It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is going to die? IF.........

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Come on, Islam is the second largest religon in the world. What are you saying. That we are hearding them all into a tiny plot of land? I dont believe that. But its kind of like evolution. If the western way is going around the world fast and so quickly embraced as you say then maybe if they want to survive they need to adapt to a new environment. I do see a point though if countries are picking up western adaptations quickly and they cannot stop it then they blame us. Great.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
Really depends on who's behind what & where their located. Maybe a limited nuclear strike would be a good thing. It might send a message to the countries that don't get hit not to allow the kind of activity inside their countries that led to this type of attack.


I don't think it would work.
America didn't get the message after 9/11.
The US didn't say 'It's our fault we were attacked so let's change our behavior' They said 'it was the fault of the terrorists, let's go kill them'

That's the same way a nuke attack will be percieved by them.
They aren't going so say 'let's change out ways because we were attacked'
They are going to say 'America bombed our Holy Places and killed our people with a Nuclear Weapon. Let's go kill the Americans'

[edit on 2-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:57 AM
link   
For those thinking that a nuclear attack on a US city may actually be the CIA

You are wrong, and for 1 simple reason. It isn't because the CIA "wouldn't do it it" (though that is certainly the case). It is because the objective wanted does not warent such an action.

Think about it - your the CIA, and you want to give the US the ultimate excuse for going to war with Islam. However, there are consequences to every action. Nuking a US city could cause the complete economic demise of the US. Take away the US economy, and we are just another big country. Everything is based around it.

If Bush or the US or the NWO, or who ever your conspiracy deluded minds want to blame for this, want to have any power they NEED the US economy intact. Thus a nuclear attack is out of the question. Too much panic. Too much destruction. Too much damage to the US ability to wage war.

What you would do is kill a lot of people WITHOUT CAUSING GREAT PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION. A huge plague the economy could take. A million people die because of poisoned water - the economy can live with that.

A nuke going off in any major city would just be too destructive. So get this idea out of your heads - it just doesn't add up.

Now, in response to the original question...

If a nuke goes off in the US, there are a few options.
1) no action. Wait it out, start an investigation and postpone action. Political suicide not to mention showing the world weakness.

2) Quick small scale response. Launch a few nukes at major cities in countries suspected of helping those terrorists thought responsable. It would be a calculated attack meant to send a message, rather then yield any actual results. Perhaps it would scare nuclear armed nations into not selling terrorists nukes in the future.

3) Quick large scale response. Launch ICBMs at every major middle eastern city. Destroy Islam and millions of people. Results would include world wide anger towards US, sanctions and so forth. Islam for the most part destroyed. Not too many terrorists left.

4) Calculated small scale response. Probably the best all around option. Given a week or two to sort things out, present the world evidence of which country can be held responsable, and nuke them. Global opinion would not be as adversally effected, and the message would be clear to every nation about a future US response.

5) Calculated Large scale response. Figure out who has any ties (ie, where were the terrorists born, who suplied them, where do their kids live etc) show the world, and launch a bunch of nukes. World opinion is bad, but not as bad as in #3.

6) Invade middle east. All of it. It is deemed simply unacceptable for any nation to continue to exist their without US involvement. We take over. Would be bloody and may not work. Perhaps the riskiest move overall, yet the one that offers the most long term benefits.


Personally - and I made this point on another thread - I think it should be STATED US policy to react with massive nuking of HOLY SITES if a WMD attack is carried out on US soil by islamic/muslim extremists.

Thats the only thing that they respect - their own religion. They don't care if 100 billion people die, so long as in their mind their religion if furthered. Thus, put their very religion at risk from attack. Make a list of the 100 most important holy sites in the ME and publically state that EVERY onee of them will be nuked.

In any case, nuking the US will lead to the most dire days since WWII


Let's hope that terrorists can stick to suicide bombs. Sounds bad I know, but it sure beats the hell out of nukes.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
America didn't get the message after 9/11.
The US didn't say 'It's our fault we were attacked so let's change our behavior' They said 'it was the fault of the terrorists, let's go kill them'


Oh I think America did get the message very clearly and the fact that were talking about it means that we're paying better attention.

