Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/12/2001 6:29:11 PM EDT
Okay. Here are the FACTS. United States is gaining MASS international support. No military was available for questioning at all today, Wednesday. As of last word, (Tuesday), Bush stated that no types of retribution were off the table. United states will make no distinction between terrorist groups and the organizations or governments that harbor them or support them. Many many government representatives are saying a response will be big. (Quotes to come soon) Look at the pattern. Any thoughts on this???
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:40:15 PM EDT
Yeh, I hope they mean it!! -elliott
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:43:02 PM EDT
[size=6][u]BOOM[/u][/size=6]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:45:58 PM EDT
I heard on the radio, KFWB L.A. that all of the humanitarian-types and the UN are evacuating their people under emergency conditions. Something big is going to happen.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:48:53 PM EDT
Sleep well, brave men and women with American Flags on there shoulders are somewhere in the world getting ready to unleash an old fashon can 'o' whoopass on those responsible.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:51:15 PM EDT
Go baby Go We got it Let's unleash it!
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 6:57:40 PM EDT
Kick the tire and light the fires! Geesh...I watch too many movies.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:00:11 PM EDT
[img]http://wsphotofews.excite.com/018/NL/Hr/jV/IV87973.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:06:48 PM EDT
[img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/mushroom_cloud.gif[/img] Nuke all of them,,,,, FIRE UP !!!!!!! Jay Arizona
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:10:22 PM EDT
Aren't there still three Christian missionaries in jail in Afghanistan? Are they acceptable losses? God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:11:17 PM EDT
The only thing worse than no response, would be to hit the wrong target. Let's be ceertain that we have targeted the proper actors. If so, light 'em up!
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:20:28 PM EDT
LOL... I know everyone's eager to drop a nuke... but what I meant was-- can anyone contribute any other [i]evidence[/i] that the US is planning a nuclear strike?
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:26:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2001 7:35:17 PM EDT by Gargoyle]
You think ThreatCon Delta means, break out the slingshots?
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:31:30 PM EDT
ThreatCon Delta in fact is the level of security being practiced. Now that I've said that.... NUKE EM TILL THEY GLOW AND USE THEIR BABIES FOR RUN WAY LIGHTS
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:42:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gargoyle: You think ThreatCon Delta means, break out the slingshots?
View Quote
That's THREATCON Delta. It measures the possibility of an installation getting attacked. It is a maesure of the Threat. What you are thinking of is DEFCON which is how close we are to actual nuke conflict. The DEFCON status of the US would usually not be published. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 7:44:01 PM EDT
i know defcon has been upgraded. i know someone who could tell me alot of mind blowing stuff, but im not gonna ask him.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 8:16:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: Aren't there still three Christian missionaries in jail in Afghanistan? Are they acceptable losses? God Bless Texas
View Quote
Well, fortunately, the people in this country who have their fingers on the nuclear triggers have a little more self control than the warriors on this board.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 8:20:38 PM EDT
> Well, fortunately, the people in this country who have their fingers on the nuclear triggers have a little more self control than the warriors on this board. > Yeah, I agree. There is NO way the US will use any kind of WMD (weapon of mass destruction) -- the MASS international support we are currently gaining would DISAPPEAR in a heartbeat if we dropped a nuke (even a tac nuke). Sorry to disappoint you but Nukes are reserved for MUCH more profound threats than this. - CD PS: Although I gotta admit that seeing the capital of a terrorist supporting nation a glowing hole has some visceral appeal.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 8:35:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2001 8:36:41 PM EDT by warlord]
Originally Posted By CamperDad: Yeah, I agree. There is NO way the US will use any kind of WMD (weapon of mass destruction) -- the MASS international support we are currently gaining would DISAPPEAR in a heartbeat if we dropped a nuke (even a tac nuke). Sorry to disappoint you but Nukes are reserved for MUCH more profound threats than this. - CD PS: Although I gotta admit that seeing the capital of a terrorist supporting nation a glowing hole has some visceral appeal.
