Report: AQ warns Muslims to leave NYC, Washington

posted at 2:29 pm on September 17, 2006 by Allahpundit

The worry meter remains at midlevel, but I’m obliged to follow up on that earlier post. Via Bama Pachyderm via Gateway Pundit via World Net Daily, Pakistani journalist Hamir Mir says the end is nigh:

“We have a different plan for the next attack,” [AQ Afghan commander Abu Dawood] told Mir. “You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.”

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters.

Let’s wait and see about that audio message. If that comes through, then maybe we go to code orange.

More details at the world’s most alarmist website:

* Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S…

* The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah (“Jaffer Tayyer” or “Jafer the Pilot”), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.

Again, if you don’t think they’d warn people in advance of an impending attack, watch the CNN video from the morning of 9/11.

Here’s video of Shukrijumah.

Update: I know someone’s inevitably going to try to link Dawood to that missed opportunity with the drone and the Taliban gathered in the cemetery. Evan Coyne Maloney says tain’t necessarily so.

Update: While we’re on the subject of advance warnings about terror attacks, you owe it to yourself to read (or re-read) this semi-famous piece by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro for Insight magazine. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek got wind of Shapiro’s original article shortly after 9/11 and promptly set out to debunk it. Things didn’t work out the way he planned.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters.

I don’t think they need to send moles into the West. Plentiful real Western reporters might assist them for free.

Bill K., I’m talking to you.

Niko on September 17, 2006 at 2:42 PM

Well, I’m sure it’s all the Pope’s fault.

Mr. Bingley on September 17, 2006 at 3:15 PM

…someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter.

Yes, Mohammad codified deception in Islam as a technique to conquer and subjugate infidels. No surprises here!

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Urban II before him are right. Islam has since been on the march to subjugate and force itself on others. Exposing this evil and violent religion to the world is each of our responsibility to survive as a civilization.

TrueKatipunero on September 17, 2006 at 4:46 PM

What I said yesterday in response to another article turns out even more timely today:

My understanding is that think tanks have predicted that there is a high probability one of our cities will be nuked by terrorists within ten years.

So to support the doubtful proposition that aggresive interrogation might “put our own troops at risk,” which, incidently, they already seem to be, Warner & his friends,
Powell, and the Democrats have instead chosen to put our entire country at risk.

Or, to put it in other words, to possibly benefit a handful, they have chosen to threaten at least a hundred thousand. What kind of crazy cost-benefit analysis is that?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 17, 2006 at 5:10 PM

Well, I’m sure it’s all the Pope’s fault.

Seriously, after what the Pope did, can you blame them if they nuke us?

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 5:14 PM

If they set of ANY kind of nuke, bio, chem, radiological (dirty) or EMP weapon, then we HAVE to go to Plan B. Start with mecca, medina and najaf, and every major population center in the muslim world and work down. Forget liberation and democratization, if they use any sort of NBCR’s then Plan A has failed. Too bad we’ll kill so many of our allies over there as well as our enemies, but screw it, we tried to be Mr. Friggin’ Nice Guy, time to drop the gloves. I’m sorry, I know it’s not a very Christ-like thing to say but what other choice will we have? Muslims didn’t exist in the Time Of Christ, would He turn the other cheek if He were here when NYC was destroyed by a nuke? I believe He would say that the govt must do what it must to defend us.

Happiness is a mushroom cloud over mecca. It’s the only way we’re ever gonna have peace. They believe the only way to have peace is to convert the entire world to islam, so when does it end? When they destroy US, or we destroy THEM. Pick one.

Tony737 on September 17, 2006 at 5:21 PM

Good point, RW. Maybe if we let them nuke us just this once, they’ll leave us alone afterwards.

Also, remember what your teachers said at school. If you just ingore a bully, eventually he’ll stop picking on you. We should try the same. Eventually the Islamists will get tired of nuking us and will go pick on someone else.

EFG on September 17, 2006 at 5:22 PM

Wait, if all the Muslims leave NYC, then who’ll be driving all the cabs?

Iblis on September 17, 2006 at 5:27 PM

Tony737,

It’s hard to turn the other cheek when you’re dead.

Rosetta on September 17, 2006 at 5:57 PM

That’s a bunch of dis-information. They will hit Israel or France first. They are the easier targets and will have a unification effect on global Islam. Also read about the Stasi. What does the Stasi have to do with Islam. About as much as it had to do with A.N.S.W.E.R. and the National Layers Guild.

