1 Time for some serious investigative work. I wonder if the conspiracy buffs on the Left will pooh-pooh stories like this.

2 YBP, I can't speak for the left, but I've been called a nut for reporting stories much more credible than this one. If fanatics had a bomb in the US, they would have blown it up by now. Why wait to coordinate attacks? Just blow them up as they become available. One bomb would be plenty to get our attention. By delaying the attacks so that they can be coordinated, the terrorists risk being discovered, especially now that it is being discussed on weblogs. This is just more booga boooga designed to make us more compliant to a government with designs on abolishing the Constitution. I was a VFD in the Hays, Blanco County area for many years. If I were a terrorist, I'd buy 100 Bic lighters and an SUV and travel around the country starting fires every 50 miles. You wouldn't get caught. Imagine a thousand wildfires set off in July and August. There isn't enough water in the US to fight 1000 major wildfires. Either the 'terrorists' have no imagination or there are no terrorists.

3 Either the 'terrorists' have no imagination or there are no terrorists. Oy - I was going to say how Farah's reliability was almost zilch, some of the worst I've ever seen, but then Greg opened his mouth and totally took the steam right out of my argument.

4 But we deserve it. Our military industrial complex destroys lives blah blah blah Haliburton blah blah blah Chimpy lied blah blah blah Chomsky said so. Etc.

5 Greg--I think a fire or two might get started before witnesses would start to come forward to identify your SUV.

6 All you've got to do is look in your review mirror and if the coast is clear, you flick your cigarette out the window. Hell, I've probably started fires without even knowing it back in my smoking days. In Texas, the dead spring grass is so dry in the summer that if you pull off the side of the road, your muffler starts a fire instantly. If I wanted to, I could have the whole state burning in 5 days. Imagine what 20 firebugs could do.

7 If I wanted to, I could have the whole state burning in 5 days. Sounds like you've thought about this a little too much, Greg. You should really choose your words a little more wisely - those are classic words of a psychopath.

8 Editor: I truly don't think Greg is a psychopath. Not certifiable, at least. Greg: I think a lot of people thought they could get away with crimes if they just looked in their rear-view mirrors. You'd be surprised how witnesses seem to come out of the woodwork.

9 MOST people get caught who commit major crimes. (Whether the ACLU gets them off, though, is another story.)

10 If I was AQ, I'd want to blow all my nukes at the same time for maximum effect. If they only blow one at a time, it's likely this country would be locked down so tight they'd be unable to move additional nukes without getting busted. Even greg would be out looking for those guys (or maybe he's still be blaming Bush, I don't know).

11 No greg, there are no terrorists, it's all a Joooooooish plot designed to distract us while they... well what is it they want to do? Something involving Black Helicopters™, I'm sure. You are possibly the most moronic, idiotic, stupid Chicken Little I've ever heard of. You're even stupider than kos, and that says a lot.

12 As much as I hate to say it, I must agree with greg with this one, as he said a single bomb would be enough for a mass casualty event. isn't it also funny how the same gangs that are being targetted by the 'minutemen' (MS-13) and with the same agenda (crossing the mexican boarder) are also mentioned in this article. If they had forty weapons, I doubt they would need to build more. This smells like "seal the boarder" scare mongering from here.

13 From a logistical perspective one would assume that AQ would pursue this track with complete abandon. The PR victory from a nuke attack on the US would be priceless. Now whether or not they have these bombs is another story. If they did, why not wait? They would assume an attack of this magnitude could be a final and descisive blow. Imagine every single major shipping port in the US being nuked. L.A., Boston Harbor, etc. etc, throw in a couple of refinerys for good measure, and as the cherry on top remove 5% of the work force. You just might initiate a very long downward spiral. It would be tough to recover from something of that magnitude, if we truly ever could. Anty

14 "The PR victory from a nuke attack on the US would be priceless." Yes, until the reprisals began. There would be mass slaughter of muslims in America, and probably massive bombing of cities in Iran and Syria just for starters, and possibly nuclear retaliation against several countries. America would survive, but it would be the beginning of the end for islam.

15 I have heard rumors--and they are only rumors--that back channels were opened to bin Laden after 9/11 that threatened dropping a nuke on Mecca if a WMD was ever used in the U.S. A MAD logic with Islamist extremists. That could explain why they don't detonate.... Then again, the most likely reason they haven't used nukes is that a) they don't have them or b) they haven't been able to smuggle them into U.S.