I don't know if your trying to put all on the blame on America or what, but you know without their greedy governments America wouldn't be there. I'm sure in time whatever behavior you talking about may be changed - but that takes time and pressure from the people. I think if all the real truths got out we would make the changes - the bad guys aren't the Americans or even the American government directly. Somehow we need to get the control of our government back into the hands of the American people and away from the greedy corporations throughout our planet.

Not going after the terrorist would not have curtailed their activity and that paticular group would have continued with their attacks - I'm sure we'd have a few more attacks by now. So, going after them had to be done - if nothing else to reduce the short term threat. Obviously eventually we need to figure out the root cause this type of behavior towards us & try to find away to keep it from happening again. If that means we need to make some changes on our side then lets make them happen instead of spending all our time bashing the current administration.



That's the same way a nuke attack will be percieved by them.
They aren't going so say 'let's change out ways because we were attacked'
They are going to say 'America bombed our Holy Places and killed our people with a Nuclear Weapon. Let's go kill the Americans'



How do you know how it will be percieved by them, especially since were talking here about them nuking us first? Nobody's asking them to change their ways, but if you poke a guy twice your size with a stick and he hits you with a baseball bat are you going to continue to poke guys twice your size carrying a baseball bat? Usually after the first beating you learn not to mess with people bigger than you - whether their jerks or not. If you're too retarded to realize that then you continue to poke until Darwin kicks in.

If it goes so far as us bombing their Holy Places and killing their people, I don't think they'll be in condition to go anywhere for awhile.

What you fail to realize is - if we all threw out all the stops in an all out war they are no match for us. We control the high ground (air & space) and the oceans, because for the most part we are better educated then them and we have more resources built up, due to our better educated society. We are bigger, stronger, faster & if we don't let the liberal mentality take over smarter. In time that may change, but at this point in time thats a fact. The only way they can defeat us is if we let them.




[edit on 2-12-2004 by outsider]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
lets see what the European folks have to say as they are probably not the target this time. Will they stand with America or with the Terrorists?


Standing with this Administration = standing with the terrorists.

They are one and the same.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The answer to the question "Who is going to die?" is simple. Innocent Americans.

There will be no retaliation on any "counrties" as terror has has no nation. What will be more embarrasing is that independent tests will show that the materials to make the device were actually stamped "Made in U.S.A" just as what happened with the anthrax scandal.

The rest of the world will not tolerate the destruction of the planet as a result of America's failed foriegn policies.


Simple as that.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I think that my opinion on this everyone can guess, we need to get a plan in motion that if a WMD attack happens on American soil, that the 'consequences' be fully known to the planners of the attack.


Good thinking.



lets see what the European folks have to say as they are probably not the target this time. Will they stand with America or with the Terrorists?


Have we reached a point where the only solution is 'kill or be killed'? I hope not. Why don't we root out the problem, i.e. religious fanatism? and maybe correct the image of USA in the middle east?


Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?


The above response is exactly the same as "stay put, or I will kick your ass". Well, the only thing that will be achieved by that behaviour is ...total war; Armageddon.

What USA does not understand is that they are part of the problem.


Originally posted by MrNice
Sad to say but we would scream for the blood of Islam. Islam, at least in the middle east, would cease to exist. I would think we would deliver an ultimatum, publicly, to Syria, Iran and a few other Arab countries to surrender immediately to United States occupation and laws or face nuclear annihilation.




India would be given permission and support to invade Pakistan. Israel would invade and occupy Lebanon and maybe even Jordan. The U.N. would be disbanded and perhaps China would be provoked to invade / deal with North Korea under threat that we would do it ourselves the nuclear way.




America might become a military dictatorship, one the likes the world has never seen.


...and that is something positive?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
masterp - In what way what I posted made it sound positive? I was simply posting what I felt would be the response. I think it is probably petty close to
what will actually happen.


The above response is exactly the same as "stay put, or I will kick your ". Well, the only thing that will be achieved by that behaviour is ...total war; Armageddon.