Egfrow on September 17, 2006 at 6:10 PM

Wait, I’m confused. Shouldn’t it be the Jews warning the Jews to get out of these cities like they did prior to the 9/11 attacks?

/sarcasm

Benaiah on September 17, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Tony737 wins the thread. He just spoke (typed) the sad truth of what we are facing. This Pope situation, the Cartoon Jihad, etc. are perfect examples of why there is making peace with these people. I mean, I’m obviously not shocked or surprised by the Muslim world’s reaction, it’s quite expected, but it should be yet another wake-up call folks.

Anchors on FNC have made an excellent point all day. What happened after an extremist Muslim tried to kill the last pope? Where Mosques torched and Imams killed, etc? No, the pope forgave the guy, and later visited him in prison!

There is no reasoning with these people, there is no transformation that I can see happening. Don’t give me this “religion of peace” “moderate Muslims” crap. Where are there? Where are these hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims? Why is it they can’t overthrow the extremists who run their countries? Why is this 99.99% of Islam that is supposedly peaceful not able to rid the world of the few that make them all look bad. Because it’s a myth that the majority are moderates and they are peaceful. Compare it with the KKK. Where are they? Having bonfires in the swamps of the deep south? But they aren’t taking over our country. Can you imagine a single CURRENT (not Byrd type) member of the KKK getting elected to anything outside of being a selectman or something of a backwoods town of no more than a couple hundred? Although they’d be wrong, one would try to argue that these are Christian extremists, but they have nothing to do with Christianity. However if we accepted that premise… why aren’t they taking over (Rosie)?

Do people not see the difference? When an extremist group is truly just a tiny minority not representative of a culture, they are drowned out and insignificant to the rest of the culture/country as a whole, and are often mocked. Why then aren’t extremist Muslims being surpressed and jailed for their activities, and why aren’t Muslim countries being taken over by all those peace loving Muslims?

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 6:25 PM

Wait, I’m confused. Shouldn’t it be the Jews warning the Jews to get out of these cities like they did prior to the 9/11 attacks?

/sarcasm

Benaiah on September 17, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Might I add – Illuminati, Bimini Rd., Free Masons, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Owl hidden on the $1 bill, etc. etc.

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 6:28 PM

Show me the mass exodus of Muslims and I might get worried.

I was worried until I read about the warning. Since when do they warn anyone before carrying out an attack in America? I seem to recall that misdirection is a major tool of terrorists, and it seems to me to be the case in this instance.

France would be the easiest place to hit, IMHO, but a bomb in Iraq wouldn’t suprise me either.

DannoJyd on September 17, 2006 at 7:07 PM

Forgive my ignorance, but why the mentions of France as a target? That’s already Muslim held.
I can see a major attack against the United States happening, if for no other reason than to give them a nice Ramadan. They can do no more than bloody our nose, so to speak, but even standing up the the “Great Satan” that much will embolden them do more. Especially is the attack is quickly followed by demands for ‘peace’ by the liberal left in this country.

Doug on September 17, 2006 at 7:25 PM

I was worried until I read about the warning. Since when do they warn anyone before carrying out an attack in America? I seem to recall that misdirection is a major tool of terrorists, and it seems to me to be the case in this instance.

I agree with the misdirection aspect, however you should read AP’s entire post(s) regarding your comments about warnings before attacks. Specifically here: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/12/report-al-qaeda-planning-nuke-attack-for-ramadan/

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 7:26 PM

RW, I did read that [and later linked to it], thought about it, read the links offered in this topic, and came to the conclusion which I posted.

Show me the mass exodus of Muslims and I might get worried. No exodus causes me to think the ‘information’ passed along was propaganda. Are the cabs in NYC still running? ;o)

Doug, this is one reason which explains why that France has to be concerned.

DannoJyd on September 17, 2006 at 7:46 PM

No exodus causes me to think the ‘information’ passed along was propaganda. Are the cabs in NYC still running? ;o)

Don’t get me wrong DannoJyd, I think this is more than likely propaganda too, but I was answering your specific question of Since when do they warn anyone before carrying out an attack in America?

Basically, it’s not entirely undheard of for them to do it. Again, I think this whole thing is probably just propaganda too, but felt that point was necessary to add.