16 subject: Councilman ejected from studio T. Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX, was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience. "If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say": "Red is positive" "Black is negative"

17 'Misguided Criminals'[BBC Lead today] OK Folks, I do know that G2 does attrackt it's share of tin foil types but from time to time there is good stuff that comes from there. See my comment over at Wizbang: WB Link Other venues have discussed for several years the Soviet suitcase nukes that don't seem to be accounted for. As to why AQ has not struck in the US, I heard somewhere from a Pundit [NEWS channel] is that AQ is very aware of the MAD theory. There is a manuscript that was found in one of the Baltic countries that detailed this plan of attack. That's why they struck in Spain when they did and also last week in London. Just enough to twitch our noses a little and to get the LL and the MSM rolling again on the meme "It must be all our fault for the 'misguided criminals'[BBC Lead today]"

18 1. On 9/11 the SAC Base where Air Force One landed in Lousiana was conducting an exercise & the bombers were armed & ready! 2. If you check closely enough you will find reports that cancer patients riding mass transit in NYC are carrying letters from their doctors, because they are tired of being strip searched for setting off the RADIATION monitors that we DO NOT HAVE!

19 I have no doubts that they wish to obtain nuclear devices, I have doubts they have received any. even if they were offered I doubt they could identify a real device, from fake: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/27/wdupe27.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/02/27/ixworld.html where they purchased irradiated containers, containing metal.

20 As any astute investor knows, the worst case scenario is as likely as the best case scenario. That doesn't mean that there isn't a threat or that we should all assume Al Qaeda won't try something of this magnitude. BUT, I'd say the "worst case scenario" of multiple nukes is far less likely than other scenarios (say, one nuke). Which, again, doesn't mean that it's nothing. One nuke is more than enough. Now, assuming this story is true, wouldn't we have expected a total fucking roundup of every MS-13 gang member and have their asses hauled down for some serious interrogations? Surely there are rap sheets on these fucks and some kind of validation could be done one way or the other. In all honesty, I think the article is a lot of fear-mongering. The government needs to be on guard for these kinds of things, for sure, but I'd say that if this article is as legit as its author claims, then a lot of work has already been done behind the scenes. It's definitely unsettling stuff, regardless.

21 "I have heard rumors--and they are only rumors--that back channels were opened to bin Laden after 9/11 that threatened dropping a nuke on Mecca if a WMD was ever used in the U.S. A MAD logic with Islamist extremists." I can't see someone so evil (bin Laden) caring about this.

22 Editor pissed me off with his snide remark, so I did some investigating and have identified him. I shall now reveal his identity to everyone: http://www.wackedup.com/Rants/head%20up%20ass.jpg

23 http://www.globaloptions.com/news_5-22-03.htm Look Al Qaeda are going to attack cheap medication from Mexico and Canada!!! How is it that some of these warnings happen to coincide with other agendas? e.g nuclear bombs + MS-13 + Mexico border (along with the minutemen whom claim the same) Then cheap medication, just so happening around the same time the Medicine companies were attempting to ban all imports of medication from both Canada and Mexico?

24 Greg talks to friends via CB, on the topic that WTC7 was "Pulled" http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/mryoop789/tinfoil-hat.jpg

25 http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/mryoop789/tinfoil-hat.jpg

26 Bush went "through the roof." I'd believe that more if he wasn't so keen on keeping the Mexico border porous. Not that I don't doubt the gist of the rest of the article, unfortuantely.

27 Bull$hit! If these beheading arab-terrorist-buttrammers had a single nuke many of us would already be dead. If they had 70 they would not hang around and plot, they'd blow one or two and threaten to spark the rest unless demands were met. I ain't skeered.

28 That and why would MS-13 want to nuke thier cash cow the US? I think that not covering the borders is a gamble that is being played by the politicians. Whether or not it will payoff is another story. But I don't have to sneak across the mexican border to pop off a "Red Pill" in Boston harbor. Hell a zodiac coming form intl. waters can do that better than some coyote running across the desert. Anty

29 King, do you believe that there are AQ cells in the US right now? If so then your argument does not hold water. Any of these cells has the capability to bomb a mall pretty much unfettered. But a functioning US AQ cell is worth a a lot more than a bus bomb. Especially if AQ thinks that they can get nukes into the country. Why risk exposure on some small operation when you got bigger things in the works? But in the end, there is only 2 ways we will know if they got a nuke in. Anty