Actually, it will not. When a strong response to a WMD attack is leveled against the Middle East there will be no rescue from Russia, China, Africa, etc... Radical Islamist and regimes that support them are despised far more than America ever will be. All it will result in is millions of dead Islamists and not much more. So what if the Arab world goes up in smoke? The rest of the world is not about to risk THEIR cities / populations for a bunch of trouble makers


[edit on 12/2/2004 by MrNice]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Whew Ok some of you who think the United States should be bombed because we wiped the thugs out of Falluja. Let me explain something very simple. Islamic regimes and the United States Republic are not morally equivalent.

We attacked that city because it had become a BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR OUR ENEMY. It was THEIR decision to store weapons in mosques and fight from schools and hospitals. We also went to great lengths to warn the civilians in the city to leave (about 95% of which did). We tried to allow these thugs to surrender before we stormed their neighborhoods and engaged in combat.

Islamic Jihadists and those who harbor them do not have problems with killing civilians and give no warning before invading / attacking an objective. Also, they do not follow the rules of the Geneva conventions. Yet I see folks on this board act as though the United States is somehow obligated to follow those same rules to the letter. THEY ARE NOT. The United States is NOT bound by the Geneva Conventions during these types of battles. That we offer the populations any warning or allow any of the enemy combatants to surrender is a act of charity on our part. Do you know the risk we put our soldiers under when we try and act humane to these animals.

If the U.S. goes into a peaceful city and targets a school or church that has no military objective with no warning and then dance in the street as the bodies are removed from the rubble and announce our intentions of doing it again then there is moral equivalency. Otherwise there is not. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. Im not talking about the tragedy when one of our bombs goes astray, Im talking about planning to kill civilians and then carrying out that plan. So please dont try to link one to the otherthere is no equivalency there.

My responses here are have probably understated the REAL response. It is quite possible we would destroy every major city in the entire Middle East either via carpet bombing or nuclear weapons. It is also quite possible that Russia has already approved such a plan (we really do not care what China thinks).

I would like to think we would, at our extreme, still try to spare as many civilians as possible. However, it may not be wise or possible.

My message to any Islamic Arabs reading this..it is YOUR duty to turn these thugs in. If you stay passive or assist OBLs forces then the response, however harsh, from our country is on your head. Bush was very correct in stating: You are either for us or against us..there is no neutral ground here.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I was just going to point that out Ace!


You people really are ridiculous...
"OOH lets nuke Mecca" Lets piss off every single freaking muslim in the goshdarned world all 1.3 billion of them. Bring em on right? Your freaking nuts do you even realize what your suggesting. Thats like raping the pope because of the suppressed catholic sex scandal. Well do what you want... While your doing that I'll be investing in torches and pitch forks and waiting for the chickens to come home to roost.


Raping the pope!lol!that would be a sight for sore eyes!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
alright, here's the thing, i don't think the terrorists would set off a nuclear explosion in the US. i think they would detonate a small bomb with nuclear material in it so that radiation poisoning would spread after the fact and begin to kill people long after the effects of the bomb were dealt with. i also think the terrorists would rather use biological weapons instead of nuclear as it would have a more chaotic effect in the immediate vicinity and spread from there. in that case, my number one opinion of a possible weapon would be a chemical weapon for these reasons: easier to come by, cheaper, easier to make, etc., easier to transport, easier to release without detonating, if necessary, can be made to take out a specific group of people as long as the facility is enclosed, without to much transmission, or can be used to take out large section of population within a city and really cause panic. nukes will be too easy to detect, provided someone is detecting them. biological weapons will be too dangerous to transport, handle, etc. granted, they may still go those routes, i don't know, but it is my opinion they'd go for chemical weapons first. having said that, i actually don't believe we will be hit again in the US. if so, i don't believe it will be a WMD. i believe if it does happen, it will be another building-toppler basement bomb.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The point to terror is to do it BIG..........BLOODY>>>>>>>>>>>>and very public. With American refineries out, WHO gets richer............ISLAM does and can then blackmail the EU. There is no one for the US to Bomb back in retaliation.

Unfortunately anyone remotely Arab in the us would be murdered by the masses left here. The militias would break out because many of them have been preparing for such an attack for many years. Rem....the movie "the postman". Or even MadMax................