One other thing, we didn’t see a mass exodus before 9/11 did we? Keep in mind that the more people familiar with a plot, the less chance of success it has. Who knows about that school kid making the prediction about the WTC, could be it was discussed in his mosque, could be coincidence, or could be he’s psychic. But I doubt, if there was a serious plot to smuggle in and detonate a nuke, that they’d spread the word all around and risk the chance that some rogue non-Jihadist got wind of it and tipped off authorities. Remember also that these people don’t care about killing their own. Iraq is the perfect example of that.

The only other thing I think about a nuke plot in the US is this… For a long time I’ve thought about that possibility. A nuke snuck across the southern border and then detonated in a major city. My feeling is that they wouldn’t risk trying to haul something all the way across the country to hit NYC or DC… It will probably be a city in TX or or AZ or something, to ensure that they can successfully execute the plan.

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 8:03 PM

The only other thing I think about a nuke plot in the US is this… For a long time I’ve thought about that possibility. A nuke snuck across the southern border and then detonated in a major city. My feeling is that they wouldn’t risk trying to haul something all the way across the country to hit NYC or DC… It will probably be a city in TX or or AZ or something, to ensure that they can successfully execute the plan.

That is of course, possible. But I think these jihadi’s believe they are good enough to strike right at our heart. Which is NYC or DC. They do seem to have an obsession with striking at New York. I think that if they smuggled a nuke into the US, they might consider blowing it up in a place like El Paso, Texas. For the reasons you just mentioned. But then I think a little voice in the back of their heads would whisper “why attack Satan here, when you can plunge your dagger right into his black heart in New York?” It’s just my opinion of course, but I don’t think their hubris would allow them to settle for anything but New York or DC, And maybe LA.

EFG on September 17, 2006 at 8:23 PM

I agree with RightWinged. I don’t believe that the first U.S. city to be nuked will be an obvious target like NYC or D.C. The question is WHEN it happens, and it will eventually, WHAT will our response be? A Clintonian “We must bring the attackers to justice!” or a Carl von Clausewitz “total war” approach. To continue with the Clausewitz notion of “center of gravity” on an army; we must attack radical islam at its center of gravity, destroy it utterly, and then we’ll be able to live in relative peace with the more moderate members of islam. I don’t believe a U.N. style “ceasefire” will accomplish anything in the case of terrorism through mass murder.

Mojave Mark on September 17, 2006 at 8:32 PM

This would be terrible vindication for closed borders and secured ports advocates.

It’s not unreasonable to think AQ would try to influence our elections as they did in Spain.
The reaction here would be the opposite of what happened in Spain though. Literally backfiring in their face.

Here the reaction would be one of anger and unity against Al-Qaeda and the gloves would come off, big time.

If indeed another catastrophic attack occurs on American soil, political correctness would go straight to hell along with a whole lot of enemy Muslims.

Speakup on September 17, 2006 at 8:49 PM

Mojave Mark, it’s obvious we both don’t want to lose New York or any US city. If we did, well, the thought of a nuke going off in NYC is horrible. And we could destroy Mecca and Medina and the Al-Aqsa mosque. But we would still have lost NYC.

With the Russians and MAD, it was their fear that they would be destroyed in our counter strike that kept them from attacking us. Obviously, that sort of deterence breaks down when your attackers are eager to die in a suicide attack. But is there something that the jihadists value more than their lives that they don’t want destroyed? Well, Mecca, Medina and the Al-Aqsa mosque are really the only thing I can think of. The belief that any sort of WMD attack on our cities would or could be responded with attacks on those holy places may be the only thing that could deter Al-Qaeda from doing the same. Unless they are convinced that Allah would protect his holy places with divine intervention. In which case, there nothing I can think of that would deter them.

However, maybe the above veiled threat would or could persuade the Islamic governments arround the world that it is not in the best interest of them or their religeon to let jihadists do this sort of attack.

Anyway, before I start spiraling into some sort of circular reasoning (or just boring the hell out of everyone) let me just say that I don’t want to have to nuke the Islamic world. But we can’t have our government say that we would never respond to a nuclear attack upon with us with a nuclear strike of our own. We can not take the nuclear option off the table. It may be the only threat that we can play.

And as such, it may be the only thing that keeps NYC from being attacked.

It worked with the Russians. Perhaps it could work with the IslamoFascists.

Reporter: Mr. President, what would the response of the U.S. be to a nuclear device being detonated on US soil?

President: All of our options would be on the table and considered.

Reporter: Does that include a nuclear strike at Mecca?

President: As I said, all options would be considered. We obviously hope that it wouldn’t come to that. But no response will be dismissed in advance, and as I said earlier, all options would be considered.