30 Um. This really does seem to be a piece of garden-variety fear-mongering. Farah is not above implicating the President in assisting, whether knowingly or not, in facilitating an attack that probably would devestate the US. Were it true. These are serious allegations. I want names, dates. Which Al-Quaida leaders? Documents captured when? Where? [googles] Okay. Farah's ONLY source appears to be Paul L. Williams, and this story first came out almost a year ago. No, wait - Almost three years ago. Call me an ass, but I have to ask: Seems to me that IF the story is true (though note that some elements of the story come and go and change over time), wouldn't it be technically easier to coordinate a multiple nuke attack than it was to coordinate and pull of the 9/11 attacks? Seems to me that Al-Quaida has no shortage of willing mass murderers. What they may lack is actual nukes. Still, once again - IF this story is more or less true - why would any Allah-fearing holy man want to engage in an action that according to rumor would only result into the turning of Mecca into a vast sheet of glass? I ain't buyin' it. Of course, if it's true there aint a damn thing we can do about it. Oh - except freak out about our border with Mexico, which, as far as I'm concerned, is Farah's reason for resurrecting an old story.

31 CCWBass, Agreed.

32 IM:2You are possibly the most moronic, idiotic, stupid Chicken Little I've ever heard of. You're even stupider than kos, and that says a lot." IM, I can't remember the last time you made an intelligent contribution on this forum. All you do is expose the inner most sanctity of your sick and violent dreams. Upon your nightstand, one would find a squirt bottle full of blood-based lubricant and a box of Kleanex that you use to slather off to your necrophiliac fantasies. You're one sick cookie. You claim to be a veteran with a medical discharge. Obviously, it is of a psychiatric nature. I feel for you. Our country and the VA have betrayed you and countless others. You deserve and need help.

33 Gawd, Greg, your projectionist tendancies are getting a little outta hand, today. I'm sure if things were bothering you enough you could set me on fire... you know, if you wanted to.

34 jihad = 1,000,000,000 smoking muslims. if they nuke us, they will bow to the Trident, instead of Mecca.

35 A more holistic approach is needed in terrorism, rather than targetting a state to "answer" for an attack, the underlying parties need to be identified, and destroyed. You cannot continue to attack countries in response to terrorism, instead adopting the attitude of Mossad, in which terrorist leaders are preemptively assassinated or kidnapped, which is a much more precise and targetted method than using the army to crush a country.

36 Do not assume the specific motivations of your enemy. If AQ wanted to remove America as a world power, and they thought they could set off a nuclear warhead in every major city, they would do so. They are very patient people. We got into trouble with 9/11 because we assumed Terrorists would never do such a horrible thing. Assuming that terrorists would be plenty satisfied just causing a little mayhem by bombing one city as opposed to many cities is making the same mistake. And, yeah, the southern border is an absolute joke. You could sneak a tank across it if you were patient enough.

37 Soviet Suitcase Nukes? Bullshit. Fuckin lazy commies couldn't make a nuke small enough to drive around in the bed of a pick up... and you better not be around it for more than an hour or 2- you'll die from radiation poisoning.

38 Greg is a phychopath. Thats why he thinks of crap like that. Does he really think every 12 year old in the country hasn't already thought of the same. Shock affect of fire, 0%. Shock affect of bomb, 100%. Deaths from bombs. A bunch. Deaths from fire. Near 0. Someone needs to grow up. If I seriously believed the muslims were going to nuke us. I would say nuke the ragheads first. Nuke them all. 1,000,000 of these treacherous animals are not worth one American. Excluding Greg of course. He is the only creature I place beneath a cowardly, child raping, goat screwing, Islamofacist piece of camel shit.

39 By the way. God bless you Brits. We know you will hold your heads high and continue the fight. Great Britain is called GREAT for a reason. If the bombers and murdering dogs turn out to be muslim assholes living in England I hope you Brits to seriously into ending the problem before Britain in know more. Look around.

40 Greg is a phychopath. . Nuke them all. 1,000,000 of these treacherous animals are not worth one American. Irony meter: unreadable, result to high.

41 Damn margaritas.

42 Dr. Shackleford-- There *was* allegedly a nuclear threat reported after 9/11, but it was quickly debunked. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/03/03/20020303_154419_flash.htm My guess is the folks behind this story knew this, and ran with the fancy. I take nuclear terrorism as seriously as the next guy, but I don't buy this guy's story. For. One. Second. Let's worry, yes, but let's worry in the right directions-- and this ain't it. Cheers, Dave at Garfield Ridge

43 Look in the dictionary under dumn ass: you will find the photo's of Greg and Dave.

44 I gotta say that this sounds like BS. Make no mistake, there is a definite desire to aquire nukes and use them on US soil. However, I feel that if they had nukes that they would have detonated by now. Whether they were able to get them on US soil or not. To avoid detonation on US soil we do need to close the borders.

