Obama claims US drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians

[Tigerace117]

Please explain why. You must think that kowtowing to the world's Muslims in hopes of making them like the United States is a lot more important than I do. All that has done is made them bolder, because they see it is a sign we lack the will to defend our culture against theirs. Having the leaders of the nations which harbor and encourage them be terrified of what the U.S. might to any of those nations would be more than enough for me. This country has an enormous advantage over all the Muslim countries on earth, put together, in military power. And since many of the world's Muslims seem to want to fight us, even if most of them are clever enough to deny that's what their religion calls for, they should be made to understand what the U.S. is capable of, if it ever seriously determined to wage war on one or more of the nations that harbor and support them.

Who rules any Muslim nation does not concern me, as long as that government shows no hostility to the U.S. and does not tolerate jihadists. Shari'ah and its supremacist goals would seem much less attractive to people who knew that practicing them, at the expense of Americans, was a good way to get themselves and their families killed. We have already seem what these people have done in much of Europe, and yet we seem to lack the will to make sure they never try to do it here. Trying to curry favor with foreign Muslims by showing them how nice and tolerant we are only convinces them we are weak. That is what many Europeans have done, and it is endangering the survival of their cultures. The virus they foolishly let in is taking over its host.

I wonder what you would have a U.S. president do, if a nuclear weapon were ever set off in a U.S. city and he was sure Muslim jihadists had done it. Lodge a strong protest with the United Nations? Try to arrest any conspirators (assuming any were still alive and could ever be identified) and prosecute them in a U.S. court? Do nothing, except counsel reason and restraint, while bleating that violence never solves anything? I say anything but an extremely strong response, probably in kind, would be an open invitation to further attacks of the same kind--and it is far from clear this country could survive them.

Because threatening to nuke one of the holiest sites in the world--- to millions of people who still care very deeply about that sort of thing---- is the best way possible to ensure Islamic terrorism will always exist. It's all kinds of ****ed up, stupid, gains us no real advantage and ensures we lose every ally we have in the Middle East.

It's not "kowtowing"--- it's common sense not to do something like that. It'd be like if somebody nuked the Vatican, the spot where Jesus' gravesite and a piece of the true cross and the West still was fervently Christian.

Turning the United States into a global pariah due to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians is a bad move, period.

Nuking Mecca wouldn't stop any jihadis--- it'd piss them off more and ensure a steady stream of attacks.

 

[Deuce]

Because threatening to nuke one of the holiest sites in the world--- to millions of people who still care very deeply about that sort of thing---- is the best way possible to ensure Islamic terrorism will always exist. It's all kinds of ****ed up, stupid, gains us no real advantage and ensures we lose every ally we have in the Middle East.

It's not "kowtowing"--- it's common sense not to do something like that. It'd be like if somebody nuked the Vatican, the spot where Jesus' gravesite and a piece of the true cross and the West still was fervently Christian.

Turning the United States into a global pariah due to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians is a bad move, period.

Nuking Mecca wouldn't stop any jihadis--- it'd piss them off more and ensure a steady stream of attacks.

Listen man he just wants to irradiate thousands of people, and create an electromagnetic pulse that would shut down Israel's defense network, why you gotta go all PC on him.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Terrorism is defeated the same way an army is defeated, by destroying their will to fight and destroying the will of the people to support them.

However the tactics to accomplish that goal are completely different.

 

[Deuce]

However the tactics to accomplish that goal are completely different.

Surely the best way to end terrorism is to commit terrorism.

 

[matchlight]

Because threatening to nuke one of the holiest sites in the world--- to millions of people who still care very deeply about that sort of thing---- is the best way possible to ensure Islamic terrorism will always exist. It's all kinds of ****ed up, stupid, gains us no real advantage and ensures we lose every ally we have in the Middle East.

It's not "kowtowing"--- it's common sense not to do something like that. It'd be like if somebody nuked the Vatican, the spot where Jesus' gravesite and a piece of the true cross and the West still was fervently Christian.

