Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/15/2003 5:19:49 PM EDT
UN: Al Qaeda Trying To Use WMD's

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103164,00.html

What would/should our response be to the use of a WMD by al Qaeda on U.S. soil? I know there are a lot of people here who would want to "nuke the bastards", but how would you do that? Since they(al Qaeda operatives) intermingle & "hide" amongst the general population of several, if not many, different countries, it would be a very difficult thing to do...especially if the attack was traced back to an honestly friendly country with these vermin operating out of it...

I would NOT want to be the Commander-in-Chief having to make that decision in real life. I honestly don't know what I would do...

What do you think the U.S. response should/would be?
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:23:19 PM EDT
remember what was done w/ the american/japs after pearl harbor was bombed???
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:27:43 PM EDT
IIRC, US policy has always been that use of a WMD would be met with instant retaliation via WMD. Ergo, M.A.D.

The fact that the BG's operate within the civilian population at large should NOT be a deterrent. In every instance of war, civilians died. When we bombed Germany in WWII, the non-combatants paid the price for allowing the Third Reich to rise to power in the first place. My personal opinion is that if the BG's are operating within the civilian populace with their knowledge, this constitutes tacit approval of their actions. Therefore they are not truly innocent.

Let the WMD's fly.

And GWB has proven he has the balls to do it. Probably the only leader we will have in the 21st century to have the will.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:29:09 PM EDT
I hate to say it but we are probably going to find out.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:31:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc6969:
I hate to say it but we are probably going to find out.



I concur. It's now just a matter of "when" not "If"...
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:34:32 PM EDT
What would the US response be?

Probably more sucking up to the disgusting Saudis and platitudes about how we won't quit until the war on terrorism is won.

What should the US response be?

Regime change in Saudi Arabia. Topple them by carpet bombing Riyadh with MOABs, and hunt down anyone with al Saud blood in their veins.

They funded al Qaeda, they die along with them. After all, who was it that said something along the lines of "We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who fund, train or harbor them"? Don't tell me about how the Saudis are hunting down al Qaeda now. They're only doing that as an internal matter now that it's their own ox being gored.

Let's roll, like we should have on 09.12.01.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:35:23 PM EDT
OK, maybe I missed something. Wouldn't the attacks on 9/11 be considered a WMD? If there were a NBC attack (nuke/bio/chem) on the US, several countries have already been warned about harboring of Al-Qaeda. The Afghans learned what it means to piss us off as have the Iraqis. Perhaps Syria and Iran are next.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:40:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtstinger:
UN: Al Qaeda Trying To Use WMD's

What do you think the U.S. response should/would be?




I 'believe' we would greatly intensify what we are presently doing. Doubtful that we would punish an entire city/country due to the illegal efforts of the few.

I do believe this scenario is being considered as I believe we're going to begin testing very small nuclear devices.

If the perp was North Korea............I don't believe a Republican President could avoid a measured nuclear response. (We will not use chemical or biological weapons.)

Good question sgtstinger.

5sub
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:40:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
...My personal opinion is that if the BG's are operating within the civilian populace with their knowledge, this constitutes tacit approval of their actions. Therefore they are not truly innocent...



It's one thing to know about it, it's another thing to be in the position to be able to do anything about it, especially since you quite possibly risk severe retaliation against yourself & your family. It's a virtual certainty that many people are aware of what al Qaeda is up to but are keeping their mouths shut out of overwhelming fear of what those $h!tbirds would do to them & their relatives, no matter where they are in the world.

Most people are more concerned about "the wolf at the door" rather than the one half a world away.

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:41:49 PM EDT
If Al Gore gets in in '04, we'll be told to hold hands and sing Kum-by-A.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:48:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 5:57:03 PM EDT by sgtstinger]

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

If the perp was North Korea............I don't believe a Republican President could avoid a measured nuclear response.

5sub



I agree.

But what if we have a touchy, feely Liberal Democrat in the Oval Office? I think that his/her(not counting Hillary out, yet) possibly botched repsonse(or complete lack thereof) could possibly bring them down...quickly. Impeached & convicted/removed from office or possibly even "mutinied against" by their own cabinet and determined to be "impaired".