45 Jihad in the west:'Look in the dictionary under dumn ass: you will find the photo's of Greg and Dave.' Jihad, I'll bet you $1000.00 American you won't find the word 'dumn' in an English dictionary. And the word "photo's" shouldn't be possesive; you meant to say photos. Now, whose the dumb ass?

46 Greg: Make that "WHO'S the dumb ass?"

47 YBP, Oops. I guess I am 'dumn'.

48 Forgive me, Greg. Once an English teacher, always an English teacher.

49 Oh - that was priceless.

50 Greg, you have never made a valuable contribution to this blog, but rather make childish remarks and provide links to sites that sell tinfoil hats. The only help I need is a clear field of fire and you to stand more or less still at any range up to and including about 600 yards. I will be hunting choades like you one day soon, and taking trophies.

51 i dont agree that if they had them here they would let one rip already. 9-11 took great planning and patience, which these guys are known for. if they get 10 setup and all go at once i dont think the country survives. and that is the goal. not just a bomb but devastating the west. think about it, 10 go off.... stock market crash, housing crash, international investment all pulled out... game over here.

52 I only started reading this blog today. Seems it attracts a lot of folks who have very strong, albeit not always well reasoned, opinions. I am a retired intelligence analyst from the US Army. I'm no more certain than anyone else if the story is true about the nukes, but the lines of reasoning for it not being true that some of you have expressed do not stand up under logical scrutiny. For example, to say that if they had even one nuke they would have already set it off is totally undermined by the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaida could have used only 4-5 folks to have sent one jetliner into one tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) and have achieved a definite goal of proving to Americans that they could attack us on our own soil, but they chose to launch simultaneous attacks on both towers of the WTC as well as on what turned into an attack on the Pentagon (probably originally intended for either the White House or the Capital) with one attack being thwarted that would have also been aimed at either the White House or the Capital. They were shooting for not only maximum terror, but also an attack that, had it gone according to their original plan, would have thrown the United States into total chaos with the deaths of hundreds of lawmakers at the Capital and possibly the President and a good portion of his staff at the White House. None of us here can pretend to understand the terrorist mindset. Also do not assume that a threatened destruction of Mecca would deter these people for even a moment. In actuality, if we were to follow through on that threat, it truly would launch an all-out war between Islam and the West, which is what bin Laden and his fellow maniacs actually want in the first place. Many of you need to think the scenarios you suggest through to their logical conclusions before using them to support your arguments, regardless of which side you are attempting to support. I have not seen any posting on here that suggests the person posting it has the background, knowledge, or experience to truly analyze whether or not al Quaida actually has the capability or the will to use nukes to further their cause. You hould probably leave that analysis to those folks with the appropriate credentials and access to classified information that probably none of you have.

53 I agree about the probable problems with this scenario posted earlier. Realistically, If they do ever hit us (even with one nuke); that will be the end of the middle east fascist/secular states. The next president would be elected in a landslide victory with a purpose to utterly destroy the negative muslim countries completely (or ask for total surrender from the islamofascists). We would go to a world war II style draft and configure for total war. There would be a slight danger that world war III might occur because India, China and Russia might get involved or attack their own enemies, percieved or otherwise. It would be a real mess, not just for us but for the whole civilized world. Hopefully Bin Laden, though a nut, isnt that stupid - However, I think if he had a suitcase nuke, he might detonate in a remote area in the midwest (like say northwestern Texas/Colorado area) - and decimate a small isolated town of around 40k people - not enough to destroy our economy but enough to make his point without taking us to the brink of complete nuclear retaliation. In that worst case I still believe we would retaliate massively - If anyone objected - my attitude is we would respond with a diplomatic "who wants some next?!!!!!!!!!!". Dave the Barbarian

54 Well... one reason for not nuking could be that we just completed an election year. They might not have wanted bush to gain popular support and get re-elected. Just a thought, it's also backed in curt weldons book. Whether or not they do not have a nuke in the US would be more dependent on whether or not they have nukes! What I mean is, if they have nukes, bringing them through mexico would be literally no problem. Our borders are designed with nice BIG sand walls that protect our country well. Listen to intelligence officials, it's an if not when situation, so dont shun the possibilities. It's been 4 years, the clock is ticking.

