What would the US response be if Al Queda

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Nonsense. Voting yourself into slavery is NOT an option, feature or function of Democracy, except in the minds of those who don't understand it and haven't bothered to study the concept of Democracy, of Natural Rights or of Liberty. One cannot vote oneself out of the right to free speech, and one most certainly can't vote away the rights of OTHERS.

In a civic sense, you most certainly can do all of these things. You can give up any rights you wish. You might believe that you still have an intrinsic right to free speech, but if you freely give it away, that right no longer has any meaning in a civic sense. Many on this forum would argue that we voted away some of our rights by voting for Bush this time around, as he has restricted civil liberties. Do you disagree?

If it takes killing a huge swath of the middle eastern world to get the point across, so be it.

What is your point that you're so desperately trying to get across, that you would kill more innocent civilians than all militants in history combined? Would you not then be the savage that you so despise?

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~Mahatma Gandhi

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Hey, the statue's all well and good, but it's clear enough that the country's been loaded with a bunch of Muslims who, for all we know, may be sleepers for future attacks against Europe or even the US.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were planting sleepers there. And they most likely are doing so in all major nations/cities.

But here's the thing. Terrorists, as they operate today, aren't limited by borders. They can operate in any country. Heck, they have even operated in the US and most likely still have cells there. Just like in most other major nations.

This is why attacking nations to fight terrorists or terrorism is about the most retarded thing one can do. It doesn't stop them, as they could just setup shop in another country. And as with Iraq, they'll most likely get new recruits in the country that was attacked.

Well, I'm in agreement that it's not a perfect plan, but frankly I'm not sure what all COULD be effective. Like probably 100% of us on this board, I'm not a military/espionage/terrorism/psychology/tactical expert, and I'm willing to admit that while the current plan is *clearly* not as effective as we wish it were, I don't have a very good alternative. My single question to those with bumper stickers proclaiming "War is not the answer!" is simply this: "OK, then what is the answer?" IMHO if you're going to deride the solution in place, you really should propose an alternative, and I don't think "sit back, do nothing and try to be nice no matter what" is an alternative.

Jason

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

uh you realize that they really aren't that dangerous as they mostly blow each other up and if you let them be they would eventually end up destroying each other

in regard to the original topic i think bush would sh!t his pants and resign

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

You killed my baby, now I'll kill your whole extended family, neighbors, and anyone unfortunate enough to live in the same country as you. Oh, and anyone else that happens to get caught up in the mess. Sound logic.

Originally posted by: azazyel
I never said they couldn't have one, I just thought it was stupid to try to enforce one. And even with us trying their not going to get one. It's going to mirror Irans not ours.

The beauty of democracy is that it can't be enforced. The people can vote in some other form of government if they so choose, thereby repealing their own democracy.

Nonsense. Voting yourself into slavery is NOT an option, feature or function of Democracy, except in the minds of those who don't understand it and haven't bothered to study the concept of Democracy, of Natural Rights or of Liberty. One cannot vote oneself out of the right to free speech, and one most certainly can't vote away the rights of OTHERS.

If it takes killing a huge swath of the middle eastern world to get the point across, so be it.

Jason

And mass murder millions of innocent people?

What makes you think other countries with nukes will just stand by and watch? If they see America use nukes on the mid east, they will think they are next and will immediately attack the U.S to ensure their safety.

Think outside the box for once.

