Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chertoff warns of nuclear terror
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 8/1/05 | WorldNetDaily.com

Posted on 08/01/2005 3:55:15 AM PDT by Man50D

Issuing yet the latest warning of the threat of nuclear terrorism in the U.S., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said there are far worse security problems facing the country than bombings of mass-transit systems.

In comments during a visit to Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California this week, Chertoff said the foremost concern for the nation's security now is the threat of a larger chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Chertoff joins the growing list of public officials – including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chertoff's predecessor at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge – who have strongly hinted that nuclear terrorism has moved center stage as the No. 1 security threat facing the U.S.

Last month WND and its sister publication, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, reported increasing evidence suggests al-Qaida not only has nuclear weapons in its arsenal, but has smuggled them into the U.S. along with thousands of sleeper operatives.

Referring to the London bombings, Chertoff said: "We can't let what happened two or three weeks ago beguile our concerns about what could happen in the future."

Technology that the Livermore lab and other public and private groups are developing could help make the country safer, Chertoff said. The secretary was shown what the lab has done to provide more portable ways to detect nuclear, biological and chemical devices that terrorists could use.

"We want to show the secretary how we are working very aggressively to help win the war against terrorism," said laboratory director Michael Anastasio.

The work by the Livermore lab shows the enormous capabilities the country is bringing to bear against terrorism, Chertoff said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; bushdoesntcare; bushslegacy; farahisanidiot; loosenukes; nohomelandsecurity; nonsecureborders; nuclearpearlharbor; sleepercells; sneakattacks; suitcasenukes; vivafox; waronterror; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Back on July 18th I started a thread titled Al-Qaida's U.S. Nuclear Targets

Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.
1 posted on 08/01/2005 3:55:15 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Thoroughly scary.


2 posted on 08/01/2005 4:07:05 AM PDT by Plymouth Sentinel (Sooner Rather Than Later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I have not heard one liberal senator or congressperson even acknowledge this threat.

What are they doing to stop these terrorists?


3 posted on 08/01/2005 4:09:08 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

It makes a warped kind of sense that the terrorists would single out the U.S. for large, spectacular attacks. Mundane attacks like car bombings, mass transit bombings won't do for them.

We are perhaps their greatest enemy. Attacks directed against our people, on our shores would have to be bigger and grander than anything done anywhere else. To inflict a wound greater than any ever before.

Nobody claims the terrorists are rational. If they understood us, they would never have done what they did on 9/11.


4 posted on 08/01/2005 4:10:07 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; HiJinx; gubamyster
Chertoff joins the growing list of public officials – including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chertoff's predecessor at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge – who have strongly hinted that nuclear terrorism has moved center stage as the No. 1 security threat facing the U.S.

That must be why they are really beefing up security on our borders, right?... Do I really need to put a sarcasm tag on this?

5 posted on 08/01/2005 4:12:19 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Issuing yet the latest warning of the threat of nuclear terrorism in the U.S., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said there are far worse security problems facing the country than bombings of mass-transit systems.

There are few worse problems than a President who refuses to defend our border.

6 posted on 08/01/2005 4:14:12 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000
Nobody claims the terrorists are rational. If they understood us, they would never have done what they did on 9/11.

Muslims have a different rationale. They have no intention of trying to understand Americans. The precept of Islam is to make non-muslims understand Islam or be destroyed as explained in the article below.

Islamic Scholar Warns U.S. of 'Two-Faced' Muslims
7 posted on 08/01/2005 4:15:54 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

What is anyone doing to stop the terroists here in our country starting with our borders?


8 posted on 08/01/2005 4:17:35 AM PDT by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Look, it may or may not be overstatement. But what do you expect Chertoff to say? "No, there's no nuclear threat. In fact, we've miscalculated, so let's cut our personnel and funding." Of course not.

It's part of his job to say things like this, especially at that laboratory where he blows smoke up the rear ends of his audience. He does this for several reasons (1) PR to them; (2) keep America vigilant or aware, depending upon your viewpoint; (3) provide cover in case something DOES happen, so they can say "I told you so."; (4) keep those cards and letters (funding) coming in.