Turning the United States into a global pariah due to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians is a bad move, period.

Nuking Mecca wouldn't stop any jihadis--- it'd piss them off more and ensure a steady stream of attacks.

I notice you avoided the question of what you would have a U.S. president do, if an attack like the one I described took place. Get a hundred thousand or so more Americans killed in another such attack, maybe, because doing anything drastic to strike back at the filthy sons of whores who were behind it might make other Muslims not like us? You know--all that vast majority of the 1.6 billion who, according to the official hogwash we have been fed, are completely peaceful.

In fact shari'ah is mainstream Islam, grounded directly in the Koran and the hadiths. Surveys have shown time and again that large majorities in many predominantly Muslim nations support it. And shari'ah calls for observant Muslims to wage jihad on unbelievers, with the supremacist goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate in which those unbelievers are either killed or subjugated. There is no living with people who believe that, any more than there was a way to live with Germany under the Nazis. I do not care a damn whether any foreign Muslim on earth likes this country, as long as they all are scared stiff even to think about crossing it. The nations they live in would then be our allies out of necessity, because the people living in them were afraid not to be.

 

[Deuce]

I notice you avoided the question of what you would have a U.S. president do, if an attack like the one I described took place. Get a hundred thousand or so more Americans killed in another such attack, maybe, because doing anything drastic to strike back at the filthy sons of whores who were behind it might make other Muslims not like us? You know--all that vast majority of the 1.6 billion who, according to the official hogwash we have been fed, are completely peaceful.

In fact shari'ah is mainstream Islam, grounded directly in the Koran and the hadiths. Surveys have shown time and again that large majorities in many predominantly Muslim nations support it. And shari'ah calls for observant Muslims to wage jihad on unbelievers, with the supremacist goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate in which those unbelievers are either killed or subjugated. There is no living with people who believe that, any more than there was a way to live with Germany under the Nazis. I do not care a damn whether any foreign Muslim on earth likes this country, as long as they all are scared stiff even to think about crossing it. The nations they live in would then be our allies out of necessity, because the people living in them were afraid not to be.

Is it your opinion that the United States' response to a nuclear event on our soil should be to murder innocent people?

 

[matchlight]

Is it your opinion that the United States' response to a nuclear event on our soil should be to murder innocent people?

I am not surprised to see you try to minimize an attack on a United States city with a nuclear weapon, which would be the mass murder of innocent people, likely tens of thousands of them, by calling it a "nuclear event."

Of course I think the proper response to any such act of war would be retaliation in kind, assuming a president could be certain which nation was behind it. It is the very fact that identifying the guilty party might not be possible, if the plotters had been careful enough to hide all their tracks, that supports an argument for targeting Mecca as a place whose destruction would cost all Muslims a heavy price. If Saudi Arabia didn't like it, its leaders could appeal to the United Nations.

That assumes, of course, that the president had evidence that made him certain Muslim jihadists of some stripe had been behind this attack, and yet could not be certain which nation had given them the bomb and put them up to it. No reasonable person wants to kill civilians unnecessarily in war, and I would like to see the residents of Mecca given a few days to evacuate it. To wait too long to respond, though, would invite another such attack.

 

[Tigerace117]

Listen man he just wants to irradiate thousands of people, and create an electromagnetic pulse that would shut down Israel's defense network, why you gotta go all PC on him.

So the plan is to shut down the Israeli defense network at the same time every Muslim between the ages of ten and dead becomes insanely pissed off. This "plan" keeps getting better and better :roll:

 

[Tigerace117]

I notice you avoided the question of what you would have a U.S. president do, if an attack like the one I described took place. Get a hundred thousand or so more Americans killed in another such attack, maybe, because doing anything drastic to strike back at the filthy sons of whores who were behind it might make other Muslims not like us? You know--all that vast majority of the 1.6 billion who, according to the official hogwash we have been fed, are completely peaceful.