Please, keep your trite colloquialisms to yourself. You at once assert that I can't assume that other countries will behave a certain way (which is fair and accurate) and then you turn immediately around and assume that other countries will behave in a certain *different* way. The bottom line is this: No one really knows what exactly would happen. Some would surely react badly, others likely WOULD refuse to act for fear of further escalation. The real bottom line, though, is this: These people understand one thing and one thing only: A show of force, of prowess. They illustrate this truth *daily* with their idiotic suicide/homicide bombings and moronic claims that "the streets will run red with blood!" (I mean really, this is B-movie bullsh1t dialog and these guys want to be construed as *tough*?!). In the end, THEY initiated the "war on terror" 4 years ago. That Bush, who is a pathetic president and a complete nitwit in almost all areas, has so botched the effort doesn't in itself mean the effort isn't worthwhile.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: deepred98

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

uh you realize that they really aren't that dangerous as they mostly blow each other up and if you let them be they would eventually end up destroying each other

in regard to the original topic i think bush would sh!t his pants and resign

Prior to 9/11, I'd have agreed with you entirely: leave them alone and they'll kill their own dumb asses. Personally, I kind of *hope* that the Israeli's and the Palistinians will just nuke each other and get it the fvck over with so the rest of us can get on with going to work, school and the movies, and playing our Xbox's in relative peace.

With regard to Bush, I think you're blind, my friend. No one on earth (possibly excepting Usama bin Laden) has the power of denial like GWB. He'd stay in office and issue orders with his dying breath, LOL. Might be funny to catch on cable, actually...

Jason

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

More than a few sandwiches short. I'd say half the family is missing.

Sad thing is that people like DMA actually do exist in real life. They have no clue about how the world works and will continue to live their lives happily ignorant.

 

[azazyel]

Nuke everyone huh? wow now that's just stupid on a grand scale. You do know that China has nukes that are capable of reaching our West Coast and if we destroyed thier neighbors and polluted thier air they would probably just launch them for the heck of it.

Oh, and who paid for those nukes? We did.

 

[dahunan]

Getting George Bush to bomb Iraq was as grand of scale as they could ever imagine... They are laughing their asses off that he is such a retard along with all of our Politicians that voted to send our men and women to be recruiters for al-qaeda..

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: deepred98

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

uh you realize that they really aren't that dangerous as they mostly blow each other up and if you let them be they would eventually end up destroying each other

in regard to the original topic i think bush would sh!t his pants and resign

Prior to 9/11, I'd have agreed with you entirely: leave them alone and they'll kill their own dumb asses. Personally, I kind of *hope* that the Israeli's and the Palistinians will just nuke each other and get it the fvck over with so the rest of us can get on with going to work, school and the movies, and playing our Xbox's in relative peace.

With regard to Bush, I think you're blind, my friend. No one on earth (possibly excepting Usama bin Laden) has the power of denial like GWB. He'd stay in office and issue orders with his dying breath, LOL. Might be funny to catch on cable, actually...

Jason

yeah i was kidding about the bush thing

he would probably do what you suggested, nuke everyone

 

[irwincur]

There was word around DC a while back that a de facto deal had been reached between the Western powers and those that are in touch with the terrorists (read: Saudi Imam's)... A nuclear attack on American soil would immediately call for the destruction of Mecca. Like Mecca, keep your people in line - since we know who has ultimate control.

If they really like their religion they would be best to leave us alone.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

So murder countless millions of innocent civilians because a few thousand are terrorists, or because their corrupt leaders oppress them? Sounds like a great idea Mein Furher.

Nuking the middle east will also seal the fate of the United States for at least a decade. When oil prices increase to unimaginable levels, tens of millions of our own citizens will descend into poverty, hundreds of thousands will die because they won't be able to heat their own homes, the cost of consumer goods of all kinds will skyrocket...in essence, the US as we know it will cease to exist without OPEC oil.

All because you want to play war games? How quaint.

The rest of us can be thankful they don't let any hooligan with a Nascar shirt and a forty walk into the war room and play armchair quarterback with the lives of billions at stake.

Forgot one last thing. China and Russia will eat us alive if we cut off their supply of middle eastern oil, and we know it.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: irwincur
There was word around DC a while back that a de facto deal had been reached between the Western powers and those that are in touch with the terrorists (read: Saudi Imam's)... A nuclear attack on American soil would immediately call for the destruction of Mecca. Like Mecca, keep your people in line - since we know who has ultimate control.