It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border. That one fact alone is more telling than all the speeches put together.

9 posted on 08/01/2005 4:18:44 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

If they can coordinate a half dozen or more nuclear explosions around the US, killing millions and devastating the country, it will facilitate Islam's takeover of the entire world. We're the Great Satan. Once we're shown to be impotent and weak, the rest of the western world will cave so fast your head will spin.


10 posted on 08/01/2005 4:20:30 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

Yeah, but Joseph Farah once said it, making it not credible.

11 posted on 08/01/2005 4:21:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Back on July 18th I started a thread titled Al-Qaida's U.S. Nuclear Targets. Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farh's "G2 Intel Bulletin".
12 posted on 08/01/2005 4:23:34 AM PDT by Mad Mammoth (Some folks just need killin' = Clint Eastwood as 'The Outlaw Josey Wales'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
it will facilitate Islam's takeover of the entire world.

Like I said, they aren't rational if they think killing millions of Americans is going to help their cause. Even I'm afraid what such an attack will precipitate as our response. May cooler heads prevail for an approach that doesn't turn us into the same monsters who will have attacked us, but let those heads be determined and unwavering in seeking out justice for the dead.

13 posted on 08/01/2005 4:25:15 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jammer

But if Bush closes the border, the price of California lettuce will skyrocket and there will be a massive revolt.


14 posted on 08/01/2005 4:30:30 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000; hershey

Yes. Yes.


15 posted on 08/01/2005 4:37:37 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
But if Bush closes the border, the price of California lettuce will skyrocket and there will be a massive revolt.

The benefits of illegal immigration far outhweigh any harm brought by terrorism. (/sarcasm)

16 posted on 08/01/2005 4:39:18 AM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jammer
Look, it may or may not be overstatement. But what do you expect Chertoff to say? "No, there's no nuclear threat. In fact, we've miscalculated, so let's cut our personnel and funding." Of course not. It's part of his job to say things like this, especially at that laboratory where he blows smoke up the rear ends of his audience. He does this for several reasons (1) PR to them; (2) keep America vigilant or aware, depending upon your viewpoint; (3) provide cover in case something DOES happen, so they can say "I told you so."; (4) keep those cards and letters (funding) coming in. It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border. That one fact alone is more telling than all the speeches put together.

I couldn't agree with you and everyone posting statements that we President Bush needs to improve security on our borders. He defeats his own purpose of protecting the American people by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq but not doing anything to secure U.S. borders.

However your statement that the purpose of Chertoff's warning ignores the fact that we have been attacked on our own soil more than once. the last time resulting in the deaths of 3,000 Americans. If it can happen once and it can happen again. Please explain to everyone what intimate knowledge you posses from inside sources within Homeland Security proving that this is all a PR ploy and is arbitrarily using Nuclear weapons as an excuse keep the funding. Your statements are only assumptions without facts.

There are two options to consider:

1. If we assume there will be no nuclear attack or any other type of attack, don't plan accordingly and are wrong then the worst case scenario is many people will die.

If we assume there maybe an attack of any kind, including nuclear, plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is noone dies. I choose the latter.
17 posted on 08/01/2005 4:51:59 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
The problem with this whole point of view is that the posture this leads to is defensive and the history of warfare is frought with the disasters of those whose point of view is entirely defensive.

What hand wringing such as this scenario overlook is that if someone is determined, something can slip through. They also overlook the fact that if it happens, it is not just an act of war, but it is war of the most terrible kind, and if our administration, DoD, CIA, State are doing their jobs not only the perps, but the countries that support them know that the response will be a massive nuclear strike on everything that the islamic world holds dear - its major relgious sites, its major capitals, and the palaces and cathouses of their political leadership. Oh and the principal villages and goat heards of the towns that breed islamic terrorists.

18 posted on 08/01/2005 5:01:47 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Yeah, but Joseph Farah once said it, making it not credible.