View Quote
I think they should fly one of those EC135s near the border and broadcast pornographic movies and sounds over their television and radio waves 24X7, that should drive them nuts.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 8:41:36 PM EDT
I don't believe it's going to be nuclear. Was just listening to our (sadly) senator Harry Reid (Dem) from Nevada who is Majority Whip. He was in a long meeting today with pres and all. He was confident of a big stick being used, but said nuclear was not necessary. He said we had a lot of neat little toys in our inventory that do things like "suck the air out of your lungs, implode your eardrums, things like that". I was getting worried there for a while tonight that we'd be waiting and waiting for our retribution, but it sounds like something is in the works ... they just aren't talking about it.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:00:12 PM EDT
Ya I think Fuel-Air Explosives would be much more likely used, especially if we want to get the terrorists and not just a bunch of buildings. These things are pretty mean in and of themselves. Probably the next worst thing to a weapon of mass destruction. Personally, I think the best way to deter islamic terrorists from future actions is to capture the ones responsible for this, and brainwash and deprogram them to reject Islam. Then parade them out on TV to have them denounce their religion and their people. What this would mean to the average islamic terrorist then is, that if they attack America and are caught, they are going to hell when they die. Pretty good form of deterrence if you ask me. Naturally there is some basic human rights issues with this form of punishment.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:01:05 PM EDT
Bush has a set that drag the ground. I hope(fear) that he will use nukes. Get ready people; it has just begain. There are somwhere between 6-7 million of them in the country now. Does anybody believe they all have converted true blue? I say if they believe they have 7 virgins waiting for them in heaven; let's make sure they get wish! God be with us.
Link Posted: 9/12/2001 9:07:40 PM EDT
nukes would be a very bad idea we need to punish these bastards, not irradiate part of the planet
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:21:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CamperDad: Sorry to disappoint you but Nukes are reserved for MUCH more profound threats than this. - CD
View Quote
20-30,000 dead, will likely go MUCH higher Heart of nation's financial center destroyed. Military Headquarters damaged with intent to destroy Proven intent to kill National Leader -What would be "profound enough" beyond this?[>:/] Teheran Bagdad Kabul These "people" understand only understand violent instant death. KILL THEM ALL
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:38:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:50:13 AM EDT
Ya lets go nuke the capitals of 3 middle eastern countries. Did you ever think that fallout doesn't stay within political borders?
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:29:29 AM EDT
A couple nukes on Japan did not poison the planet and a few on the dirty diaper heads won't either. Erradication of filth is always a good thing! It is impossible to hit the wrong target as all islam has made themselves one. Should those already here try to rise up they will bring death upon the decent ones who want to be part of this country. The decent ones had better prevent that, and I don't mean by whining about discrimination. This a war. Be very cautios about what you say lest someone think you a traitor! The payback for this must be so horrible that it is beyond both our and their belief. Anything less only encourages more of the same.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:29:38 AM EDT
Agreed - no to nukes for just one reaseon - MY CHILDREN have to live on this planet - let's not screw it up any more than we already have. FAE and other conventional stuff can do the job. They plump when you cook 'em...... Tate
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:35:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 3:43:34 AM EDT
Since the suspension of nuclear testing we have been unable to physically test our weapons for degredation. I propose the Western Asia Nuclear proving grounds. Don't sweat the fallout. Just like the drops on Japan, a total destruction of our target would save more lives in the long run and establish peace for at least a decade. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:31:48 AM EDT
Give it up guys. As much as we would like to turn "them" into glowing nightlights, you're not going to see any nuclear attacks. Those are saved for the big game when our nuts are in a vise. We have the military sophistication in place to surgically remove our opponents at our will. The stumbling block at the moment is indentifying the enemy. Wait to soild intel comes in and then watch us kick ass.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 4:43:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ramjet: We have the military sophistication in place to surgically remove our opponents at our will. The stumbling block at the moment is indentifying the enemy. Wait to soild intel comes in and then watch us kick ass.
View Quote
I know you're right, but waiting is so damned hard when you want revenge. 'Sides, what % of the general public are letting their anger subside more every day? I fear that every day that goes by, support for the kind of fire we'd like to see (AR15.com) waivers more & more. I hope I'm wrong......
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:11:36 AM EDT
I am wondering... Has Bush stated that this was an attack with weapons of mass destruction? If so, I think that it is US policy that any attack that includes the use of weapons of mass destruction will be met with our use of weapons of mass destruction (read nuclear devices).