Ponder THAT possibility... our govt. in total chaos with a power struggle. What a perfect time for another terrorist attack...or an attack from another country...who would the Joint Chiefs of Staff take orders from?...the possibilities are staggering!
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:49:32 PM EDT


What Would The U.S. Response Be To The Use By Al-Qaeda Of A WMD On U.S. Soil?

What do you think the U.S. response should/would be?



Turn their country into a vast sheet of glass.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:51:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 5:56:04 PM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
considering there is no DEFINATE country to counter attack our response would be exactly the same as it was for 9/11. The US population does not have the stomach for war <nor do many of the members here> Mass retalliation that should occur never will. The sheep could not live with the guilt of killing enemy civillians<a term i use loosely in that area of the world.>

mike
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:54:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By piccolo:
If Al Gore gets in in '04, we'll be told to hold hands and sing Kum-by-A.





We also have to wait while we do that for them to hit us again. And if you dont agree then your the terrorist.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 5:56:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtstinger:


But what if we have a touchy, feely Liberal Democrat in the Oval Office? I think that his/her repsonse(or lack thereof) could possibly bring them down...quickly. Impeached & convicted/removed from office or possibly even "mutinied against" by their own cabinet and determined to be "impaired".

Ponder THAT possibility...



A couple of points if a Dimocrat was in office........the president selects his own cabinet so I view a cabinet mutiny as a slim possibility. Excepting Fox News, the media will be pliable for one of their own - a Dimocrat. There would likely be little media pressure to do anything.

There would be pressure from Europe to retaliate with diplomacy. In other words, to do nothing. A Dimocrat of this time might well do nothing from a military stand point.

5sub
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:00:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtstinger:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
...My personal opinion is that if the BG's are operating within the civilian populace with their knowledge, this constitutes tacit approval of their actions. Therefore they are not truly innocent...



It's one thing to know about it, it's another thing to be in the position to be able to do anything about it, especially since you quite possibly risk severe retaliation against yourself & your family. It's a virtual certainty that many people are aware of what al Qaeda is up to but are keeping their mouths shut out of overwhelming fear of what those $h!tbirds would do to them & their relatives, no matter where they are in the world.

Most people are more concerned about "the wolf at the door" rather than the one half a world away.




I'm not for nuking civilians, but if they hit us with WMD, we will either hit right back twice as hard or we will lose, period. That makes it all of us vs. all of them. I pick us.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:01:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 6:02:22 PM EDT by Happyshooter]
The US Government would ban all interstate travel by whites over the age of 40 without an internal passport and pre approved internal visa.

It also would mandate that all school children attend 10 hours per week of islamic training, and would require all muslin holidays be observed.

Further, censorship of all media and means of communications would be put in effect, to insure that nothing was broadcast that islam does not approve of.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:01:10 PM EDT
We shouldn't drop the bomb on Pakistan just to make Bin Laden glow in the dark. We pay the Pakistanis $ to conduct a nuclear test with one of our bombs in the area suspect of harboring him. The Pakistanis in turn announce that one of their bombs were stolen and that the thieves suffered a mishap. We're clean and so are they.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:08:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

I 'believe' we would greatly intensify what we are presently doing...




That would fairly hard to do these days. Our military has it's hands pretty full with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I don't know if we would bail out of those countries overnight or not...
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:13:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 6:16:22 PM EDT by StykUrHedUp]

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
considering there is no DEFINATE country to counter attack our response would be exactly the same as it was for 9/11. The US population does not have the stomach for war <nor do many of the members here> Mass retalliation that should occur never will. The sheep could not live with the guilt of killing enemy civillians<a term i use loosely in that area of the world.>

mike

AMEN.....its sad that not EVERYONE believes in "an eye for an eye" if i were to run the show..i'd deliver an ultimatum...no matter who it pissed off. "if you harbor/funding/encouraging terrorists...or we even have a FEELING that youre doing any of the above...it'll start raining MOABs...i dont wanna hear any excuses..or any explanations....rectify this problem..NOW!" i know this has already been SAID...but i'd like to see it acted upon..in my opinion...Saudi and Syria should already be glass parking lots.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:13:59 PM EDT
i dont think it would be easy to identify a specific target to hit
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:17:34 PM EDT
Growing Chorus Of Questions: Why Did Bush Fail To Stop Another Devastating Attack On American Soil?