By that line of reasoning we should discount similar statements made by other people who are credible because one person made the same statement who is not credible. That's assuming confirmation Farah is not credible.

You may consider Farah as the boy who cried wolf but even the boy who cried wolf eventually told the truth. You take it one step farther and assume everyone is crying wolf. Please explain to everyone what specific knowledge you posses about Joesph Farah that proves he lies to sell his website.

If we assume there will not be a nuclear attack, don't plan accordingly and are wrong, then the worst case scenario is many people die. If we assume at least the possibility of a nuclear attack, plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is no nuclear attack occurs. I choose the latter.
19 posted on 08/01/2005 5:02:02 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Of course we have been and, in all likelihood will be again, attacked. But you mischaracterize what I said: I did not say that it was ALL a PR ploy. My first sentence clearly stated that it may or may not be overstatement.

My point is that he would make the same statements whether he was worried about an attack next week or whether he didn't think there was any possibility of attack (or any point in that contiuum). Therefore, it is not logical to infer what you did, that Farah was correct and we are in grave danger. We may or may not be. You cannot tell it from what he says. And what he and the administration DOES augers against them really feeling great danger.

20 posted on 08/01/2005 5:05:08 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; All
All we need are video surveillance cameras that can sustain temperatures of 4000+º.
21 posted on 08/01/2005 5:09:51 AM PDT by johnny7 (Racially-profiling since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jammer
"It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border."

Absolutely! Until that happens, it is difficult to take them seriously.

Carolyn

22 posted on 08/01/2005 5:12:01 AM PDT by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farh's "G2 Intel Bulletin".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your are being sarcastic with this statement.
23 posted on 08/01/2005 5:13:04 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Plymouth Sentinel
"Thoroughly scary."

IMHO, the probability of developing cancer is more worrisome.

24 posted on 08/01/2005 5:15:43 AM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jammer
My point is that he would make the same statements whether he was worried about an attack next week or whether he didn't think there was any possibility of attack (or any point in that contiuum).Therefore, it is not logical to infer what you did, that Farah was correct and we are in grave danger. We may or may not be. You cannot tell it from what he says. And what he and the administration DOES augers against them really feeling great danger.

You could only know what he is thinking if he or someone close to him told you what he is thinking. Other wise you are only assuming what he is thinking and saying. It is not reasonable for anyone to assume law enforcement officials are going to tell the public every bit of information.

I did not make any statement in my post #17 to you regarding Joseph Farah. Therefore you misinterpret my statement. The point is it is reasonable and prudent to consider at least the possibility terrorists could use a WMD in the form of nuclear weapons and prepare accordingly given that they have already used WMD's in the form of commercial jetliner fully loaded with jet fuel to kill large number of Americans on our own soil.
|
It's also reasonable to assume Chertoff has more knowledge of what terrorists are planning given the numerous intelligence resources under his authority.
25 posted on 08/01/2005 5:31:45 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: verity
IMHO, the probability of developing cancer is more worrisome.

I'm sure people thought cancer was more of a concern prior to 9/11/01 than terrorists using planes as WMD's by flying them into buildings.
26 posted on 08/01/2005 5:35:07 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farah's "G2 Intel Bulletin".
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being sarcastic with this statement.


Actually, I'm wondering if Chertoff got the special discount rate for government subscriptions to WorldNutDaily and other Farah-fearmongering publications...heh.

Seriously now, there is no doubt a threat of future terrorist events taking place, and they may involve chemical, biological or radiological devices.

That does not mean that a chemical attack will be anything greater than the anthrax letters we saw post-9/11, biological threats are (IMHO) the greatest threat because once unleashed, the viruses have to run their course and that can mean hundreds of thousands, even millions of victims.