55 Also, to Dave. If Osama had suitcase nukes, your idea of an explosion being made in a small town is ridiculous. Why would he nuke 30,000 people when he could nuke millions? In an attack on a city like New Yok, we wouldn't be able to live in the vicinity for decades. You should put yourself in Osama's place and add into the equation his absolute insanity, and his desire to completely an utterly ruin our society. You might not be able to comprehend that because you are a decent human being, but the facts are, we are fighting a group of people led by a complete lunatic.

56 I agree with the theory of nuking a small city instead of major metropolitan areas. If I were a terrorist and I wanted to totally terrorize a country the size of the US, I would want to prove to the citizens that nowhere is safe. If I only attack major cities, people in the smaller rural areas or small cities may not totally relate to something that occurs in New York City. On the other hand, if I were to attack several small cities and a few rural areas simultaneously with either a nuke or some conventioanl means, I may cause every citizen in the US to re-evaluate their individual situation. In other words, if I can make the entire country feel vulnerable, I can cause the US leadership a lot more problems since they now cannot concentrate only on the major cities. That translates into larger expenditures of funds and causes much more of a negative economic impact in other ways as well. If no place in the country is safe, then investors will become much more reluctant to invest which in turn could cause the country to go into a deep recesssion if not a full blown depression. If that occurs, you will start hearing calls from the citizenry for the US to turn inwards and totally isolate itself from the rest of the world. That in turn causes chaos for the other countries with whom we are allied. You could keep extrapolating the reactions outward, but you get the idea. The entire scenario I just described would certainly support the stated aims of al Qaida and bin Laden.

57 well if they did attack the west with a nuke ,if you think they would use a nuke it would most likely be in paris the center of europe, fall out would reach neighbouring states. i would go over there and blow up their place of prayer or attack there relatives i would not think twice. They are killing the normal joe what they should be doing is going for policy makers not normal people like ourselves. what he is doing is creating hate towards his own race.

58 One thing I think about to is that AQ is patient. The first WTC bombing was in 93. They wated till 01 to finish the job.

59 7 Man Sled, It's not just a coincidence, IMO, that from '93 to 2001 (the 8-year reign of the most inept slacker left-wing terrorist enabling idiots, the Klinton administration) that all this terrorism had the chance to flourish world wide. Is it?

60 Perhaps we need to step back and assess this situation from a more objective stance. By that I mean that maybe a summit meeting can be arranged between ALL concerned without threats of violence therein. Yes, even Al-Qaeda can attend. All in attendance can pick their own representative(s) to speak for them. This summit would have to be under conditions of a truce or "cease fire" to be effective. Everyone's voice MUST be heard, without threat of persecution, and a mutual concensus reached. Surely we, as sentient beings, can sit down at a roundtable and have an intelligent and meaningfull discussion without blowing each other to smitheriens beforehand. Failure to accomplish this will ultimately result in true Armogeddon for no one wins in a nuclear exchange. The world is truely a beautifull place. Let's all try to work together for the common good and keep it that way. TJ in Pa.

61 You guys seems to cover all the bases except you seem to forget that AQ doesn't use your logic. What if they really want the world to revert back to the dark ages when they (the Muslims) ruled? What better way to do it than to cause an all out MAD Event (WW III)by starting the war with the remaining 2 super powers (China and Russia) and America the ONLY military HYPER POWER.

62 i thought voting W in was going to save us from the terrorists... somehow i'm not surprised that the man who failed to stop 9/11 from happening has now failed at stopping nukes from being smuggled in to our own contry to be used against us. you neocons voted him in and when millions of americans are killed on our own soil you will have only yourselves to blame.

63 Just, remember the last days of the Roman Empire, this would be pretty enlightening for some of you...

64 Has anyone read Bin Laden's letter to America? He doesn't sound insane to me. Evil, yes, but not insane. He soundly states what his intentions are.

65 I shudder to think of it but you should expect an exponentially larger backlash than what happened after 9/11 if nukes were used against any US city. I would seriously fear for my safety if I were an arab (anywhere in the world) after such an attack. Especially knowing how many yahoos there are in this country and how many have guns. Every arab or muslim would have a bull's eye on his/her head. The backlash would be almost as bloody as the WMD attack itself. Let's all pray it never happens. And, if it does, remember that the guy who runs the gas station or convenience store, or the family down the street who happens to be muslim, or anyone with a tan complexion is not your enemy! And..No. I am not a liberal! Far from it.