Associated Press
Whenember 19, 200X

In the wake of the devastating twin nuclear explosions that utterly destroyed much of New York and San Francisco just three weeks ago, there is a growing chorus of criticism being aimed at President Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, who's ultimately responsible for protecting the American people against attacks just like these.

As there was immediately following the WTC and Pentagon strikes of 9-11, there is a large public showing of bipartisan cooperation and support between the Republican party, which holds a slim majority of both houses of Congress, and the Democrats in Congress. But this time there is also a large measure of consternation among moderate Democrats that the Bush Administration has not been able to do enough to protect the American people.

"We support the President and we are here to assist in any way we can." says New York Senator Hillary Clinton. "But we insist on being a co-equal part of the process now more than ever before. In this time of terrible tragedies and trials, the American people deserve as much cooperation between both parties in government regardless of which party happens to be in the majority."

Senator Clinton, who just recently announced her decision to accept the Democratic nomination for President if it's offered to her, has seen her popularity growing as her image among moderate conservatives and even more liberal Democrats becomes even stronger.

"The age of a government divided along party lines is over" declared Joseph Biden, Delaware Senator and longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "When one part of the government fails, we all fail and we all bear the consequences and the responsibility to correct the problems."

And although President Bush is apparently keeping tight-lipped regarding the origin of the presumed pair of crude suitcase nuclear bombs that annhilated Manhattan and central San Francisco on his watch last month saying it's too early to tell the exact source of the devices that killed upwards of 300,000 people and seriously injured roughly three million in those cities, what is not a secret is the utter devastation on a horrific scale not seen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki that has been wrought upon the homeland of the "last superpower", which ironically was the only nation in history to have ever used nuclear weapons against another nation's civilian population.

Though the two nuclear bombs used were relatively small, the crippling attacks against America have pushed Federal, State and local law enforcement, medical and emergency response organizations beyond their limits. The immediate imposition of martial law in affected areas declared by President Bush, though widely supported by most Federal and State agencies and local communities, still has it's strong and vocal opponents.

"Bush is a power hungry dictator", says Jason Slacker, sophomore Political Science major at Berkeley, a school which suffered heavy damage by the attacks. "He doesn't speak for all of America, he doesn't speak for all the people. He's only trying to grab more dictatorial power when he should be cooperating with the international community to help relieve the hatred the world has for America."

Though not a widely held view, that sentiment is shared by several other students on campus. "Bush isn't doing enough to show the world that we're sorry for whatever we've done to make people around the world hate us so much. He's just making things worse", says Marketing major Britney Highpoints.

While this administration searches for clues as to the source of the bombs, Congressional Democrats are leading the charge for a full accounting of how such an unprecedented attack could have been allowed to occur as well as pushing hard for more international assistance by the United Nations in directly helping in the protection of the American people inside America's borders, including the use of UN Peacekeepers to assist the National Guard in maintaining civil control.

"In the wake of this recent and most terrible tragedy that has victimized so many millions of Americans, as we reach out across our land for help from our own communities, we should also not ignore the world community" says Senator Joseph Lieberman. "We should certainly welcome all the gracious assistance that the world community, NATO, the European Union and United Nations has to offer - in whatever form it may come."

In some areas, the twin nuclear blasts have ignited a firestorm of protests against the "heavy-handed" efforts of the Bush Adminstration in recent years in rooting out terrorism around the world. "We did it to Japan and now we're getting a taste of our own medicine" says Blaine Fasile, one of the thousands of protestors that have taken over Lafayette Park across from the Whitehouse. "What did you expect? America bombs innocent children in Afganistan, Iraq and Somalia. No wonder people hate America so much. Bush's hands are covered in the blood of millions now" says protestor Farahd Al-Imani.

Moderate Democrats, like Senators Tom Daschle and Diane Finestein, as well as conservative Republicans such as Senator John McCain have been instrumental in reaching across the aisle in the wake of a small but vocal backlash against the Bush Adminstration's handling of the war on terrorism recently.

"This is Bush's war, not mine" says Sheila Jackson Lee, Representative from Texas. "He brought war to our own people just as he brought war to the people of Iraq." Ms. Lee's has been an outspoken critic of the Administration's handling of the war on terror for some time.

Though Bush's approval rating has once again, as expected, benefitted in the wake of these latest strikes against America, his rating is not quite as high as it was in the post-9-11 period of Bush's presidency. Then he garnered a 91% approval rating while now he only is able to muster an 62% approval rating leading some observers to suggest that George Bush is being seen as a weaker figure than the public had previously given him credit for.