But an actual nuclear weapon? While it is within the realm of possibility, it is the most remote of all threats due to:

a. if terrorists attempt to utilize a so-called "suitcase nuke" from decades ago (as other posters far smarter than I am have already pointed out), those devices are very likely inert by this time.

b. a home-brewed device is going to be shaky at best, with no guarantees that it will even detonate. al Qaeda cannot risk a major failure of that magnitude, their own concerns over their dwindling credibility will probably steer them away from trying to assemble their own weapon.

c. a new weapon, provided to terrorists by North Korea or Iran is the most likely, although North Korea is more prone to be the supplier because once Iran gets itself a nuke, they're going to keep it for their own use. But getting a nuke, any nuke, into the U.S. is not going to be as easy as it might seem on 2-hour TV dramas.

If a radiological attack takes place, it will more likely be a "dirty" bomb, i.e., conventional explosives with radioactive material jacketing the device, probably obtained from the industrial sector, or perhaps colleges with small reactors. The damage will not be based on the actual explosive yield, but on the psychological effect such an attack would have on the public.

Ironically, Bob Just over at WorldNutDaily must have had anchovies on his pizza before turning in to bed the other night, because he's got a scary scenario about terrorists attacking the U.S. with 'black' smallpox, and other nefarious schemes, and his only defense to this seems to be to "encourage" the public not to lose their nerve if and when such an attack takes place.

Now as for Chertoff, he is correct to point out the possible threats that we are facing, but remember that even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets had thousands of nukes aimed right at us, had a big bolt from the blue taken place, America would have responded in kind, with massive retaliation, and the Soviets would have ceased to exist as a society. If Islamic terrorists somehow defied the odds and managed to detonate a nuke anywhere on U.S. soil, the whole of the Islamic world would soon be glowing green glass, because if the U.S. did NOT respond that way, we might as well run up the white flag and surrender. That's what Yomama bin Crawdaddin thought we would do after 9/11.

He thought wrong. Just ask the Taliban and/or Saddam, and ask the Afghan and Iraqi people who are now breathing free air.
27 posted on 08/01/2005 5:35:11 AM PDT by Mad Mammoth (Some folks just need killin' = Clint Eastwood as 'The Outlaw Josey Wales'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Cancer is still more of a realistic concern.


28 posted on 08/01/2005 5:37:46 AM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; All

Chertoff mentions the nuclear threat because he is visiting a facility that's purpose is to STOP one.

Note he hasn't warned of an increased nuc danger any other time.

Politicians and officials always make their comments fit the places they visit.

It doesn't mean jack squat.


29 posted on 08/01/2005 5:41:16 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I believe it was just last week it was reported the WH has dropped the term "war on terror."

The conflict between Islam and the Infidel is over 1400 years old, I don't think they will be dropping the term "jihad" anytime soon.


30 posted on 08/01/2005 5:42:59 AM PDT by IamConservative (The true character of a man is revealed in what he does when no one is looking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I did not make any statement in my post #17 to you regarding Joseph Farah. Therefore you misinterpret my statement. The point is it is reasonable and prudent to consider at least the possibility terrorists could use a WMD in the form of nuclear weapons and prepare...

Horsefeathers. Our entire conversation has been about post #1, in which you said:

Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

That non-sequitor was skewered and you're squirming away. What advice do you want us to heed? Run around screaming that the sky is falling? Or do something useful, like go to the border and try to stop real threats--and when are you going?

31 posted on 08/01/2005 5:43:15 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

I somehow doubt that.


32 posted on 08/01/2005 5:45:26 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

likely an event causing at least 100,0000 U.S. casualties will be needed before the BIGWIGS start talkin up racial/ethnic profilin....


33 posted on 08/01/2005 5:48:54 AM PDT by 1234 (Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
Maybe Chertoff is a silent partner of WorldNetDaily(joke). I agree the possibility of a chemical attack may not be any greater than the anthrax letters but we, the public, have confirming the odds. We also don't know if the possibility of a nuclear attack is any less or greater than other threats. I'm sure there are posters more knowledgeable regarding nuclear suitcase bombs than you or I. It may very well be missing something,but I can't help but wonder how those posters would have more knowledge if terrorists are planning to use nuclear suitcase bombs more than the head of Homeland Security?

