11:20 PM

Kreuzueber Halbmond claims:

"A suitcase sized tactical nuclear bomb, weighing 35 pounds or less, with an explosive strength of 10 kilotons could easily level Manhattan"

Nonsense.
A ground burst of 10 kT could level an area of Manhattan maybe a square mile or so. (Manhattan is some 11 miles long.) The reason is that all the concrete ground and the tall skyscrapers in the immediate area would deflect and dissipate the shock wave, and the heat flash would be shadowed by all those tall buildings in the area. Those are some of the reasons why in the Hiroshima attack, the bomb detonated in mid-air (airburst) at an altitude calculated for maximum shock wave and heat flash effects. Leveling Manhattan with ground-burst warheads is not easy; you need a number of higher-yield warheads than just a single 10 kT weapon.

If anyone is really interested, they can download an Excel spreadsheet that calculates nuclear weapon blast and heat flash effects, from websites like
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Nukesims.html
It's in a "Zip" archive, so you need an "unzip" utility; and then, of course, you need Excel to run it.

afkbrad asks:

"Here is a quick question: If UBL has a nuclear weapon by chance and does find a way to detonate it in a metropolitan area, who do we nuke back?"

ANSWER: Whichever nation(s) sold OBL the nuke in the first place. (He didn't build it himself in a cave with True Value Hardware tools.)

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 11:23 PM

what will it take for our leaders and MSM to realise we face a hostile people even if we replace the leadership in all of the islamic countries we still will not have won. the sooner that this is faced the less bloody victory will be

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at August 22, 2006 11:43 PM

Concerned Citizen/

Point by point:

1) But the subsequent generations will truly believe so souls are, therefore, saved. More will be saved to God than if we had persisted in inaction. This is a basic Christian teaching - you should already know this.

2) I wrote Popes and Patriarchs and suggested that the leaders of many protestant factions could be considered patriarchs in their own rite (right) thereby leaving an escape clause for many protestants of dubious (for me - personal opinion here, not to be construed as being the opinion of others) Christianity. Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin et al are not people whom I, personally (again, personal opinion, not necessarily anybody else's), consider to be Christian. They burn in Hell as the apostates they are (as far as I am concerned) - or, alternatively, they have finally seen God and the Truth and recanted of their Devil worshipping ways.

3) I belong to a far more robust strand of Anglicanism than many obviously do. We have Priests, male and female, who know exactly what the threat from islam means and they preach about it openly. I do hope that when you say the trend in current American protestantism is not so much about theological hegemony as it is fractious divisions and anthropocentric esoteric satisfaction garbed in religiousity you are making a general point and that you could still point to many Christians of the protestant persuasion who understand the threat of islam.

4) I agree with you. We have no leader at the moment. Let us pray that one emerges before it is too late.

5) Most mainstream Christians agree that there are times when the Christian banner of war can be flown and marched behind without defiling Christ's name. The concept of a 'just war' has been much misunderstood by many protestants quite delierately because they wish to denigrate apostolic authority as much as they can and justify their own ridculous positions. That aside, please see:

http://www.smmp.com/War_and_Peace-1.htm

I look forward to reading what you would suggest we do to counter islam if crusading is not to your liking.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 22, 2006 11:50 PM

time for the reaper to reap the clerics soul.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at August 22, 2006 11:52 PM

New york , Boston , London , Paris .....does it really matter where....i remember all the fear about Russian Suitcase Bombs being planted in the US and Europe just biding their time till needed....reckon the US and Europe have still....wonder if some Russian covert halfwit has already sold the arming codes ??

Naw Ive read too much John Le Carre ??

Posted by: Kelticman at August 22, 2006 11:52 PM

GrimReaperxxx/

No, time for the cleric to confound the Reaper as Christ promised. Shame of it, no bones for you. Who would treat a poor dog so?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 23, 2006 12:00 AM

Alert
Although I am not a big fan of the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, what is the alternative? It is either them, who at least pretend to be allies with us and actually need us badly,or the fundamentalist wakos. They are riding a tiger and we are helping them to stay on because if they are about to be eaten then we have to intervene there also. There is no fricken way this country can allow that country to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists in their own country or from without. Geopolitics requires deft handling of matters so important to the west and especially the USA. We have allied ourselves with worse and one of the worst was Stalin. It's a matter of our survival,not theirs. I would enjoy hearing ideas about severing that relationship without cutting off our own nose.