In fact shari'ah is mainstream Islam, grounded directly in the Koran and the hadiths. Surveys have shown time and again that large majorities in many predominantly Muslim nations support it. And shari'ah calls for observant Muslims to wage jihad on unbelievers, with the supremacist goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate in which those unbelievers are either killed or subjugated. There is no living with people who believe that, any more than there was a way to live with Germany under the Nazis. I do not care a damn whether any foreign Muslim on earth likes this country, as long as they all are scared stiff even to think about crossing it. The nations they live in would then be our allies out of necessity, because the people living in them were afraid not to be.

I don't know what the president would do. I can't look into the future with a crystal ball. I can only point out the hilariously ****ty ideas. Your brilliant plan of "these guys attacked us, so we'll go kill some random people instead of the actual culprits" fails when it runs up against sanity.

Muslims aren't a hive mind. They don't collectively seek to destroy all unbelievers, or conquer the world, or whatever other silly fantasy you seem to believe. They are people.

When a Muslim takes a dump, is that a dump for jihad? When a Muslim sleeps, is that a dream for jihad? When a Muslim ****s, is that ****ing for jihad?

No. They are people just like anybody else; good, bad and indifferent.

 

[beerftw]

Christians perform more acts of goodwill and charity than anybody in the world.

Muslims do anything but.

Stop equating the two.

Charity is actually mandatory in islam, and preached in christianity, I would agree islam is much more violent, but atleast get your facts straight.

 

[beerftw]

You said total war creates terrorism. Give us an example of when that occurs.

That is shifting the goal posts as no total war has ever been waged on terrorism, it is the same as we must pass it to find out what is inside the bill.

Logic dictates it very well would, and the fact that close to 15 years in afghanistan and we have made little progress, and raq is back into shambles, suggests that fighting wars the conventional way does not work on unconventional enemies.

 

[Erod]

Charity is actually mandatory in islam, and preached in christianity, I would agree islam is much more violent, but atleast get your facts straight.

Lol, they do virtually nothing charitable.

 

[matchlight]

I don't know what the president would do. I can't look into the future with a crystal ball.

The question was what you would think best for a president to do in response. I take your lack of an answer to mean you would not want this country to respond in kind to a nuclear attack by foreign jihadists on one of our cities, which could easily kill tens of thousands of Americans. Having read other comments by you, that doesn't surprise me. Maybe you think a strongly worded protest to the United Nations would protect us from more of the same.

I can only point out the hilariously ****ty ideas.

They say the simple are easily amused.

Your brilliant plan of "these guys attacked us, so we'll go kill some random people instead of the actual culprits" fails when it runs up against sanity.

Just as on 9/11, a U.S. president might have enough information to be certain that Islamic jihadists had carried out the attack. But he very well not be able to determine just what nation had planned the attack and provided the jihadists with the nuclear weapon used in it. After all, nuclear explosions do not leave fingerprints, and if the jihadists sent themselves up with the bomb, there would be no one left to interrogate.

No president could order a nuclear counterattack on any nation just because of a suspicion, even a strong one, that it was to blame. Considering the damage a counterattack against inhabited areas would cause, a U.S. president would have to be absolutely certain he was targeting the nation behind the attack, and it could well be impossible to be certain about that. At the same time, it would be unthinkable not to respond very strongly against some target that would be sure to harm the Islamists behind the attack, because letting whatever unknown nation had ordered the murder of all those tens of thousands of Americans do it with impunity would be an open invitation for them to do it again.

That was the context in which I floated the idea of destroying an evacuated Mecca as a last resort, when the U.S. had suffered a nuclear attack by Muslim jihadist but could not be certain who had directed their attack. If you think some other response would be better, you haven't proposed it.

Muslims aren't a hive mind. They don't collectively seek to destroy all unbelievers, or conquer the world, or whatever other silly fantasy you seem to believe.