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:29:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:45:13 AM EDT
The terrorists do'nt think we have the "stomach" for a war with them. I think we should nuke them. It's not the first time we used them and it should'nt be the last. I hope we have the same values and guts "The Great Generation" had. We need not loss more of our soldiers fighting a "Holy war" with terrorists. It's the only message they will understand.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:58:12 AM EDT
Hey, a little cesium-137 on your corn flakes in the morning will do a body good. Start blasting: [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/mapablast.html[/url] P.S. Try to spare NYC for the moment. There's enough crap in the air right now.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:58:18 AM EDT
Well they just mad the statement that all Americans are calling for war. And if this means loss of life on both sides to obtain that they are in acceptance of it.[frag]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:59:38 AM EDT
Well they just mad the statement that all Americans are calling for war. And if this means loss of life on both sides to obtain that they are in acceptance of it.[frag]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:01:50 AM EDT
No nukes. That will give other countries what they think is license to use them themselves and we don't need that, i.e we nuke Iraq, Pakistan sees a green light and nukes India. We have enough conventional toys to accomplish any objective in this case.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:01:53 AM EDT
A Nuclear attack won't be necessary. We can take care of this with conventional forces..
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:09:19 AM EDT
Teheran, Iran 25 Megaton Air Blast, 17,500 feet AGL 6.5 mile radius "Ninety-eight percent of the population within this area are dead." Singing my kind of song...[}:D]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:16:58 AM EDT
Post from GodBlessTexas -
Aren't there still three Christian missionaries in jail in Afghanistan? Are they acceptable losses?
View Quote
I know, but their throats will be cut anyway in the event of ANY type of military reaction by the United States! God will preserve them in the Way that He preserves [u]all[/u] who are His. Post from Imbroglio -
Did you ever think that fallout doesn't stay within political borders?
View Quote
Now [b]THAT's[/b] something Afghanistan and its neighbors should be thinking about! Don't you agree? Eric The(NotNuclear,NotYet,Anyway)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:27:25 AM EDT
20-30,000 dead, will likely go MUCH higher Heart of nation's financial center destroyed. Military Headquarters damaged with intent to destroy Proven intent to kill National Leader -What would be "profound enough" beyond this?
View Quote
It could (and very well might) get worse. An attack with nuclear or chemical weapons could kill thirty times as many people and turn NYC or DC into a ghost town. Beyond that, the technology to create a "doomsday bug" biological weapon isn't far away.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 6:55:30 AM EDT
Nukes would provoke China, and THAT's the true sleeping giant!
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:07:36 AM EDT
Not too mention Pakistan, what do you think their reaction would be if fallout hit their soil. You cannot start to compare the A-bomb of 1945 vintage to the nuclear weapons in the modern arsenal. Retaliation is best done with a massive convential strike, swift precise and deadly.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:15:20 AM EDT
I'm not sure a massive air strike or a conventional bombing would really strike at the [b]hearts[/b] of our aggressors. The reason WWII ended was because of the sheer terror and fear a nuclear bomb created. The Japanese were highly nationalist and ready to die for their leader at any cost. (Japan was being firebombed for months but to no avail). A nuclear attack was the only was to put an end to that. Is this the same case here?
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:22:52 AM EDT
We tested nukes above ground in Nevada till the 1960's...where did that fallout go? Right here, to the farms and towns in the U.S. What's 5 or 6 in Afghanistan?
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:28:35 AM EDT
If you hit the center of power in a COUNTRY you're at war with, the effects are there. Like the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But here you are fighting people that seek harbour in countries that condone and support international terrorism(libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and others I may have forgotten). So let's just say you drop a nuclear weapon on Kabul, on the westbank or in some training camp in tripoli another nut stands up to retaliate. Nukes worked fine in the days of the cold war when the free world faced only the communist bear. These days we face international terrorism, which is a multiheaded dragon in a snakepit of rogue nations. Kuiper
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:35:27 AM EDT
FWIW: I'm quite sure ([i]and hopeful[/i]) that the multitudes of Mercs out there have already embarked on a little journey across the pond... The international bounties are building on Bin Laden, and these guys would love nothing more than to cash in!
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:39:16 AM EDT
Major cities were only a few hundred miles downwind from our above ground tests in the Nevada. We're still here. Now we're 10 or 12 thousand miles away. We tested the "BIG" ones in the western pacific. One in Bagdad? One in Theran,(spelling)Iran? One in Damascus? Will just be the normal fallout levels as when I was in grade school.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 7:42:17 AM EDT
[center][size=6]Think Neutron![/size=6][/center]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top