Keep in mind the terrorists defied the odds on 9/11/01. I doubt anyone know automatically discounts terrorists using planes as WMD's. We shouldn't rule out nuking Mecca if terrorists employ a nuke attack against the U.S.
34 posted on 08/01/2005 5:52:49 AM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Don't worry , Al Gore said they are just playing on our fears , right ?So why worry ?


35 posted on 08/01/2005 5:56:36 AM PDT by hineybona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: verity

Don't be so sure. It's not impossible that the terrorist have a more serious plan than 9/11 was and that they can pull it off. 9/11 was just the opening act in my opinion.


36 posted on 08/01/2005 5:59:50 AM PDT by hineybona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
By that line of reasoning we should discount similar statements made by other people who are credible because one person made the same statement who is not credible.

Precisely!

If you can find one person who isn't credible who makes a statement of fact, that fact is automatically proven untrue.

37 posted on 08/01/2005 6:28:59 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Maybe Chertoff is a silent partner of WorldNetDaily(joke).

I knew it! I KNEW it!!! (LOL)

I agree the possibility of a chemical attack may not be any greater than the anthrax letters but we, the public, have confirming the odds. We also don't know if the possibility of a nuclear attack is any less or greater than other threats.

True enough. I suspect that if any one of us were getting the President's morning intel briefings and threat assessments, we would all be either totally grey-haired, or bald from pulling our hair out.

I'm sure there are posters more knowledgeable regarding nuclear suitcase bombs than you or I.

There is one poster, and I cannot recall his posting handle right now, but in a recent thread on this subject, he definitely had it nailed down tight, knew all about the elements used inside those "suitcase" devices (that are much larger than any damn suitcase), perhaps someone else might remember that FReeper?

It may very well be missing something,but I can't help but wonder how those posters would have more knowledge if terrorists are planning to use nuclear suitcase bombs more than the head of Homeland Security?

Well I don't think it 's a question of "knowing", rather more of having the knowledge to know that the technical obstacles to detonating a nuke are greater than that of some other form of attack. Personally, I think that there would be more sheer "terror" invoked by a biological attack than anything else. Think Stephen King's "The Stand", if you know what I mean?

Keep in mind the terrorists defied the odds on 9/11/01.

I disagree. On 9/11, al Qaeda was able to exploit security loopholes in our air transportation system, based on (IMHO) two major events:

- Al Gore's vaunted "commission" on airline safety, whose recommendations were totally watered down after the airline lobbyists pumped a pile of cash into the DNC. Gore's initial security recommendations would very likely have prevented the 19 hijackers from ever getting on board, IF they had been implemented.

- Noneother than Senator John F'in Kerry himself was informed in the spring of 2001 by two retired FAA security professionals that Logan Airport in Boston was a terrorist attack just waiting to happen. Kerry generally couldn't be bothered to follow up with it, and those FAA guys were basically told to "go away and don't bother us". Investigative reporter Paul Sperry went into great detail about this, but naturally the lamestream media chose to ignore it(note- if you haven't heard of this before folks, it should be a MUST read):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12588

I doubt anyone know automatically discounts terrorists using planes as WMD's. We shouldn't rule out nuking Mecca if terrorists employ a nuke attack against the U.S.

I agree that if there is a WMD attack on U.S. soil, that every holy site in Islam be wiped from the face of the Earth. Islam is not a religion. It is a satanic death cult masquerading as a religion, it is comparable to Nazism and Communism, with the sole difference being that in place of pseudo-sophisticated social theories, a facade of divinity is what has been used to delude literally billions of people into doing the Devil's work for him.

That's my rant for this hour. LOL
38 posted on 08/01/2005 9:22:51 AM PDT by Mad Mammoth (Some folks just need killin' = Clint Eastwood as 'The Outlaw Josey Wales'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.


39 posted on 08/01/2005 9:26:05 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Tom Tancredo- The Republican Party's Very Own Cynthia McKinney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.

My FONTS! My FONTS!! My SCREEN!!!!
I
c-a-n-n-o-t
s-e-e
m-y
m-o-n-i-t-o-r
i-m-a-g-e!!!

AAAAAAAARGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

I've been wasted by an Iranian EMP!!!!