Crap. Usually I don’t go arround looking for excuses to formulate reasons for why we should go nuclear. But I guess since this thread is about the possibility of a nuclear strike on our soil, I suppose I have no choice.

EFG on September 17, 2006 at 9:02 PM

The problem with MAD, is who do you return fire at? The best we could do is turn the mountains on the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan into a huge crater, but that would piss off Pak/AF, and anyone down wind.

Nuking Mecca would just piss off the kindgom of Saud, and the rest of the Muslims. Iran nuclear facilities would be nice, but it would seem a bit like closing the barn door after the horses leave.

It would be hard to justify a retalitory nuclear strike. It’s like bringing a gernade to a knife fight.

Believe me, I’m all for turning as much of the middle-east as possible into a glass parking lot for a really big wal-mart… but the hard part is trying to figure out where to start.

E L Frederick on September 17, 2006 at 9:19 PM

It would be hard to justify a retalitory nuclear strike. It’s like bringing a gernade to a knife fight.

No, it is not. Using nukes when the attacked the US Cole, or an embassy of ours would be like that.

But when they nuke NYC, causing at a minimum hundreds of thousands of deaths, perhaps even millions, with trillions of dollars of damage done to our economy and infrastructure, that is not something minor. That is about as massive of an attack on us as I can imagine. My God, just thinking about it is bad enough.

So while I don’t want to piss of the Saudis or the world Muslim public opinion for no good reason, if we lost NYC, I wouldn’t give a damn about their good will.

Hell, if we lose NYC before we piss off the Kingdom of Saud, and the rest of the Muslims, what good is keeping this sort of good will?

Now I’m not trying to say that all the Muslims in the world want us to be attacked like this. But I’m only willing to go so far to keep in their good graces.

If we got nuked, forget it. Our retaliation would be horrible.

Which is why we must make sure this NYC strike never occurs in the first place. This is why I think we must not take the nuclear strike off the table. This sort of veiled threat may be what it takes to ensure that the idea of attacking us like this is seen as much to risky of an option.

EFG on September 17, 2006 at 9:30 PM

“veiled threat” ? ? ?

It should be policy.

Matter of fact, it is.

The POTUS is required to retaliate if the US is attacked.

.

The Machine on September 17, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Pass to EFG, he’s at the 40, the 30, the 20, he could. go. all. the. way … Touchdownnnnn!!!

Do a victory dance in the endzone, EFG.

Tony737 on September 17, 2006 at 9:51 PM

Mojave Mark

I don’t believe a U.N. style “ceasefire” will accomplish anything in the case of terrorism through mass murder.

Lol, not making fun of you, but talk about stating the obvious huh? For starters, the UN is a POS, good for nothing but raping preteen girls in third world countries on a massive scale. But “ceasefire” doesn’t work with terrorists because their thinking goes “All non-Muslims must die, and I will die doing my part”. It’s not just your opinion that it won’t work, it simply can’t. Again, not mocking what you said, just elaborating.

EFG:

However, maybe the above veiled threat would or could persuade the Islamic governments arround the world that it is not in the best interest of them or their religeon to let jihadists do this sort of attack.

This would only be possible if it weren’t for the fact that the members of these governments didn’t, deep down, believe the same way the terrorists do. See my KKK example earlier. If the majority were “moderate” or “peaceful”, the terrorists would be surpressed and all but wiped out. The reason the terrorists flourish is because they are not a tiny minority, as we are constantly told.

E L Frederick:

The problem with MAD, is who do you return fire at? The best we could do is turn the mountains on the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan into a huge crater, but that would piss off Pak/AF, and anyone down wind.

Nuking Mecca would just piss off the kindgom of Saud, and the rest of the Muslims. Iran nuclear facilities would be nice, but it would seem a bit like closing the barn door after the horses leave.

This is why we have more than one nuke. I don’t know if the government would have the nuts, but if one of our cities, any of our cities, is nuked it should be open season. Sorry to be so blunt, but enough is enough. Does anyone think that nuking one particular country or area would do anything but further extremize all other Muslims. Doesn’t matter if we’re justified (and they know it), you know that would happen. The only answer is giving it back 100 fold.

RightWinged on September 17, 2006 at 11:08 PM

RightWinged, I don’t think these Islamic goverments are models of morality or good governments. Many of them do harbor similar thoughts or feelings as do the terrorists. But they do understand power and they wish to keep theirs. They also understand threats, and serious threats against their power can cause changes in their behaviour.