I would say it is you who believes the silly fantasy, which is that violent jihad is an aberration confined to a lunatic fringe of Islam, while most Muslims are peace-loving and have no supremacist designs. If most of the 1.6 billion self-identified Muslaim are peace-loving and tolerant, it is only because they are not observant believers, but rather Muslims in name only. They are peaceful not because of their religion, but in spite of it.

Shari'ah is a central part of Islam fully approved by the most prestigious scholars of Islam--there is nothing the least aberrant about it. It is a compendium of rules covering all aspects of how Muslims should live, based directly o the Koran and the hadiths. It is also intolerant, brutal, and supremacist. It specifically calls for believers to wage jihad against Jews, Christians, and unbelievers until they either accept Islam or agree to be subjugated as a pariah class.

They are people.

So were the Thugs, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people for centuries because they believed that was the will of their goddess Kali. The mere fact of being human is no guarantee that a person, or a group of people, is not violent and barbaric.

 

[Tigerace117]

The question was what you would think best for a president to do in response. I take your lack of an answer to mean you would not want this country to respond in kind to a nuclear attack by foreign jihadists on one of our cities, which could easily kill tens of thousands of Americans. Having read other comments by you, that doesn't surprise me. Maybe you think a strongly worded protest to the United Nations would protect us from more of the same.



They say the simple are easily amused.



Just as on 9/11, a U.S. president might have enough information to be certain that Islamic jihadists had carried out the attack. But he very well not be able to determine just what nation had planned the attack and provided the jihadists with the nuclear weapon used in it. After all, nuclear explosions do not leave fingerprints, and if the jihadists sent themselves up with the bomb, there would be no one left to interrogate.

No president could order a nuclear counterattack on any nation just because of a suspicion, even a strong one, that it was to blame. Considering the damage a counterattack against inhabited areas would cause, a U.S. president would have to be absolutely certain he was targeting the nation behind the attack, and it could well be impossible to be certain about that. At the same time, it would be unthinkable not to respond very strongly against some target that would be sure to harm the Islamists behind the attack, because letting whatever unknown nation had ordered the murder of all those tens of thousands of Americans do it with impunity would be an open invitation for them to do it again.

That was the context in which I floated the idea of destroying an evacuated Mecca as a last resort, when the U.S. had suffered a nuclear attack by Muslim jihadist but could not be certain who had directed their attack. If you think some other response would be better, you haven't proposed it.



I would say it is you who believes the silly fantasy, which is that violent jihad is an aberration confined to a lunatic fringe of Islam, while most Muslims are peace-loving and have no supremacist designs. If most of the 1.6 billion self-identified Muslaim are peace-loving and tolerant, it is only because they are not observant believers, but rather Muslims in name only. They are peaceful not because of their religion, but in spite of it.

Shari'ah is a central part of Islam fully approved by the most prestigious scholars of Islam--there is nothing the least aberrant about it. It is a compendium of rules covering all aspects of how Muslims should live, based directly o the Koran and the hadiths. It is also intolerant, brutal, and supremacist. It specifically calls for believers to wage jihad against Jews, Christians, and unbelievers until they either accept Islam or agree to be subjugated as a pariah class.



So were the Thugs, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people for centuries because they believed that was the will of their goddess Kali. The mere fact of being human is no guarantee that a person, or a group of people, is not violent and barbaric.

No, I would not want the president to randomly nuke a city full of people that had nothing to do with the attack. That is literally the stupidest possible thing the president could do. Then again, going after the actual enemy instead of failing around like a rabid dog has never been high on your list, has it.

And what if no nation is responsible? The collapse of the USSR created a field day for paramilitaries. There's always a chance a loose Soviet nuke--- or a Pakistani one---could end up in the wrong hands. Would you suggest nuking Russia?

More to the point, how could we be sure that the government named was the actual sponsor? Our intelligence community hasn't had the best track record in recent years.

Not even going to go into your fantasies about how the only Muslims who aren't planing world domination are Muslims in name only:roll:

 

[beerftw]

Lol, they do virtually nothing charitable.