Why do these things always happen on a Monday? ;)
40 posted on 08/01/2005 9:29:36 AM PDT by Mad Mammoth (Some folks just need killin' = Clint Eastwood as 'The Outlaw Josey Wales'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hineybona

Let's have a division of labor: I'll worry about cancer and you worry about nukes. ;-)


41 posted on 08/01/2005 11:36:26 AM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jammer
I never would have posted the thread if I wanted to "squirm away" from the subject. Michael Chertoff, not Joseph Farah is the subject of the thread. Securing the borders is one option. We should also profile based on common characteristics of past terrorists that include:

1.Muslim
2. Males
3. Age range 17-40 years of age.

This is criminal profiling, not racial profiling . That type of profiling assumes all people of one race are guilty absent any facts. The parameters can be adjusted if the characteristics change. Another suggestion is to report anyone who is wearing a coat during the hot weather. That just a few ideas.
42 posted on 08/01/2005 4:42:42 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Precisely! If you can find one person who isn't credible who makes a statement of fact, that fact is automatically proven untrue.

You misunderstand my point. That is my fault for not explaining myself clearly so I'll rephrase my point. You make several assumptions.

1. You accuse Joseph Farah of not being credible but don't provide specific examples to cite a pattern of deception or inaccuracy.
2. Your accusation assumes someone who has not been credible in the past could never be credible in the future.
3. You assume anyone who is deemed not credible automatically invalidates the credibility of any credible person who independently reaches the same conclusion.
43 posted on 08/01/2005 5:00:14 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
True enough. I suspect that if any one of us were getting the President's morning intel briefings and threat assessments, we would all be either totally grey-haired, or bald from pulling our hair out.

I believe the politically correct terms are a person whose hair lacks pigmentation and folically challenged. Careful with your terms. Someone might think your too insensitive to appease the terrorists.
44 posted on 08/01/2005 5:07:10 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
I don't know, if Bill Clinton told me the sky was blue I would have to wonder what his definition of was was.
45 posted on 08/01/2005 5:07:11 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TBall

So long as he doesn't use is.


46 posted on 08/01/2005 5:09:24 PM PDT by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
What are they doing to stop these terrorists?

*itching about President Bush's every move! They aren't interested in PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY. They never have been and never will be interested in National Security. They had rather spend the money, time and energy on SOCIAL CHANGES and force us to believe as they do.

Besides, EVERYTHING is the fault of the UNITED STATES, anyway, according to them. We caused the TERRORISTS to hate us. Before that the TERRORISTS were nothing more than freedom loving citizens. /sarcasm

You know "freedom fighters"!

47 posted on 08/01/2005 5:18:21 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: COEXERJ145

I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.

Last week, Jeff Jocoby wrote an article titled "Failures of Intelligence". In his opening paragraph, he wrote:

Three weeks before the London bombings of July 7, Britain’s Joint Terrorist Analysis Center advised policymakers that ‘‘at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK.’’ That reassuring message from the country’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials, The New York Times reported last week, prompted the British government to lower its terror alert. Less than a month later, 52 people were murdered and 700 wounded when three subway trains and a bus were blown up in the worst act of terrorism the United Kingdom has experienced since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

You haven't a clue as to what the terrorists may or may not be capable of, yet you lightly dismiss the warnings. Although I never was a assigned to a nuclear capable unit, I did receive the training in the so-called "back pack nukes". There's a lot of that training I've forgotten, but one thing I do remember is that if those thugs manage to get their hands on suitcase nukes or nuclear material, it will make 9/11 look tame.

The best option is treat the threat like Y2K. IOW, stay ready to keep from having to get ready.

49 posted on 08/01/2005 6:05:10 PM PDT by garybob (More sweat in training, less blood in combat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Nukes have to happen sometime. This has been obvious all of my life, nearly 60 years. "Fat and Sassy" America is not forever.


50 posted on 08/02/2005 12:38:35 AM PDT by Iris7 ("A pig's gotta fly." - Porco Rosso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson