It's also a fact that they planned the plane attack on the WTC for several years prior to it happening. They certainly would not waste their time on 'minor' things like airplanes crashing into buildings if they had nukes.
Imagining these filth with nukes in the U.S. and not using them is akin to thinking a starving, rabid wolf could kill a rabbit and not eat it till after dusk, when he felt 'safer'. But I suppose it could happen one day in the future if we continue to treat immigration and border crossings so cavalierly.
Right now we're fighting the cancer of terrorism by treating the symptoms as they pop up. I sincerely hope in the near future that we start fighting this scourge by attacking its very roots. Terrorism rises up out of muslim communities, and the Western world, including America, continues to allow muslim immigration, even if they are from violent, fiercely anti-Christian regions like Somalia. So we fight terrorism with our left hand in Iraq, and feed it with our right.
Barbarians they might be, and maybe impetuous. But stupid they aren't. Blow up a nuke now and a large part of the world would be against them.
No, their strategy is to dhimmi-ify Europe, and radicalize Pakistan and Indonesia. India will be surrounded by Islam or China, South America will be threatened by Chavez and the communists. China will block Australia. Africa is always an non-player in global politics, except as a jumping off point to reconquer Spain and Europe.
When the time is right, and there is no one who can or will come to our defense, the bombs (if or when they have bombs) will go off. The point about the bombs in the US won't be to win the war, or even start the war, but to declare the war over, to present us with a severe setback when we are prevented from any response by lack of allies, and pressure from our non-allies to not respond.
You can see the effort and effect now in the ballyhoo about Tancredo's commonsense announcement about nuclear retaliation. If a nuke goes off, and the politics do not allow retaliation, the USA will be seen as totally impotent by the rest of the world.
They certainly would not waste their time on 'minor' things like airplanes crashing into buildings if they had nukes.
That depends on how long-term their strategy is. You punch the leader in the nose to get his attention, and remove the image of impregnability. Having shaken faith in the leader (USA), it's easier to separate the lesser followers away from the group (Spain).
What they must build, before they can use the nukes, is the idea that they are totally untouchable yet they can touch us whenever they want. This can be because we can't find them, or because local and global politics won't let us make the appropriate response (see Tancredo nuke flap, see Tancredo immigration flaps). Then, they need to use only a few to get the world to bend to them. Had they started with nukes, the USA might have been able to get a pass on nuking them back, or a pass on a massive sweep of tanks from Morocco to Pakistan.
This is roughly the same strategy as used by the Old Man of the Mountain and his assassins. It was very successful, up until the Mongols came through and killed everybody in their path.