If they really like their religion they would be best to leave us alone.

Gotta call BS on that unless you have a link. I know someone suggested it but they were slamed for it.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So murder countless millions of innocent civilians because a few thousand are terrorists, or because their corrupt leaders oppress them? Sounds like a great idea Mein Furher.

Nuking the middle east will also seal the fate of the United States for at least a decade. When oil prices increase to unimaginable levels, tens of millions of our own citizens will descend into poverty, hundreds of thousands will die because they won't be able to heat their own homes, the cost of consumer goods of all kinds will skyrocket...in essence, the US as we know it will cease to exist without OPEC oil.

All because you want to play war games? How quaint.

The rest of us can be thankful they don't let any hooligan with a Nascar shirt and a forty walk into the war room and play armchair quarterback with the lives of billions at stake.

Forgot one last thing. China and Russia will eat us alive if we cut off their supply of middle eastern oil, and we know it.

Let's just hope he doesn't breed. But then again I don't see how someone that hostile could get laid anyways.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: irwincur
There was word around DC a while back that a de facto deal had been reached between the Western powers and those that are in touch with the terrorists (read: Saudi Imam's)... A nuclear attack on American soil would immediately call for the destruction of Mecca. Like Mecca, keep your people in line - since we know who has ultimate control.

If they really like their religion they would be best to leave us alone.

Gotta call BS on that unless you have a link. I know someone suggested it but they were slamed for it.

That, and it will ensure all Muslims around the world to immediately join in arms against America and will give an awesome excuse for countries that hated America to join in.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Just thinking about this on my way to work today.. What would the US reaction be to an Al Queda/terrorist attack in a major US city that dwarfed 9/11? What would our government do if an operative was able to successfully set off a portable nuclear device in a major US city, killing thousands of people and making that city uninhibitable?

From a foriegn policy perspective, what more could we do? Invade Saudi Arabia? Launch a strike on Iran? Could our military forces handle a 2 or 3 pronged war? Would our allies that are now semi-cold towards us provide military/financial support?

The only major changes I forsee would be a strengthening of the Department of Homeland Security to the point where all immigrants in this country that have ties to Muslim countries would be under surveillance.

If the bomb came from North Korea or Iran, the response could be pretty severe... perhaps nuking Tehran and other strategic parts of the country... taking the opportunity to cripple it. Same with North Korea maybe. I really don't know though...

It would be a shame as most who would die would not have anything to do with what happened.


The book "Memorial Day" by Vince Flynn is an interesting read.


In it, some mujahadeen types from Afghanistan go to a Soviet nuclear test site, and dig out some "duds" that never exploded but weren't recovered.

They then get a couple sympathetic Pakistani scientists to engineer two bombs, which they are able to smuggle into the US fairly easily. The bombs can only be detected by our detection equipment if they are not properly shielded.

They plan to set off one in Washington and the other in New York.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Invade Venezuala?

The best argument against your point of view is you.

GROW UP.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How democratic was it for a long part if its life?

You dont think we are a representative democracy anymore?

You'll have about the same success getting these people to say one positive thing about the US (rather than narrowly focusing on select negatives to indict the entire situation inaccurately) as you would chatting with Osama.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Or...we could do react in a way that would actually bring the people behind the attack to justice and prevent future attacks. Extra funding for intelligence and police work that no one will ever notice if it works is not the type of political grandstanding that comes naturally to politicians, but I think that a much worse attack will actually make people want real solutions. 9/11 was a great excuse for war and decreased civil liberties and torturing prisoners. But a worse attack, rather than causing a stronger push towards all those things, would probably pull us away. Because it will have been obvious that those things don't work, it would even be possible that they made it worse. Think about it, people will notice that the famous lack of reaction by Clinton (and previous presidents) to terrorism was the lead up to 9/11. But if we are attacked worse, it will have been after years of war and the Republican's tough guy approach to fighting terrorism. What conclusions do you think people will draw?