The actions of Pakistan pre-9-11 vs post-9-11 are a good example of that. And I would suggest that any backsliding by Pakistan in recent days could probably be explained by a perceived lessening of the seriousness of our resolve and ability to punish transgressions.

EFG on September 18, 2006 at 12:12 AM

Thanks Tony.

Everyday that we keep NYC is cause for a victory dance.

Well,… actually, that is kinda setting the bar low. And would lead to lots and lots of dancing. Which I’m pretty good at, but I do kinda like a little variety.

So let’s just say that every September 11 that goes by without a major attack on America is a day for a victory dance.

And I’ll dance to that. Heck, I’ll even buy everyone who shows up to watch my dance a beer. Or a Courvoisier. Cuz that’s how EFG rolls. ;-)

EFG on September 18, 2006 at 12:24 AM

Tony and Right Wing… good job…

I agree that God has established Govt’ and it’s job often is to strike anywhere…

I hope Christian missionaries are ready to deploy in droves when Mecca and other sites are hit.

*************

Can someone say “Ann Coulter” is dead on?

ar_basin on September 18, 2006 at 1:10 AM

if NYC / DC or even another major city was nuked, the liberals in this country would be celebrating & then blame Bush

Starblazer on September 18, 2006 at 1:11 AM

well, they wouldn’t be celebrating in public anyways.

Starblazer on September 18, 2006 at 1:13 AM

But they do understand power and they wish to keep theirs.

Point taken. While they do believe, deep down, the same way the terrorists do, or they’d stomp them out, many are power hungry and not suicidal (however Ahmadinejad seems to be looking for the Apocalypse). So yeah, I think you do have a pretty good point there actually.

RightWinged on September 18, 2006 at 1:57 AM

Disclaimer: I am not a nuclear weapons specialist.

I came across this article on the web:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html.

It describes our smallest nuclear weapon, the W54 warhead, used on the “Davey Crockett” launching system which had an explosive output of between 10tons and 1 kiloton of TNT.

We’ve heard a lot about Al Qaeda buying black market “suitcase” nukes from Russia. Given that the ability of Al Qaeda to DEVELOPE them from scratch is nill, the odds are that IF they have them, they purchased them already made up from the Russian black market.

Dean Barnett writing in Hugh Hewitt’s blog writes about the possibility of such nukes being functional after all this time, given that these weapons, if they exist must be at least 15 years old by now.

I recommend that you all read Barnett’s piece for background.

Now, it seems to me, naive as I am, that why bother to try to smuggle a nuke into this country when you can make as big a “KABOOM” with fertilizer and fuel oil purchased locally? I mean, why go to all that trouble when a Ryder truck, a ton of fertilizer and a few barrels of diesel would generate nearly the same devestation?

And then I think that there is this as well: If Al Qaeda HAD nuclear weapons, and have had them for the believed period of time, WHY HAVEN’T THEY USED THEM ALREADY?

Weapons in the hands of terrorists are ALWAYS of the “use them or lose them” kind, with the danger of discovery from preemptive strikes against them. When one considers that having nukes would be their most prestigeous weapon and USING them would make them supreme in the Muslim world, why haven’t they used them already?

Instead of running a world-wide terrorist organization from his multi-acre compound in Afghanistan, bin Laden is reduced to making “motiviational videos” and distributing them via human courier.

IMHO, why would they wait for years to deploy one, and why would they risk trying to smuggle it into American, when they could use it in the middle east (Iraq, Israel), or Europe (Spain, Italy, Austria), etc.

That’s why I find the story behind this thread to be dubious. Pray that I am correct!

georgej on September 18, 2006 at 2:19 AM

Thanks ar-basin.

RightWing is correct about Ahmajihadist, the guy thinks it’s his job to bring about the Armegedan, Armigedin, Arma … The End Times! … and this will cause the “12th imam” (their messiah) to return and rule the world (what’s left of it) under islam. M.A.D. doesn’t work with this guy. Nuke him now and get it over with before he nukes us OR nuke him later, after he’s nuked us. Thank God (and Ronald Reagan) for S.D.I.

Tony737 on September 18, 2006 at 2:54 AM

Show me the mass exodus of Muslims and I might get worried.

I live next to Dearbornistan, Michigan, the highest islamic population the U.S. In the last year, the local big box store has been swamped with (non-assimilated) muslim customers, my estimates on a good night up to 30 percent. In the last 6 months there had been a suddenly increase in the percentage of females wearing a conplete face veil and long robes, rather than the head, arm, leg coverings to the point they were all over the store.