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Unfortunately anyone remotely Arab in the us would be murdered by the masses left here.

What do you mean 'left here'? One nuke isn't going to wipe out the world. If NYC or Detroit get nuked, heck, there goes a huge chunk of the muslim population anyway. No doubt there will be lynchings and vigilantes hanging muslism, sihks, and anyone else that they think is an 'a raab' but those people will be noted, hunted down, and executed for mass murder, inciting riots, hate crimes, and all the rest.



The militias would break out because many of them have been preparing for such an attack for many years. Rem....the movie "the postman". Or even MadMax................

Bah. Those militias will be destroyed with the stockpiles of VX gas and MOABs before they get out of their 'compounds'. All of them of any size were infiltrated long ago and monitored. The only question is if their fortified building will be swathed in mustard gas before the spys get out.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
As I have repeatedly said in other threads, there will be more than just one nuke. Data indicates upto 7 may already be in place. 10 megatons each.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
As I have repeatedly said in other threads, there will be more than just one nuke. Data indicates upto 7 may already be in place. 10 megatons each.


10 Megatons? Not a chance, 10 kT maybe.

Look if the Islamic nations knew that the US would pick a target, lets just say Mecca for now, and state "Any WMD attack on the US will result in the obliteration of Mecca".

What would happen at this point? The leaders of these nations that support terror, both openly and not, would have to decide the worth of their continued support.

Along the way, someone or a nation would decide it is not worth it and would then talk. We then have the target.

If we take the path of 'no reponse because of no nation' then we will be attacked again and again.

It is simple, we either state MASSIVE response or we encourgae the attack.


Doing nothing leads to war 100%



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Personally, If we are nuked by terrorist, I believe we should stand together and accept the fact that living in a multi national country is not key, All people of Middle Eastern decent regardless to thier citizenship should be deported off of American soil, Anyone who practices Muslim beliefs should as well be deported. This would be the gaurantee to all Americans that these type of people will never be able to hurt us again.
Oh and yes before you cry racial profiling, dont, I believe this would set the new standard in our constitution, Freedom of Religion, not anymore.. Arab, Syrian, Iranian, Indian, Pakastanian etc, will no more be welcome on our soil and thats just the way it will have to be. Personally, if we get nuked, I think all red blooded Americans will loose it and take matters into thier own hands and any body that resembles middle eastern decent will be delt with and I dont think the law would be able to control the anger, so it would be more safer for the people of middle eastern desent to be forced off our soil then to deal with the wrath that will be opposed on them.

just my thoughts



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justmytype
Personally, If we are nuked by terrorist, I believe we should stand together and accept the fact that living in a multi national country is not key, All people of Middle Eastern decent regardless to thier citizenship should be deported off of American soil, Anyone who practices Muslim beliefs should as well be deported. This would be the gaurantee to all Americans that these type of people will never be able to hurt us again.
Oh and yes before you cry racial profiling, dont, I believe this would set the new standard in our constitution, Freedom of Religion, not anymore.. Arab, Syrian, Iranian, Indian, Pakastanian etc, will no more be welcome on our soil and thats just the way it will have to be.


What about the Christian Arab? I know some and they are fine Americans, I disagree with this route.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justmytype
All people of Middle Eastern decent regardless to thier citizenship should be deported off of American soil, Anyone who practices Muslim beliefs should as well be deported.


I have to disagree with you. You have to remember most of them came here to make a better life - just like many of our ancestors or relatives - In my case my grandfather fled Hungary in the early 1900's. While I have no problem with halting all immigrations from certain areas until we can come up with better security screening solutions. I think those that are here should be left alone, unless they are linked to terrorist activity.

As far as militas going after Arabs or Muslims after an attack, I think that's a crock of BS too. Maybe a few hate groups & racists groups will do such a thing. Labeling racist hate groups as militas or calling all militas racist hate groups is what the real enemy likes, but it's far from the truth.