They actually do, it is third pillar of islam. In islamic countries, it is expected for the wealthy to donate a portion of what they earn to charity. For the poor, they are expected to give anything they can. So if you were in the middle east and got stranded, was hungry, and knocked n someones door, their religion says they are suposed to help you.

If all they own is two slices of bread, and they can spare half a slice, then they must and meet their obligation. Now not all of islam practices this, but then again not all christians follow christianity strictly, or jews, or hindus, etc.

 

[DVSentinel]

They still don't know the difference between terrorists and civilians.

Because there is no difference. Terrorist are not lawful combatants, they are criminal civilians.

 

[DVSentinel]

Haul him in right after Bush and Chaney are tried for the 100,000's of civilians they killed.

Better their civilians than ours.

BTW, collateral damage as the result of striking military legitimate targets is not a chargeable offence. Don't like their civilians getting killed, then get them away from terrorist/military targets and convince the other side not to try to use civilians as a shield.

 

[matchlight]

No, I would not want the president to randomly nuke a city full of people that had nothing to do with the attack.

Of course I never suggested that any president should do that. Just the opposite--I stated plainly that:

"No president could order a nuclear counterattack on any nation just because of a suspicion, even a strong one, that it was to blame."

Even in floating the idea of destroying Mecca, as the last alternative if it were impossible to be certain what nation had used jihadists to carry out a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, I made clear the inhabitants would first have been warned so they could evacuate. Despite that, you accuse me of wanting a U.S. president to "randomly nuke a city full of people that had nothing to do with the attack."

It is less than honest to ascribe a claim to another poster that he never made. It's the kind of tactic I routinely see here from people who don't know enough and can't reason well enough to make convincing arguments without relying on chicanery.

That is literally the stupidest possible thing the president could do.

You are arguing against the straw man you yourself created, and not against anything I proposed.

Then again, going after the actual enemy instead of failing around like a rabid dog has never been high on your list, has it.

It's also typical of posters with a weak game to show fits of pique like that. They seem to imagine that ad hom remarks will hide the fact they can't make their case--but in fact their sullen, personal tone only makes it more clear.

And what if no nation is responsible? The collapse of the USSR created a field day for paramilitaries. There's always a chance a loose Soviet nuke--- or a Pakistani one---could end up in the wrong hands.

That is very unlikely. There is a remote possibility that a nuclear weapon might disappear from a nation's stockpile. But it is extremely improbable that whoever made off with it would also obtain the operating code needed to make it work. Only a very small group of officials in any nuclear-armed nation has the required code, and if any of them gave it to jihadists, that act would directly implicate his nation in their attack and make it a target for retaliation.

More to the point, how could we be sure that the government named was the actual sponsor? Our intelligence community hasn't had the best track record in recent years.

I plainly stated that a U.S. president might "very well not be able to determine just what nation had planned the attack and provided the jihadists with the nuclear weapon used in it"; that he "would have to be absolutely certain he was targeting the nation behind the attack"; and that "it could well be impossible to be certain about that."

Not even going to go into your fantasies about how the only Muslims who aren't planing world domination are Muslims in name only:roll:

No amount of simply asserting that is a fantasy can refute the evidence I presented that, far from being fantasy, it is the fact. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who identify themselves as Muslims--a majority in many Muslim nations--say, when surveyed, that they approve of shari'ah and want to be governed by it. Shari'ah is the comprehensive set of rules covering almost all facets of life that all observant Muslims are supposed to live by. It is based directly on the Koran and the hadiths and is completely orthodox Muslim doctrine.

The official statement of shari'ah, approved by the world's most prestigious Islamic theologians, is a 14th century text entitled "Reliance of the Traveler." Throughout this book there appear statements and injunctions to the faithful which make clear the supremacist goals inherent in Islam. Believers are called upon to convert unbelievers to Islam. Those who refuse may either be killed or subjugated so that they are not much more than slaves. This is to apply within Muslim lands, but believers are also called upon to expand those lands. The ultimate goal is a worldwide caliphate--an "umma" of believers who have surrendered themselves to Allah.