As the death toll mounts daily in both cities and the awesome task of assessing the damage and searching for survivors continues, questions regarding "what" the Bush Adminstration has done so far to prevent catastrophic attacks just like this and "how" the Bush Administration could be more effective in protecting the American people will begin to grow, even while the Administration continues its own search for "who" did it.

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:20:32 PM EDT
IF we have a President left. Next time, they will attempt decapitation.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:24:18 PM EDT
That doesn't seem to be a factor for the we can kill more innocent bystenaders than they can so we oughta do it crowd. And it apparently doesn't bother the we can be as slimy as them crowd either, just blast somebody just for the hell of it.

Hideously murdering thousands of innocents won't cause any hard feelings on the parts of the survivors or other Muslims that might just find it a lot easier to believe the US is out to kill them anyway.

First of WMD are not that easy to use effectively but why temper enthusiasstic emotion with facts. Besides I thought you guys thought the NY or LA should be nuked anyway?

Just blasting back without hitting the right target is not a viable option. But then it's easier to bloviate when you don't have to worry about the consequences.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:25:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Growing Chorus Of Questions: Why Did Bush Fail To Stop Another Devastating Attack On American Soil?

Associated Press
Whenember 19, 200X

In the wake of the devastating twin nuclear explosions that utterly destroyed much of New York and San Francisco just three weeks ago, there is a growing chorus of criticism being aimed at President Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, who's ultimately responsible for protecting the American people against attacks just like these.

As there was immediately following the WTC and Pentagon strikes of 9-11, there is a large public showing of bipartisan cooperation and support between the Republican party, which holds a slim majority of both houses of Congress, and the Democrats in Congress. But this time there is also a large measure of consternation among moderate Democrats that the Bush Administration has not been able to do enough to protect the American people.

"We support the President and we are here to assist in any way we can." says New York Senator Hillary Clinton. "But we insist on being a co-equal part of the process now more than ever before. In this time of terrible tragedies and trials, the American people deserve as much cooperation between both parties in government regardless of which party happens to be in the majority."

Senator Clinton, who just recently announced her decision to accept the Democratic nomination for President if it's offered to her, has seen her popularity growing as her image among moderate conservatives and even more liberal Democrats becomes even stronger.

"The age of a government divided along party lines is over" declared Joseph Biden, Delaware Senator and longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "When one part of the government fails, we all fail and we all bear the consequences and the responsibility to correct the problems."

And although President Bush is apparently keeping tight-lipped regarding the origin of the presumed pair of crude suitcase nuclear bombs that annhilated Manhattan and central San Francisco on his watch last month saying it's too early to tell the exact source of the devices that killed upwards of 300,000 people and seriously injured roughly three million in those cities, what is not a secret is the utter devastation on a horrific scale not seen since Hiroshima and Nagasaki that has been wrought upon the homeland of the "last superpower", which ironically was the only nation in history to have ever used nuclear weapons against another nation's civilian population.

Though the two nuclear bombs used were relatively small, the crippling attacks against America have pushed Federal, State and local law enforcement, medical and emergency response organizations beyond their limits. The immediate imposition of martial law in affected areas declared by President Bush, though widely supported by most Federal and State agencies and local communities, still has it's strong and vocal opponents.

"Bush is a power hungry dictator", says Jason Slacker, sophomore Political Science major at Berkeley, a school which suffered heavy damage by the attacks. "He doesn't speak for all of America, he doesn't speak for all the people. He's only trying to grab more dictatorial power when he should be cooperating with the international community to help relieve the hatred the world has for America."

Though not a widely held view, that sentiment is shared by several other students on campus. "Bush isn't doing enough to show the world that we're sorry for whatever we've done to make people around the world hate us so much. He's just making things worse", says Marketing major Britney Highpoints.

While this administration searches for clues as to the source of the bombs, Congressional Democrats are leading the charge for a full accounting of how such an unprecedented attack could have been allowed to occur as well as pushing hard for more international assistance by the United Nations in directly helping in the protection of the American people inside America's borders, including the use of UN Peacekeepers to assist the National Guard in maintaining civil control.