The real militas are not organized nor are they infiltrated. The real militas are are your gun owning neighbors & friends from all walks of life (bakers, taxi drivers, teachers, police, janitors, truck drivers etc. ) who own guns or have the ability to use the neighbors if he has an extra. Our milita will only come together if & when the need arises. Those who realize this have guns and they keep extras - not because they're fanatics like the media would have you believe, but because they know many who will be joining the militia when the time comes will need a gun - and they wont be able to pick one up at Kmart anymore.




[edit on 2-12-2004 by outsider]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
The real militas are not organized nor are they infiltrated. The real militas are are your gun owning neighbors & friends from all walks of life (bakers, taxi drivers, teachers, police, janitors, truck drivers etc. ) who own guns or have the ability to use the neighbors if he has an extra. Our milita will only come together if & when the need arises. Those who realize this have guns and they keep extras - not becasue they're fanatics like the media would have you believe, but because they know many who will be joining the militia when the time comes will need a gun - and they wont be able to pick on up at Kmart anymore.


Thats a very accurate statement m8, When or IF that time comes, the American people will not be controlled, as the military folks will not necessarily follow unlawful orders.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
As I have repeatedly said in other threads, there will be more than just one nuke. Data indicates upto 7 may already be in place.

Complete garbage. What data? Al qaida has 7 or so nukes in place and just hasn't set them off yet? The moment that they get one nuke it will be sent to its destination, and if anyone gets close to finding it before it gets there it will go off in a target of oppurtunity. What data indicates that they have 10 or so and that they are all in place?

Anyway, 10 nukes won't cause an apocalypse, the soviets had -hundreds-, of extremely high yield, higher yield than the american ones. -Thats- what it'd take to cause those 'mad max' scenarios.


edsinger
would have to decide the worth of their continued support.

They would say 'Eff mecca'. If it was the apocalypse, and you were part of gods own army, but the enemy, the antichrist, satan, the beast, whatever, threatened to destroy jerusalem, or the vatican or whatever,if you didn't surrender, you'd surrender? Of course not, you'd set your jaw and fight on. Think about it, these guys, they're even more fanatical than you, and if you'd do it, why the hell wouldn't they?

Doing nothing leads to war 100%

There is -nothing- that can prevent them from doing this, except for getting in there, cell to cell, and defeating them. Detterence is a guarenteed formula for future attacks, just as much as doing nothing, or even only engaging in conventional military tactics.

just my type
All people of Middle Eastern decent regardless to thier citizenship should be deported off of American soil, Anyone who practices Muslim beliefs should as well be deported.

So after a nuke attack you'd want to start a civil war? And the muslims of the US, they'll just go along with this? Or will the fight back against a government and people that had, at that point, betrayed them in their innocence?



This would be the gaurantee to all Americans that these type of people will never be able to hurt us again.

Why? Richard reid was not obviously a muslim. Heck, the guys that flew the terror planes on 911 weren't obviously muslim, and they were saudis of all things. Do sihks get included? What about zoroasterians? What about chechyans? While everyone is busy fighting an internicine war and disbanding the constitution, what are the terrrorists who don't look like muslims going to do? John Walker -was- and american, how many more like him will pop up when muslims are being rounded up and deported? How many resources will be wasted on throwing out innocent people, in a futile attempt to get rid of the bad guys? And if it could be accomplished, how would it prevent a future attack. They hid the fact that they were terrorists last time, they can hide the fact that they saudis or iranians or whatever. What about pakistanis? Do indians have to be deported, just to be safe? What about oriental muslims? Indonesians? Albanians? Can you really tell the difference between an albanian and an albanian with a passport and properpaperwork that says he is serbian? Heck, a bosnian for that matter? Or what about muslims in israel? You can't tell the difference between a palestinian and a native israeli, they're the same people! They've been exchanging genes and blood for generations, there's no genetic test for that.

edsinger
What about the Christian Arab?


Christ, what about the muslim arabs who wanted no part of the terrorism! If fundamentalist christians were the terrorists, would you have said that christians be deported? OR that conservative christians be monitored? I don't recall that going on when Oklahoma City was bombed by white republican far right christians. How come those people weren't rounded up? Heck how come they weren't all put onto reservations in one of the dakotas or wyomming and told 'here, have your own reservation, we'll leave you alone'?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join