Posted by: pismopal at August 23, 2006 12:05 AM

Ronin/dms; Here's your submarine info:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/

The missiles are Exocets and are not land attack capable (remember the USS Stark?). The fancy propulsion system still requires periodic surfacing. The stated endurance is 68 days, probably not long enough to get around the world.

Our friends the French sold Pakistan three; the third is being constructed in Pakistan.

Posted by: limes at August 23, 2006 12:07 AM

I hate saying this, but I feel the entire West has gone so soft and liberal and would therefore pressure the US to NOT RETALIATE, most especially in a nuclear way, if we were indeed hit with a nuclear device.

I can hear them now 'They'd hate you MORE if you retaliated in a nuclear way against INNOCENT CIVILIANS! Let's TALK.'

ugh.

And somehow, it would be twisted around to be America's fault... and we would be reviled even more if we took our just revenge.

Posted by: JenBee at August 23, 2006 12:07 AM

Dominic, your ignorance embarrasses these anti-jihad pages. How can you say that Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church, but not Anglicans? Luther started the reformation 50 years before the Anglican church was formed. Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church long after Martin Luther paved the way at Wittenburg. And Luther broke away for theological reasons, not the petty, self-interested political reasons of Henry VIII. Even so, what makes an Anglican a better Christian than a Lutheran? The very fact that you say that Lutherans will burn in hell, is the kind of thinking that the islamics exhibit.

If any Christian is buring in hell it will be Henry the VIII with his gluttony, womanizing, and murder of his wives. Ironically, this man who you admire as the founder of your sect, is not much different from the classic muslism debauchery to which you, as a member of this site, are supposed to be opposed.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 12:11 AM

Folks you're overlooking one major goal of the Muzzie's. They want to kill westerners for sure, especially Americans. However, that to them is just icing on the cake. Their intent is to destroy America and the west. They cannot accomplish that simply by killing people. Their REAL goal is to destroy the economies of the west. So 10 million Americans die, in round numbers there's going to be about 340 million still standing. Does anyone remember how the U.S. economy tanked after 9-11? A mere 3 thousand dead and a few buildings knocked down. I shudder to imagine the chaos and the lasting effects of disruptions in goods and services,and if a nuke is popped off anywhere in a major city it's going to be one hell of a long time before the area could be rebuilt, if at all. Can anyone say New Orleans? Hell, a nuke didn't even go off there.Think about the bigger picture and it really gets damn scary.

Posted by: krkrjak at August 23, 2006 12:14 AM

Whenever anybody says that any part of the threat we face is "all about Bush," an automatic alarm should go off in sane people's heads.

Sucking up to Saudi Arabia is bipartisan; the Democrats do it as much as the Republicans. Saudi Arabia's "special relationship" with the U.S. started with a sordid deal made by the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt

Right now, Bush is taking tremendous political heat from the Democrats over Iraq.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 22, 2006 10:48 PM

Steven L,

I am glad you mentioned bipartisanship at the mention of Bush families deep-rooted ties with wahabis. DO you think wahabis care if they cut damocratic heads or republian? I am sure you can see the answer as a resounding NO! That is the reason why I refrained from mentioning political parties. Realize that the wahabi / Islamic threat is way beyond party lines and it is time Amnericans recognize it as such. Coming back to Bush (no, not as a republican but as a president/commander-in-chief, if you see what I mean), Bush's integrity is too severely compromised as was proved by a single call from Riyadh to disassociate the term 'Islamo-fascist' from Islam. Within minutes, if not seconds, Bush's spineless timidity caved in to accuse proverbial 'individuals', conceeding to waahabi wishes.

If Bush is taking political heat, he asked for it, by escortind Bin Ladens to safety, covering Saudi pages fron 9/11 commission, taking blood-thirsty wahabis 'ally' against terror and by granting additional student visaa, after 9/11 hijackers used the excact visas to murder Americans. Think about it.

Posted by: Alert at August 23, 2006 12:26 AM

I watched Michael Scheuer tonight on the O'Reily Factor. Michael is a knowledge guy who believes that the greatest danger for the U.S. and the west at the present moment lies with the huge arsenal of unsecured nuclear weapons in Russsia.

Although I grew weary listening to Mr. Scheuer call Bill O'Reily " sir " every time he answered his questions, he brought up some interesting points about the fundamental threats the west will likely face in the future with Islamic terrorism and jihad ideology.