"In the wake of this recent and most terrible tragedy that has victimized so many millions of Americans, as we reach out across our land for help from our own communities, we should also not ignore the world community" says Senator Joseph Lieberman. "We should certainly welcome all the gracious assistance that the world community, NATO, the European Union and United Nations has to offer - in whatever form it may come."

In some areas, the twin nuclear blasts have ignited a firestorm of protests against the "heavy-handed" efforts of the Bush Adminstration in recent years in rooting out terrorism around the world. "We did it to Japan and now we're getting a taste of our own medicine" says Blaine Fasile, one of the thousands of protestors that have taken over Lafayette Park across from the Whitehouse. "What did you expect? America bombs innocent children in Afganistan, Iraq and Somalia. No wonder people hate America so much. Bush's hands are covered in the blood of millions now" says protestor Farahd Al-Imani.

Moderate Democrats, like Senators Tom Daschle and Diane Finestein, as well as conservative Republicans such as Senator John McCain have been instrumental in reaching across the aisle in the wake of a small but vocal backlash against the Bush Adminstration's handling of the war on terrorism recently.

"This is Bush's war, not mine" says Sheila Jackson Lee, Representative from Texas. "He brought war to our own people just as he brought war to the people of Iraq." Ms. Lee's has been an outspoken critic of the Administration's handling of the war on terror for some time.

Though Bush's approval rating has once again, as expected, benefitted in the wake of these latest strikes against America, his rating is not quite as high as it was in the post-9-11 period of Bush's presidency. Then he garnered a 91% approval rating while now he only is able to muster an 62% approval rating leading some observers to suggest that George Bush is being seen as a weaker figure than the public had previously given him credit for.

As the death toll mounts daily in both cities and the awesome task of assessing the damage and searching for survivors continues, questions regarding "what" the Bush Adminstration has done so far to prevent catastrophic attacks just like this and "how" the Bush Administration could be more effective in protecting the American people will begin to grow, even while the Administration continues its own search for "who" did it.


that was actually a very interesting read Mac, but there is the problem right there....you cant "protect" against something such as this to the extent of totally irradicating the possibility of such attacks by "playing defense" at some point...you have to stop being nice, and go on the offensive...and i dont see a democrat taking any such course of actions. but you are right...it would most likely force the governmental parties to work more closely w/ one another...its ashame that it'd take such an occurance to accomplish this.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:30:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
What would the US response be?

Probably more sucking up to the disgusting Saudis and platitudes about how we won't quit until the war on terrorism is won.

What should the US response be?

Regime change in Saudi Arabia. Topple them by carpet bombing Riyadh with MOABs, and hunt down anyone with al Saud blood in their veins.

They funded al Qaeda, they die along with them. After all, who was it that said something along the lines of "We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who fund, train or harbor them"? Don't tell me about how the Saudis are hunting down al Qaeda now. They're only doing that as an internal matter now that it's their own ox being gored.

Let's roll, like we should have on 09.12.01.





Aint it the TRUTH!!
(Right ON the freakin money!)

No doubt, we'd also see MORE domestic laws, to "improve", our "Homeland" security too!!

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:43:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 6:53:44 PM EDT by omar]
The only way to minimize (you will never eliminate) the possibility of WMD on American soil, is to flat out serve notice by back channel comms to all Islamic leadership targets that their way of life will be obliterated, unless they, the leadership, keep the rogue and state sponsored elements in line. By whatever means necessary.

You don't have to control 1.4 billion muslims, just the leadership.

They know who these people are and they give them sanctuary, or look the other way.

Plausible deniability must be removed and accountability must occur.


Jim
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:49:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By omar:
The only way to minimize (you will never eliminate) the possibility of WMD on American soil, is to flat out serve notice by back channel comms to all Islamic leadership targets that their way of life will be obliterated, unless they, the leadership, keep the rogue and state sponsored elements in line. By whatwever means necessary.

You don't have to control 1.4 billion muslims, just the leadership.

They know who these people are and they give them sanctuary, or look the other way.

Plausible deniability must be removed and accountability must occur.


Jim

who is this guy!? GREAT POST!
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 6:55:24 PM EDT
Maybe something like this. Now how in the Hell did that EBOLA outbreak get started over there in the Arab countries? Oh, you need medical help, turn in the people on our wanted list dead or alive and then we'll talk.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:03:45 PM EDT
A buddy of mine who was a high level military rep to the Saudis, presented me with what I consider an epiphany/confirmation of what I already knew from my own experience.