I think a worse terror attack will be a wakeup call for REAL action that really does fight terrorism. I'm not saying what we have now is worthless, but I don't think it's too useful either. There are a lot better things we could be doing with our resources, the only reason we're not is that politicians like big, bold statements (useful or not) because without external pressure, that's all people notice. I think a much worse attack would provide that external pressure.

I would agree with this, except there is no real solution to terrorism. As I've stated before, if people want to blow up other people, they can do it and there's no way you can stop them. I can drive to Home Depot and WalMart today in my little Acura Integra and pack it with all the goodies I need to blow up an entire mall. How can you defend against this? The only way is to hope that terrorists are too stupid to figure out this sort of thing. I'd be willing to bet five random attacks on shopping malls in middle America would have a lot more terrifying effects than 9/11 on the average American, especially around the holidays. That terrorists haven't figured this out yet gives me hope, because maybe they really are just that stupid.

Well that is also true, you can never prevent that sort of attack. But what you can do is try to figure out who's going to do something before they do it, thus the intelligence and police work being an important factor. While the individual nut job is hard to stop (virtually nothing could have prevented Oklahoma City), terrorist networks have organizational structure and purse strings and many other things that can be investigated and followed.

But you're right, you can't "defeat terrorism", no matter how hard you try, any more than you can defeat murder or rape or any other crime. You can only do everything reasonable and accept the risks.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

Let's just see if we can beat some knowledge through that thisk cranium you so proudly display in public:

World Population Vs. US Population
Simple math = the US population is just under 298 million against a backgroud of world population of neary 6.5 billion -
gives you a percentage just shy of 4.5% in the US of A.

Area of Scheduled Destruction, No Parking - Blow Away Zone !
Well golly gee, Buffalo Bob, we take out our own troops which are ringed by nuclear explosions to the Northwest, West, South, East, and Northeast -
then you want to kill the Frogs in the heart of Europe !

Every Way the Wind Blows goes the radioactive plume of isotobes that are know to linger for thousands of years, all the fun stuff we have come to know and love - Fallout = Radioactive Iodine, Strontium 90.
Residual waste that has the capacity to kill all life within it's debris feild for hundreds of years, slow painful wasting deaths, not the pretty amusing ones - like in the Terminator movies.

Then comes the real fun - biological mutations, in humans, animals, plants - then toss in the change in the weather due to loss of radiant energy from the Sun. Nuclear Winters where the planet drops in temperature so there is virtulaly no Spring, Summer, of Fall - just shoveling that radioactibe snow around the clock. July 4th high is 36 degrees and we celebrate because it stays above freezing for 6 whole hours !

This wraps around the planet and like the gift that keeps on giving, we get to enjoy the debris particulate fall of radioactive waste for from 6 to 9 months before the glow in the dark rains end.

Think that the neighboring countries to the layer of glass are going to stand by and watch their populations go without retalliation ? India won't be pleased, nor will the remaining 'armed to the teeth' Country / States that comprised the old CCCP.
China won't be to thrilled either, they can launch a few missles - but they have the man power to hand carry several tons of nuclear warheads, and there's no stopping them.
They all shoot back - with everything they got, don't matter does it ? Yoi've condemed them to die of a nuclear holocost, why should they spare your sorry ass ?


I stand by my statement of 97% world destruction.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well that is also true, you can never prevent that sort of attack. But what you can do is try to figure out who's going to do something before they do it, thus the intelligence and police work being an important factor. While the individual nut job is hard to stop (virtually nothing could have prevented Oklahoma City), terrorist networks have organizational structure and purse strings and many other things that can be investigated and followed.

But you're right, you can't "defeat terrorism", no matter how hard you try, any more than you can defeat murder or rape or any other crime. You can only do everything reasonable and accept the risks.

:thumbsup: