Let me see if I have it right. A group who wants to kill as many infidels (primarily Americans, but who's picky?) as possible has a weapon that can do just that... but doesn't rush to use it as soon as they can? They're saving it for a special occasion?

Bullshit! If they had it, they'd have used it by now.

If Barry and Holder hadn't SCREWED AROUND for the last 2 1/2 years, Sheikh Mohammed would have been worm food by now.

"Hell" has already been unleashed on the United States in the form of Obama and his minions.

I think... not. Nuclear weapons do require a bit of maintenance, and if they managed to steal something from the collapse of the USSR and if they managed to put it somewhere major in the EU where it wouldn't be detected for 10+ years, and IF the explosives hadn't separated/malformed over time and the electronics hadn't corroded into uselessness - THEN there might be a chance of the thing actually working.

Maybe. If the nuclear materials hadn't poisoned themselves through half-life breakdown...

(The problem w/nuclear weapons isn't that they're complex in idea, they're actually pretty simple. It's the details. Timing is terribly critical - you get a 1/10,000th second mistiming on the detonators for an implosion device, for example, and you go from earth shattering ka-boom to 'Ah, crap. Anyone got a shovel and a lead jockstrap?'

If they'd had it, they'd have used it, or tried to. (And who knows? Maybe they DID trigger it... and nothing happened.

If none gets detonated then the left will say "see inhanced interrogation techniques" arent reliable.

Of course if a U.S. tactical nuke were to go off, say, in Houston, Obama could blame al-Qaeda, declare martial law, and "postpone" the 2012 election. But that's just crazy talk.

KSM when he made that statement might still have been a little groggy from being waterboarded.

On a serious note, obviously al Qaeda doesn't have a nuclear device. I mean, come on, are bloggers really that naive and gullible??

But of course they'll continue trying to kill Americans and other westerners, chiefly by the terrorists' time-honored "traditions" of blowing up stuff with regular explosives.

The primary difference is that after the Bush adminstration reformed our intelligence apparatuses and took the gloves off al Qaeda merely is a shell of its former (Clinton-era) self.

They can't gather in large groups. They can't communicate all that well. Hell, they need to rely on human couriers to send messages back and forth! If they even use a cell phone there's a good chance of getting a Hellfire missile up their arse.

It's a different game. They're still somewhat dangerous. There still are real risks of the occasional major attack (subways are a particular worry). But the notion of some sort of apocalypic retaliation is utter nonsense.

We're winning the war on terror. We've been winning it since 9.12.01. Not even Obama as president can change that. This is America. We've succeeded for decades in all pursuits despite left-wing morons holding public offices.

I wanted to comment but the previous posters said it for me. Thank you.

I see where the liberals are all "Hot Damn! Obama's our Man!" today.

Does that mean they are now okay with waterboarding to get vital intelligence?

So. Since they hide it in Europe somewhere, why is that supposed to be our problem? The only downside I can see, is if they put it near one of our military facilities. I'm sure that by now we've long since told our allies, and they've searched for it.

JLawson @ #4 is on it: nuclear devices don't have an extended shelf life. This is why the whole "suitcase nuke" scare after the collapse of the Soviet empire was a joke. IF so many had existed and "disappeared," why were none ever used or found?

Besides, had al Qaeda managed to get their hands on ANY sort of nuclear device, they would have already used it. Why would they wait? Suppose bin Laden were never found, and died of natural causes?

Their organizational structure has been destroyed; there is no central command anymore. Most of their "fighters" are just ignorant barbarians who are ready to die for their heathen blood lust. They lack the brainpower to plan and execute complex operations, as is seen by the type of attacks attempted in the last several years.

If we do get a nuclear event count on Bush being blamed.

There is always a risk to underestimating your enemy, but in this case, it seems safe to say that had they truly had a nuke, they would have used it by now. What better way to further humiliate "the great satan" by exploding a nuke -- no matter how small -- in NYC sometime after 9/11?

No, I think this is bluster.

Besides, 9/11 proved that they'll use the "simplest" of tools to hit us; so, a nuke is far less likely than, say, a chemical attack.

Al-Qaeda has no other terrorist means other than very low budget conventional explosives attacks, and has totally failed at any sort of violence here in the U.S. since 9/11 because both Presidents Bush and Obama have set up enough security means and offensive action against al-Qaeda overseas to substantially degrade the organization.

This is not to say that a few free lance radical Muslims have not committed some isolated acts of violence within the U.S since 9/11. Some have. But, al-Qaeda has been substantially degraded by the last two presidents who have committed billions of dollars to keeping Americans as safe as possible.

Paul, I agree to a point. GW Bush set them up. Obama lessened them a little and we had a few terrorists attacks on our soil. I will give Obama credit for making the right decision with this operation but he hasn't been exactly a terror hawk. ww

Then again... if AQ and jihadists in general have so much sway over Pakistan -- or are in fact becoming the government of Pakistan -- then they have nukes.

It's a lie.

I mean, are we to believe that terrorists can unleash hell on Europe and are choosing not to?

C'mon.

Paul, I agree to a point. GW Bush set them up. Obama lessened them a little and we had a few terrorists attacks on our soil. I will give Obama credit for making the right decision with this operation but he hasn't been exactly a terror hawk.

I agree, but let's not get too partisan. Obama stepped up when it was appropriate, to my pleasure (and mild surprise, frankly). Long may it continue.

I appreciate Hooson's giving Bush some credit. Both Bush and Obama deserve credit for this. Bush set it in motion, Obama followed through. Plenty of credit to go around.

my only regret is that there is not a gravesite to go piss on ...

As a matter of fact, it might REQUIRE a nuclear attack to make Brits regain their SENSE and GUTS!!! Only then might they throw these sub-human, Muslim bastards out of Britain and stop bending over for them at every opportunity!!!!

Hell unleashed, probably not. But at this rate of terrorist kills, you may see Hell overcrowded.

Of course if a U.S. tactical nuke were to go off, say, in Houston, Obama could blame al-Qaeda, declare martial law, and "postpone" the 2012 election. But that's just crazy talk.

Yes. It is crazy talk. Eat your tootsie roll, and let the rest of us speak.

Then again... if AQ and jihadists in general have so much sway over Pakistan -- or are in fact becoming the government of Pakistan -- then they have nukes.

They also have India and China (both nuclear powers) ready to rain hellfire should they try.

Does that mean they are now okay with waterboarding to get vital intelligence?

The waterboarding isn't what yielded the vital intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_hunt_for_bin_laden

Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation

Don't overlook our open borders, and the 'non-capture' of middle eastern who we do not know who they are. Hezbollah working with the drugcartels etc..
Don't be fooled, and write off the threat of these bastards. They live to kill, and die fortheir cause, they love death more than life!