Here is a link to "Reliance of the Traveler," so that anyone can see these things for himself:

http://concit.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/reliance2_complete.pdf

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Haul him before the UN World Court, and try him for war crimes.

...and this is the guy they practically THREW a Nobel Peace Prize at. What a joke.

 

[Tigerace117]

Of course I never suggested that any president should do that. Just the opposite--I stated plainly that:

"No president could order a nuclear counterattack on any nation just because of a suspicion, even a strong one, that it was to blame."

It is less than honest to ascribe a claim to another poster that he never made. It's the kind of tactic I routinely see here from people who don't know enough and can't reason well enough to make convincing arguments without relying on chicanery.



You are arguing against the straw man you yourself created, and not against anything I proposed.



It's also typical of posters with a weak game to show fits of pique like that. They seem to imagine that ad hom remarks will hide the fact they can't make their case--but in fact their acrimony only makes that fact more clear.



That is very unlikely. It's a remote possibility that a nuclear weapon might disappear from a nation's stockpile. But it is extremely improbable that whoever made off with it would also obtain the operating code needed to make it work. Only a very small group of officials in any nuclear-armed nation has the required code, and if any of them gave it to jihadists he would be directly implicating his nation in their attack.



I plainly stated that a U.S. president might "very well not be able to determine just what nation had planned the attack and provided the jihadists with the nuclear weapon used in it"; that he "would have to be absolutely certain he was targeting the nation behind the attack"; and that "it could well be impossible to be certain about that."



No amount of simply asserting that is a fantasy can refute the evidence I presented that, far from being fantasy, it is the fact. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who identify themselves as Muslims--a majority in many Muslim nations--say, when surveyed, that they approve of shari'ah and want to be governed by it. Shari'ah is the comprehensive set of rules covering almost all facets of life that all observant Muslims are supposed to live by. It is based directly on the Koran and the hadiths and is completely orthodox Muslim doctrine.

The official statement of shari'ah, approved by the world's most prestigious Islamic theologians, is a 14th century text entitled "Reliance of the Traveler." Throughout this book there appear statements and injunctions to the faithful which make clear the supremacist goals inherent in Islam. Believers are called upon to convert unbelievers to Islam. Those who refuse may either be killed or subjugated so that they are not much more than slaves. This is to apply within Muslim lands, but believers are also called upon to expand those lands. The ultimate goal is a worldwide caliphate--an "umma" of believers who have surrendered themselves to Allah.

Here is a link to "Reliance of the Traveler," so that anyone can see these things for himself:

http://concit.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/reliance2_complete.pdf

Then what's all this talk about nuking Mecca then? Last time I checked, no terrorist group controls that city.The "fit of acrimony" comes from the fact I am utterly fed up with the hissing of all the anti Muslim neofascists who've decided that all Muslims are bad. It is certainly not unlikely. Gerald Bull proved that. It doesn't even have to be a governmental official. Rogue scientists, after all....

While its all well and good to fantasize about Muslim hordes, the facts don't match the fantasy.

 

[matchlight]

Then what's all this talk about nuking Mecca then? Last time I checked, no terrorist group controls that city.The "fit of acrimony" comes from the fact I am utterly fed up with the hissing of all the anti Muslim neofascists who've decided that all Muslims are bad. It is certainly not unlikely. Gerald Bull proved that. It doesn't even have to be a governmental official. Rogue scientists, after all....

While its all well and good to fantasize about Muslim hordes, the facts don't match the fantasy.

What you are or are not fed up with does not interest me. And I have yet to see a "neofascist"--whatever that may be, if anything--who has "decided that all Muslims are bad." I have seen quite a few pseudo-liberals on these forums who routinely play the apologists for Islamist bastards who are bent on killing us. Their shared resentment of most things American makes them natural allies.

What Gerald Bull did proves nothing whatever about the likelihood of a group of jihadists getting a functional nuclear weapon. The conventional weapons Bull apparently was designing for Saddam Hussein would not have needed any secret activating code known only to Bull to work. Despite what you may have seen in movies, designing and proving a nuclear weapon like the ones which now exist is an extremely difficult, expensive, and complex undertaking that requires the resources of a nation.

A gun-type bomb design using highly enriched uranium seems at first glance to be a way around this problem. The far simpler design would probably be within the technical capabilities of private actors, and as with the Hiroshima bomb, they could be pretty confident the device would work even without having been tested. But it would also take a nation to build a gun-type atomic bomb, for another reason: because only a very small fraction of the U-235 undergoes fission, a very large amount of it is needed. And producing that much highly enriched uranium--say the 60 pounds or so the Hiroshima bomb used--would require enormous, elaborate facilities that only a nation could build.

You are the one indulging in fantasy about the threat Islamists pose to this country. And it is a dangerous fantasy, because it falsely portrays Islamic supremacy--and the use of jihadist violence to achieve it--as something alien to Islam and supported by only a lunatic fringe that does not represent that religion. That is the same lie B. Hussein Obama and his advisers have been peddling for some years. But the most orthodox texts of Islam, with their call to world domination, oppression of women, and the killing of apostates, homosexuals, unbelievers, and other targeted groups tell a much different story. So does the fact many tens of even hundreds of millions of Muslims say they believe in following those texts quite literally. If many of the world's self-identified Muslims are peace-loving, it is only because they are not truly observant Muslims.

 

[Tigerace117]

What you are or are not fed up with does not interest me. And I have yet to see a "neofascist"--whatever that may be, if anything--who has "decided that all Muslims are bad." I have seen quite a few pseudo-liberals on these forums who routinely play the apologists for Islamist bastards who are bent on killing us. Their shared resentment of most things American makes them natural allies.

What Gerald Bull did proves nothing whatever about the likelihood of a group of jihadists getting a functional nuclear weapon. The conventional weapons Bull apparently was designing for Saddam Hussein would not have needed any secret activating code known only to Bull to work. Despite what you may have seen in movies, designing and proving a nuclear weapon like the ones which now exist is an extremely difficult, expensive, and complex undertaking that requires the resources of a nation.

Using a gun-type design using highly enriched uranium seems at first glance to be a way around this problem. The far simpler design would probably be within the technical capabilities of private actors, and as with the Hiroshima bomb, they could be pretty confident the device would work even without having been tested. But it would take a nation to build a gun-type atomic bomb, for another reason: because only a very small fraction of the U-235 undergoes fission, a very large amount of it is needed. And producing that much of it--say the 60 pounds or so the Hiroshima bomb used--would require enrichment facilities that only a nation could build.

You are the one indulging in fantasy about the threat Islamists pose to this country. And it is a dangerous fantasy, because it falsely portrays Islamic supremacy--and the use of jihadist violence to achieve it--as something alien to Islam and supported by only a lunatic fringe that does not represent that religion. That is the same lie B. Hussein Obama and his advisers have been peddling for some years. But the most orthodox texts of Islam, with their call to world domination, oppression of women, and the killing of apostates, homosexuals, unbelievers, and other targeted groups tell a much different story. So does the fact many tens of even hundreds of millions of Muslims say they believe in following those texts quite literally. If many of the world's self-identified Muslims are peace-loving, it is only because they are not truly observant Muslims.

How many Christians follow the Old Testament's rulings? Does that mean they aren't truly observant Christians?

I've seen more then a few. Perhaps you should open your eyes. That railroad gun Bull was planning to build for Saddam certainly didn't strike me as something Joe Schmoe could have come up with.

There's a number of countries which have fallen into chaos where a site could be hidden, and number of rich individuals who sympathize with jihadis and could supply cash flow for such a project.

Islamic supremacy isonly supported by the lunatic fringe.

Or do you think Bush should have declared war on Islam?