There has not been an exodus, but all at once the veiled women are gone. All gone. A few women with hijab head scarfs, and some with long robes are still there, but zero covered faces. It started a couple days before this nuke warning. The same thing happened on illegal alien boycott day.

When this crowd gets a message, they all lay low at once.

My friends and I have calculated they won’t blow up this area, since there are so many supporters here, and they have invested a lot of money in their ghetto (no english needed). But they are obviously pulling back, whether they have specific information, or they think it is just rumor but don’t want to be the center of attention.

The week of 911 one friend was taken aside by a party story owner (muslim) and told, “I like you, don’t drink any (and he named a famous brand soft drink)”. Again, either rumor, or he knew someone who had threatened to tamper. Honestly, we stopped drinking the product. We will never know if it was tampered with. A toxin added to a large quantity of liquid could be too diluted to poison, or the bottling process could have altered it. The middle eastern community has its own sources, and takes care of itself first above all.

It was local firemen, not local muslims, who were out at traffic lights after 911 collecting money for WTC victims.

Knowing the mindset of the Islamofascist – to nuke NYC or DC would be the greatest glory and show the world that god is on their side. Either would wreck our economy.

entagor on September 18, 2006 at 2:55 AM

I’ve always thought that the next major AQ attack in the US would be on Denver or Minneapolis, to show that there is no place you can hide; that’s how I’d do it.

Mind you, there is some self-interest at work here, as I’m currently sitting in Lower Manhattan…

Mr. Bingley on September 18, 2006 at 7:05 AM

It should be that easy to get sympathizers of Islamic Fundamentalists to leave our cities. Let’s hope that works.

BrunoMitchell on September 18, 2006 at 8:32 AM

What will be telling, as far as the ‘moderate Muslim’ debate is concerned, is whether or not American Muslims leave NYC and DC or choose to stay and fight terrorism with the rest of us.

JasonG on September 18, 2006 at 10:04 AM

Some useful information from wikipedia:

The United States has 18 Ohio class submarines:
* 14 nuclear-powered SSBNs, each armed with 24 Trident II SLBMs; they are also known as “Trident” submarines, and provide the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad of the United States strategic deterrent forces

* 4 nuclear-powered SSGNs, each armed with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles with conventional warheads

The 14 Trident II SSBNs together carry around fifty percent of the total U.S. strategic warhead inventory. The exact number varies in an unpredictable and highly classified manner, below a maximum set by various strategic arms limitation treaties. Although the missiles have no pre-set targets when the submarine goes on patrol, the platform, when required, is capable of rapid targeting using secure and constant at-sea communications links.

MikeHu on September 18, 2006 at 12:40 PM

I think nukes and dirty bonbs are so attractive to this enemy not only because of the hype associated with them, but also because they can render a part of a city useless for so long. If we were to rebuild the Twin Towers as they were (with missle launchers on top, of course)it would be a huge blow to the collective Islamofascist ego.

The fact that we already conduct business as usual all around ground zero is enough to anger them. They would like to make a city a toxic waste dump for decades to show their power.

NTWR on September 18, 2006 at 4:47 PM

Why can’t al-Qaeda just warn all Muslims to leave the entire Western world?

Then they can try their worst, nukes and all, and we’ll still be better off in the end.

Even with a few craters where Houston, LA or DC once stood.

It’s the slow jihad, demographic and ideological, that will undo us.

An honest fight, we can win.

But an insinuating infil-traitor Fifth Column of slow-motion sucker punches we are not equipped, philosophically or legally or morally, to handle. (Hamstrung by the “we must be decent even in war-making” mythos and the John McCain self-castrating silliness of “we don’t want to end up like them“.)

As the “prophet” Mohammad said:

War is deceit.”

To defeat this kind of parasitic pathology we have to read the Koran, read Machiavelli, read Sun Tzu, and answer Islam’s claims to spiritual superiority with world-historical scorn, futuristic cunning, protean animal strength, and a primal survival instinct revived from its dithering multicultural coma.

Can’t the CIA & MOSSAD orchestrate a convincing ‘Bin Laden tape’ advising all Muslims to flee to Mecca this Ramadan- “or face the terrible consequences”?

They want a battle of deceptions, let’s give it to them, tenthousandfold

profitsbeard on September 19, 2006 at 12:37 AM