Posted by: Johnathan at August 23, 2006 12:27 AM

I doubt, if they could ever pull off nuking the US, that many of those protesters plastered on screens and waving jihad would be doing that then. They'd all be hiding in spider holes.
Shame on all of them for spending their lives doing nothing but making plans to kill.
Shame on N. Korea, too, planting poppies instead of food and letting their own people starve. To what end?
And, Shame on the whole of Islam for allowing leaders to waste their power on planning and causing murders of anyone.
With all that power those leaders have to do good for their people, and they waste it all for evil. Shame.
And, I disagree with those who say we'd blink and not retaliate; WE would, and quickly.
The first duty of our government is national defense. Our govt. will retaliate, but maybe not with nukes. WE have a much bigger, stronger aresenal than nukes, and we could use them. Lasers come to mind as well as Electromagnetics...to name a few.

Posted by: searsha at August 23, 2006 12:34 AM

I've never been impressed with Michael Scheuer he spent 10 years trying to catch Bin Laden and couldn't catch him. He also wrote a book as "Anonymous" in order to undermine Bush and get Kerry elected.Scheuer also has a bad habit of blaming Isreal for the Jihad problem.

Posted by: Roxane at August 23, 2006 12:36 AM

OOPS, Champ?

That implies that a mistake was made. The theory of the winged flight of mohammad on that date was not my theory - nor was it a mistake. I was expounding on that theory, along with Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, and Farid Ghardy. Not to mention Glenn Beck, bless his soul.

In terms of predicting an apocalytic event emanating out of the middle east soon, there will be no OOPS there. It's coming.

Posted by: August22 at August 23, 2006 12:37 AM

Sir Henry Morgan -

We all learn something new here regularly.

Earlier this month NPR ran an eye-opening feature (regarding sharia enforcement) that somehow missed this website's attention.

. . . shepherds in the rural western Baghdad neighborhood of Gazalea have recently been murdered, according to locals, for failing to diaper their goats.

All but one chapter in the qur'an begin with,

”In the name of God, the compassionate, the beneficence and the merciful”

. . . compassion even for goats

(Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, explains allahs companssion regarding animals and children.)

And there is not a believing mohammedan who does not accept that muhammad is the perfect man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the model for all mohammedans for all time.

Posted by: miira at August 23, 2006 12:52 AM

I was wondering what 'thighing' was. Standing enlightened.

Perhaps Osama's clubhouse should be re-named the 'Velcro Glove'.

Posted by: limes at August 23, 2006 1:08 AM

pismopal writes:

"There is no fricken way this country can allow that country to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists in their own country or from without....I would enjoy hearing ideas about severing that relationship without cutting off our own nose."

First of all, the Saudis are one of the two main ideological enablers of jihad against the West; the other one being Iran. One Sunni, the other Shi'a. That the Saudis don't say so openly is just more disinformation and deception on their part. But much of the propaganda poison being poured into the hearts of Western Muslims is coming from madrassas and mosques funded by Saudi Arabia--for that very purpose.

Just why is there "no fricken way" that we can "allow" Saudi Arabia to fall into the hands of the "fundamentalists"? As if they're somehow "moderates" right now? What would go so wrong if Osama bin Laden himself became President of Saudi Arabia? ANSWER: Absolutely nothing--except we wouldn't be buying their oil anymore. In fact, Saudi Arabia, no longer able to count on U.S. military protection, would have to massively rearm (probably build its own nukes) as protection from its old nemesis, Iran. So you would end up with a regional balance of power between Iran and Saudi Arabia, much as you used to have between Iran and Saddam's Iraq regime.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 23, 2006 1:10 AM

August22/

"Lutherans are dubious Christians for breaking away from the church[sic]"

Well. you said it, not I.

Henry broke away from Rome for sensible, political, selfish reasons, not religious, and left for us, four-hundred years later, a politically separate but Catholic and Apostolic Church of England following mainstream catholic and orthodox teachings. (His personal sins will, of course, be found out before God.) Luther, and all the others, on the other hand, broke away from Apostolic authority for reasons born out of their lack of education and their inability to understand simple language and valid spiritual teaching when they heard it. Their sins are not personal: swayed by the Devil they were led by their hubris and personal pride into spiritual error and sin and took others into spiritual error and sin with them - unforgivable perhaps.

For that, it is possible, they will not be forgiven. All the Apostolic churches condemn them. They are hors la loi here on earth and remitted to God, who alone can forgive them. Surely God will condemn them to Hell for all the souls that they have mislead? Or maybe not. He, in His Majesty, will probably forgive them their rebellion and pardon the mislead souls. I, however, will have to answer for my hatred of these foul fiends and the mass murders that they, and their legacies, have encouraged down the centuries.

