 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
The problem with terrorism is that it is completely different from regular warfare. There is no obvious place where people get trained or build hardware. There is no obvious definition of who's friend and who's foe (in regular warfare, everything is much simpler: any Boche is a foe, any Jap is a foe, etc.)
All western countries have at last taken the terrorist menace seriously, and are now under a real police and secret-service cooperation on this one. But I suppose most services are still wondering how to be efficient in deterring terrorism.
But maybe you're right. Maybe, if we put enough energy and money in chasing down terrorists, maybe if we punish those supporting terrorists where it hurts (their Swiss bank account), we'll instill a climate of fear in terrorist organisations, as nobody could know whether a fellow terrorist is sincere or an agent.
Conspiracies generally fail this way. If we manage to create a terrible climate for terrorist plots (the same way Saddam lived quite isolated for fear of assassination), then we can win without fighting the all-out war against Muslims.
But should they be successful in nuking a city, I don't think anybody will want subtle tactics against "them". "They" are likely to describe a muuuuuch larger population as the terrorists themselves.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:33
|
|
Nuke? I call BS.
I think it's obvious to all what's happening here, they call the threats to wear out the US. It's consuming to have these threats for sure, and they have to be taken extremely seriously.
I think we should concentrate on what we know and what is speculation, so we can fight them. Facts are, that they spread rumours to consume our energy levels and to create fear. It's speculating but will be a fact, that they WILL attack again, it's only matter of when and where. Now, the rumour spreading is still effective, but it will lose its power in the future if none of them are carried on. So, I'd say they are waiting when the response to threat is not so energetic from our part, and then will actually go on with the attack. That way they have the upper hand, and can continue shouting threats and it will create panic and all that to new extent. Of course this will lead to a bad situation as we realize we have no choice but to attack first and attack deep and hard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
What the heck. Why February 2? IIRC the date September 11 had some meaning for the attackers, but does the date February 2 have some meaning for Muslim extremists?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Are you really this dense?
Are there no scenarios that you can imagine in which American strategic weapons would be employed against people other than the Russians or Chinese, rightly or wrongly?
Can you not imagine that a nuclear strike on the United States, or on most any other place in the Western world, would most likely trigger a very large reaction by all members of NATO, whether that be nuclear or not? |
If the attackers were a non-state political terro grousp, were exactly would this great retaliation strike? HUH? Are you that dense tat you fail to understand that te response to a massive attack by a state actor is FUNDAMENTALLY different than how you can react to the acts of a criminal organization?
quote:
Give it a rest. What Ming said is that something like this would raise the intensity of the conflict. He is very right, and well he should be. Others said that the reaction might be severe, and that might be regretable. So, can you stop foaming at the mouth for a bit? |
I have no doubt it would rase in intensity- you guys have just failed to come up wit any ideas as to how that would not lead exactly to , as Spiff has said, the outcome the terrorist want.
o I guess you agree with Sprayber's rather gloomy interpretation of the quality of Americans, and this the US owuld screw up the aftermath of such an act with uterly unthinking actions.
Wow, you have a very high opinion of Americans as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Yeah, this is most certainly the most urgent thing to do  |
sorry, I don't want to get nuked again because my president is an incompetent piece of ****... put somebody in there who can do the job right... that would be priority number one. I never did understand why after 9-11, the country rallied around this drunken frat boy who TOTALLY IGNORED terrorism. Clinton used to have a weekly briefing on terrorism. He had advisors and intelligence people come up with plans to deal with the stuff. He did what he could without Congressional funding because Republicans were too busy trying to find out who sucked his penis, rather than what OBL was doing.
quote:
Nuking their two most holy cities is certainly the best way to have Muslims stop hating us. You should also nuke Jerusalem, and you'd be set 
You can't even argue nuking these cities would serve killing Muslims, since they are little populated. And it's unlikely to be the place of residence of terrorists  |
it's about principality... the Islamic world, whether it wants to admit it or not, has declared war on us (I say us, because it's not just America buddy)... sure... people dismiss it as "a few extremists". I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Kids in the Muslim world wear T-Shirts of OBL. Islamists have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of supporters. Sure, the regimes in the region (except for Iran and Saudi Arabia) may not actively support their efforts, but they allow them to exist. And America shouldn't sit back and wait to get hit again. And if an American city gets nuked??!! Well that's it. All bets are off. Any civilians not wanting to be vaporized should get the **** outta Dodge.
quote:
YAY! Why stop at a few millions dead when you can have a whooping BILLION!   |
maybe the world would be better off...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-01-2004 12:31
|