When he got back to the US, I asked him: "how was it?". He said: "they all hate us, some just have more backbone than the others".

I also knew his replacement, who corraborated that assessment.

That pretty much sums it up for me.


Jim
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:04:00 PM EDT
I am not sure what a president would do in this situation..damned if you do..damned if you don't!

I do know this-
if a WMD is used on the US, and the preps are Arab/Islamic terrorists, there is going to be some SERIOUS anti-Arab/Islam violence. Think mosques getting burned down and anyone who is Arabic/Islamic being ganged up and beat.

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:08:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StykUrHedUp:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Growing Chorus Of Questions: Why Did Bush Fail To Stop Another Devastating Attack On American Soil?

Associated Press
Whenember 19, 200X

In the wake of the devastating twin nuclear explosions that utterly destroyed much of New York and San Francisco just three weeks ago, there is a growing chorus of criticism being aimed at President Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, who's ultimately responsible for protecting the American people against attacks just like these.


there is the problem right there....you cant "protect" against something such as this...

Tell that to the far-left journalists who'll be writing crap just like that.


Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:09:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
The US Government would ban all interstate travel by whites over the age of 40 without an internal passport and pre approved internal visa.

It also would mandate that all school children attend 10 hours per week of islamic training, and would require all muslin holidays be observed.

Further, censorship of all media and means of communications would be put in effect, to insure that nothing was broadcast that islam does not approve of.



Bingo.

This would probably be our lion-hearted response.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:18:33 PM EDT
... Well, I am the United States, but it's best for all Americans that I keep "my response" to myself, thank you.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:26:30 PM EDT
The response would be rather unpleasent.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:54:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 8:03:04 PM EDT by sgtstinger]

Originally Posted By TekChef:

...if a WMD is used on the US, and the preps are Arab/Islamic terrorists, there is going to be some SERIOUS anti-Arab/Islam violence. Think mosques getting burned down and anyone who is Arabic/Islamic being ganged up and beat.





Depending on the severity of the attack & number of casulties, I think that TekChef's assessment would be a foregone conclusion. If a truly large number of Americans were killed(10,000 or more), Mosques being burned and Muslims being ganged up on and beaten would be the LEAST that would happen...

Torture, rapes, and lynchings WOULD most likely occur...

The possibility of such violence would probably find it's way into the decision-making process of how/where/when/and to what extent to retaliate.

Kind of "twisted logic"...the more Muslims that are killed "over there" in retaliation by the U.S. government for the attack, the fewer that will be lynched by the general population here in America. Understand THAT rationalization? I mean it's kind of crazy, isn't it?



Link Posted: 11/15/2003 7:59:18 PM EDT
I believe we would pussy out and try to just target the "BAD ONES". The muslims that lived here would be on oprah talking about how only a few don't like america the rest are good (yeah right). The averge voting idiot would agree and we would knuckle under. We are not the society we were at the end of WWII, we are soft pussies that no longer have what it takes to actually win anything.


We SHOULD turn the entire muslin middle east into a large field of glass. And we shouldn't be waiting, it sould have already happened.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 8:27:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By StykUrHedUp:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Growing Chorus Of Questions: Why Did Bush Fail To Stop Another Devastating Attack On American Soil?

Associated Press
Whenember 19, 200X

In the wake of the devastating twin nuclear explosions that utterly destroyed much of New York and San Francisco just three weeks ago, there is a growing chorus of criticism being aimed at President Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, who's ultimately responsible for protecting the American people against attacks just like these.


there is the problem right there....you cant "protect" against something such as this...

Tell that to the far-left journalists who'll be writing crap just like that.



therein lies a whole other problem.....the more the media coverage of such events (front line coverage of wars, etc.) is allowed to continue, the more ammo these clowns will have.....on the same side of the coin, the less media coverage that gets piped back to the states...especially on TV..the less people (in my opinion) will object to such actions....sadly enough...the majority of people are content to ignore what they dont see....head in the sand...."out of sight, out of mine" so to speak....dont get me started on the media, LOL.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 8:33:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 8:34:59 PM EDT by Valkyrie]
If it was a nuke I belive we would spiral into WWIII. Dirty bomb or chem attack we would be much more reserved. Also, depends who's in the Whitehouse. Bush has balls and he won't back down so I would be confident we would drop a few kilotons someplace and then let the pieces fall where they may.

Edited to add that I'm sure I would be activated and deployed too!

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 8:47:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 8:48:58 PM EDT by PaDanby]
"Torture, rapes, and lynchings WOULD most likely occur..."

So who gets to be the Judges and Juries? or do we forget what it means to be an American.

Would you wear your sheets when you do it?

Or would you be like the idiots that killed or assaulted Sikhs? (or do you even know what a Sikh is?) or would you go after Bosnians like the Serbs did?, Or Chechnians, or Armenians? and try to finish what the Turks may have started?

How about Kareem Abdul Jabbar, are you going to go after him in Staples Center?


(This is a generic "you", not a specific directed at any particular poster.)
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 8:47:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
If it was a nuke I belive we would spiral into WWIII. Dirty bomb or chem attack we would be much more reserved. Also, depends who's in the Whitehouse. Bush has balls and he won't back down so I would be confident we would drop a few kilotons someplace and then let the pieces fall where they may.

Edited to add that I'm sure I would be activated and deployed too!





After thinking about a response to this thread and reading everyone elses, I'd just add to your comment that this is what I would do-

Its not perfect, but its effective and I think it would emphasize the totality of our resolve and put a screeching halt to this terrorist bullshit-

If a nuke is set off in the U.S. and we can determine the country origin of the terrorist(s), then we should nuke thier countrys largest city with no questions asked. Then the president should make this one statement to ALL NATIONS following the retaliation- "If your country harbors terrorist, and you do not prevent thier actions, we will hold you accountable, and this will be our response."

Then watch and see how f*cking fast every country scrambles to put a stop to this shit!

Has anyone considered how easy it would be to enter this country and do something like detonate a portable nuke? All a cargo ship has to do is enter the harbor of a major city like New York or San Franciso, and detonate a nuke before they're even docked and inspected. How do you prevent that?

Link Posted: 11/15/2003 8:49:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2003 8:51:09 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
... Nuke Shmook


... the bastards blew their wad on 9/11 for quite some time. What entity on the face of the earth could possibly gain for slapping us again?

< knocking firmly on wood >
I still say that terror is fear imposed by itself.

... Hell, I'm camped out 2500 miles from home in a hotel in NYC and I'm not afraid. Of course, Maker's Mark may have something to do with that sentiment.

... Go ahead; take a swipe at me foreign and domestic terrorists, we'll respond in a pleasurably vengeful fashion, again.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:22:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
considering there is no DEFINATE country to counter attack our response would be exactly the same as it was for 9/11. The US population does not have the stomach for war <nor do many of the members here> Mass retalliation that should occur never will. The sheep could not live with the guilt of killing enemy civillians<a term i use loosely in that area of the world.>

mike



I think you might have missed out on something in regards to the original question. We should be asking "what options do we have remaining?"

We can't invade and hold another country (by ourselves) as we are completely tied down by the commitments in Iraq.

That leaves our naval and air assets to provide the response.

Blockade? - not an option in the mideast.

Conventional bombing? - a definite option.

Nuclear attack? - plausible.


If a target could be identified, I suspect that it would be judiciously removed via conventional bombing.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:22:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
"Torture, rapes, and lynchings WOULD most likely occur..."

So who gets to be the Judges and Juries? or do we forget what it means to be an American.

Would you wear your sheets when you do it?

Or would you be like the idiots that killed or assaulted Sikhs? (or do you even know what a Sikh is?) or would you go after Bosnians like the Serbs did?, Or Chechnians, or Armenians? and try to finish what the Turks may have started?

How about Kareem Abdul Jabbar, are you going to go after him in Staples Center?


sgtstinger said it would happen. He didn't say he would take part in it, nor did anyone else.


(This is a generic "you", not a specific directed at any particular poster.)

There's a familiar tone to that statement. I suppose your previous post in this thread was meant in the same "generic" way?
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:24:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By carbonblack:
IF we have a President left. Next time, they will attempt decapitation.




That's possible but I don't think creating President Cheney is going to help their cause.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:26:08 PM EDT

Has anyone considered how easy it would be to enter this country and do something like detonate a portable nuke? All a cargo ship has to do is enter the harbor of a major city like New York or San Franciso, and detonate a nuke before they're even docked and inspected. How do you prevent that?


No. We have not considered that. (of course we have). There are gov't types who's only job is to script "unthinkable" scenarios.

I will only say, if it were that easy, it would have already been done.

It has been addressed.

Detecting a nuke is way easier than detecting other WMDs.

Asymmetric warfare. New buzzword for ancient warfare. Learn.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:30:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
"Torture, rapes, and lynchings WOULD most likely occur..."

So who gets to be the Judges and Juries? or do we forget what it means to be an American.

Would you wear your sheets when you do it?

Or would you be like the idiots that killed or assaulted Sikhs? (or do you even know what a Sikh is?) or would you go after Bosnians like the Serbs did?, Or Chechnians, or Armenians? and try to finish what the Turks may have started?

How about Kareem Abdul Jabbar, are you going to go after him in Staples Center?


(This is a generic "you", not a specific directed at any particular poster.)



I don't think anyone here is advocating that...unless I've missed something big. I have to agree though - if there were an al-Qaeda mass casualty producing attack, you would see the amount of violent incidents on Muslims skyrocket.

We did it to American citizens of Japanese descent and I'd guess we do it again given the right provocation.
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 9:39:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By omar:

Has anyone considered how easy it would be to enter this country and do something like detonate a portable nuke? All a cargo ship has to do is enter the harbor of a major city like New York or San Franciso, and detonate a nuke before they're even docked and inspected. How do you prevent that?


No. We have not considered that. (of course we have). There are gov't types who's only job is to script "unthinkable" scenarios.

I will only say, if it were that easy, it would have already been done.

It has been addressed.

Detecting a nuke is way easier than detecting other WMDs.

Asymmetric warfare. New buzzword for ancient warfare. Learn.



Well I never would have thought of comandeering commercial airliners and flying them into targets like they DID DO on September 11th, but I guess they had "govt types" who already scripted that thinkable scenario and "addressed" it already huh?

Sorry, 9/11 pretty much made me lose faith in that sort of statement anymore. But I am interested to know what they can do to prevent nukes from entering a U.S. harbor. Im sure were not going to know what that process is, until one goes "boom" and then we find out they never had one to begin with. lol
Link Posted: 11/15/2003 10:52:39 PM EDT
Well, they claim that oppression of the "Palestinian" people is at the root of much of their complaint, so I'd say carpet-bomb the West Bank & Gaza, and try to catch the dirty bastards while they're still dancing in the street and passing out candy. Simultaneously, I think I'd level Damascus, Qom, and Kharg(sp?) Island.

I'd tell the Saudis that that was their last chance, and announce that the next such attack on America would result in the levelling of Medina and Mecca. I think we have the military wherewithal to hold Saudi Arabia (pretty thinly populated) as a military/industrial oil camp if need be.
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 1:40:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Guncrazy223:
We are not the society we were at the end of WWII, we are soft pussies that no longer have what it takes to actually win anything.



This is probably the most accurate comment so far. This country is not the same as it was a mere 60 years ago. Two generations of liberalism have nearly destroyed this country, and if there is another mass attack but involving a WMD this country WILL be destroyed BECAUSE of what liberalism has done. Meaning, a lack of proper retaliation due to political correctness and worrying about the UN.

As much as I would like to say the entire islamic world should receive the nuclear American wrath, that simply cannot happen. All I know is, when hitlery becomes President in 2008, I really believe that is when a REAL attack will happen. The terrorists aren't stupid. They know Bush, his administration, and to a lesser degree Republicans in general have bigger balls and WILL respond. They also know that liberals are weak apologists and will NOT respond.
Link Posted: 11/16/2003 2:48:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2003 2:48:58 AM EDT by ColtM4]
THE #1 SPONSER OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD HAS ,IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE IRAN !

THEY PROVIDE FUNDING , LOGISTICAL SUPPORT , INTELL SUPPORT , TRAINING AND A SAFE HAVEN FOR THE MAJORITY OF TERRORIST AROUND THE WORLD INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY AL-QUEDA , HAMMAS , HEZBOLA AND ISLAMIC JIHAD.


Saudia Arabia and Syria also do the same but not on the level Iran does.

So the first country to get hit should be Iran , I say make the biggest parking lot in world out of Tehran.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top