The deliberate persecutions of the faithful by the believers in Luther's false doctrine - the killings of the faithful, the torture of the faithful, the sheer bloody awfulness that Lutheran, Calvinistic, Zwingliite and Knoxian so called Christian reformers inflicted upon the faithful rivals anything that the twentieth century produced in terms of bloody persecution.

What God will judge me on is my lack of forgiveness - what he'll judge them on is their wilfull disobedience of His law (a far graver offence). However, I hold the hope that we will all be forgiven and see God in the end - even I, who do want to forgive their manifold crimes know that I have to if I am to have salvation. My question is, in their prideful denial of God's authority through His Church, will they ever be able to humble themselves as I must. Somehow, I doubt it. They are in Hell where they belong.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 23, 2006 1:13 AM

Templar, I applaud your perspicacity and courage, now if we could only transfer them to the Bushbots...I am now convinced that we are saddled with a leadership more degraded and corrupt than King Theoden under the influence of Grima Wormtongue in the Two Towers!

Posted by: wasicu at August 23, 2006 1:14 AM

UBL wants a big 'show.' He wants to nuke us. The problem is the method of delivery. My fear is not the Soviet nukes, but the Pakistani nukes. We hear how well they are guarded, but I have grave concerns. A nuke could be shipped to some US port and detonated in port. Say NYC or Boston. In NYC, such a blast would send us into a depression--no matter if it kills thousands or his 10 million. Getting the nuke off-loaded at a port carries risk of detection. Why would the scum take that risk? Have your suicide squad in the ship and press the green button. Clearly, NYC will again but the target INMO. The issue is not getting nuked; it's the strategic location of NYC and turning it into a radiation graveyard for a few years. What type of retaliation would be in order? One; shutting off all Islamic immigration. Two; deporting all Muslims without valid papers. Three; the US military may have to take over the key Saudi oil installations and claim them as US property. It all sounds farfetched, but I fear it's coming.

Posted by: biorabbi at August 23, 2006 1:22 AM

Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country.

Lebanon is their design. They have already stamped the Lebanese model on a hundred countries. Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century, originating in the Cold War. No one has been maintaining the current equilibrium, but those three countries. Think about it: nothing has stopped them from eradicating the Islamic virus, except their interest in seeing it used against the West.

The stupid Muslims think they could one day take over the world. Should they ever get close to achieving that goal, the “axis of envy” will quickly turn them into dog meat. You can bet there will be a drastic escalation soon, because the secret weapon is near out of control. From 1990 to today, the Middle Eastern population grew by 80%! The axis of envy might very well hold the key to defusing the current situation and threat.

In the meantime, we must protect ourselves against their weapon: the Muslim.

Posted by: ofcourse at August 23, 2006 1:29 AM

Roxane,
the answer to your question is:
in case of another attack perpetrated by muslims against the US,our government will do the unthinkable:protect the mosques and the muslim communities and arrest anyone of us who would dare to even say a word.
Remember the attack at the jewish cultural center in Seattle??!!
The first thing the police did was to provide protection for the local mosques....and synagogues,as if the jewish people were equaly dangerous as the muslims.
Michael Savage was right,he always is:don`t count on the government to protect you or your family,it is sad but it is true.
The politicians that we now have,with very very few exceptions would rather die than act in a politically incorrect manner.
I hope another attack will never happen,but chances are it will,and then you will see the police,and perhaps even US troups protecting mosques and muslim communities against the american people and arresting anyone on the slightest suspicion of islamophobia.

Posted by: adela at August 23, 2006 1:36 AM

OT

Check this nauseating bit of reportage from the BBC regarding the 20 year jail sentance passed to a Muslim in Australia for planning bomb attacks.

No where in the report can you find the words Muslim, Islam, Islamic.

http://xrl.us/nomuslim

Posted by: km at August 23, 2006 2:28 AM

"Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country."

India ? The land hungry country ?

"Lebanon is their design"

What ?

"Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century,"

India's weapon ? islam ?

What are you taking ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 23, 2006 2:43 AM

"Some of you are right to point the finger at Russia, and China; although, you left out India, the land hungry country."

India ? The land hungry country ?

"Lebanon is their design"

What ?

"Islam has been their secrete weapon for the last half century,"

India's weapon ? islam ?

What are you taking ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 23, 2006 2:44 AM

http://www.rense.com/general73/fund.htm

"Fundamentalist Muslims
Told To Get Out
Of Australia"

Posted by: Crows&Cows at August 23, 2006 4:08 AM

They are politically correct to the bitter end. A different type of crime,