66 When I first heard this I had a sinking feeling. Simultaneous nukes in major American cities would be just the thing AQ would want after 9/11, which had the same feel -- simultaneous strikes at WTC, Pentagon, Washington. Their intent is to destroy the country. They are doing first-strike. If our "useful idiot" liberals and the politically-correct MSM are still around (didn't get nuked), I think they would again aid and abett the enemy, and diffuse our response, like they did after 9/11. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbour of Islam's war against America, and the West. Why Islam and not just Al Qaeda? AQ was just executing the ideology, Islam. Islam has two tenets that are taught in every mosque, and it is cast in stone in the Qur'an. These tenets are: 1. All of humanity are to be brought into submission to Islam. Every non-muslim is to be given 3 choices: become a muslim, pay a jigza tax, or die. 2. Non muslims are "without sanctity", their "blood, possessions, and land" are licit for a muslim to take. These two tenets are the basis of all Islamic terrorist acts. Now you know how it is that the friend and families of the muslim terrorists always say they became more pious before they went off and killed innocent civilians. They have two other tenets you should be aware of when you hear the muslims speak after these atrocities. These doctrines are calledd taqiyya (deception and dissimulation), and kitman (concealment of malevolent intentions). Islam institutionalises deception. And they call this a religion. Dr Tawfik Hamid, who came out of the terrorist group that AQ's No.2 was in, said Islam produces two kinds of people: the active terrorists and the passive terrorists. The passive ones are those we call "moderates". They are all indoctrinated with these tenets, they are just not now acting on it. Some one said, "The difference between a muslim terrorist and a 'moderate muslim' is that the 'moderate' has not tried to kill you. Yet." 9/11 was the moment when we should have ripped Islam out of the nation and ban it from the land. Did we do that? No. Why? Because our leaders called the enemy the "Religion of Peace", surprising even the muslims who were preparing to split to Cananda. It must have amused the muslims that they can attack America, and her response is to coddle them instead of driving them off the land. Now they are emboldened. They are doing a terrific job in promoting themselves as the "RoP", suing anyone for criticising the ideology, being two faced, telling the public how peaceful they are, and telling their own people in private to do what Islam commands. A muslim cleric in Australia said the terms "moderate", "fundamentalist", "Islamist" are Western concepts, there is no such concepts in Islam. In Islam there is just "muslim or non-muslim". And he is right. We are not out to lynch innocent people. Our fight is against the ideology and its executors. Islam is an ideology that is a threat to every civilized society. Islam incites and sanctions murder, mayhem and sedition. We should get legislation to ban it from the land. I'll let the muslims speak for themselves here: MURDER & MAYHEM Sheikh Abu Hamza, muslim cleric: “Murder, bank robbery and looting are legitimate weapons against the enemies of Islam. SEDITION Sheik Omar Bakri, muslim cleric: "The ultimate goal is the imposition of Sharia on Great Britain...Someday the black flag of Islam will fly over 10 Downing Street" Omar Ahmed, chairman CAIR: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Islam is currently working on fulfiling its goal of making the whole planet Islamic via a two prong approach -- active terrorists like AQ to cause mayhem and destruction to non-muslim nations, and passive ones within the nation, to excuse them and promote their agenda. After 7/7 what did the muslim leaders say Blair should do? Surrender. Do exactly what the terrorists wanted of Blair.

67 To skidd: I have been telling people in Sweden abou the "world domination at any cost" desire inherent in Islam. A friends wife refused to talk to me calling me paranoid and a racist. Until the London bombs, which served as dramatic evidence for my claims. People just don´t want to accept that we might be facing a threat as big as if not bigger than the nazi and soviet threat. Everyday muslims are pouring into Europe. Like you I have nothing against individual but I am against the fascist islamic ideology, which at its inception was violent and has never changed. The public needs to be informed. Muslims should only be allowed to stay if they (1) leave their so-called faith (hate) or (2) agree that violent verses in the koran are not valid (there will not be much left). If the public really knew, then muslims will be unfortunately lyched in the street of Britain. I see no easy solution. A nuke attack on the US, would trigger massive unrest in Europe, muslims will be killed/expelled. India, China,Russia and others will be worried that they will be next and they will most likely join the US in a war to occupy and tame the Islamic world. You should see. www.faithfreedom.org

68 i dont believe this partially because their is no evidince,the u.s.a's defense budget is 490 billion and without the u.s.a they would have no funding source because the world would go into a global depression