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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
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'?


Then why are these folks ar at least the majority speaking out against the fatwa and Jihad? Think about it....

[edit on 3-12-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I agree with some other posters that the only ones who will die will be Americans. Al Qaeda is not a country it is a network spread across almost every country on the planet. How can the US counter attack that on its own???



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrdependable
I agree with some other posters that the only ones who will die will be Americans. Al Qaeda is not a country it is a network spread across almost every country on the planet. How can the US counter attack that on its own???


I completely disagree.

The notion of a large, coherent, organisation of terrorists, whos reach stretches into almost every country in the world is, well, laughable.

Pure fantasy used to increase military budgets, create fear amongst the population and further political agendas.

How many times did you hear about AlQaeda before 9/11? How many times since? It seams to me that almost every terrorist attack since has been down to AlQaeda.

How convenient.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ClandestineHow many times did you hear about AlQaeda before 9/11? How many times since? It seams to me that almost every terrorist attack since has been down to AlQaeda.



I did, many times as did you! Uss Cole etc etc, Bill Clinton was posessed about getting Osama, so the threat was there and we should have acted sooner.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I think the leaders of those countries probably agree, Godflesh, and most are FINALLY working to clean up their dealings and/or tolerance with/of terrorist groups

Only the public is stupid enough to think a "world war" against Islam would be anything but a one sided slaughter. Their leaders saw how easily we brought down Saddam.

Yeah, there's resistance, but that doesn't matter to Saddam, and it wouldn't matter to the leaders of other hostile countries. He's in jail now, a living example for every world leader to see. They know they have a sweet deal, and aren't going to be giving it up over any silly Mullah's sermon. Ask Khadafi if you don't believe me.

If we tied the bomb to a government, we would have to nuke them. It's been our policy since the 60's that we WILL respond in kind if we're nuked.

It's a good policy for nuclear powers. Without it, the peace of mutually assured destruction wouldn't have lasted.

If we couldn't tie it directly, I think we'd use conventionals on the two most likely candidate nations. 2 regimes falling for one attack seems to be working out well for the US.

Ok, the UN would have preferred only one, so they'd probably pass a resolution condemning us. So what. We'd ignore it, of course, because that's what UN resolutions are for. If they can't even handle a banana republic like the Sudan, they're not going to do anything but whine about us.(I think the secret purpose of the UN is just to collect the autographs of famous mass murderers to sell on ebay)

I also fear there'd be an arab hanging from every tree in America.

The terrorist tactics only work against a pacified populace. 9-11 only worked because they targetted yuppies. If those planes were coming back from a steel workers convention, the plains would have landed safely with 4 terrorists requiring boxcutters removed from their....well, you get the picture.

I actually think Osama probably regrets 9-11 bitterly.

He has learned why one of the original US flags had a rattlesnake and the words "don't tread on me"

His goal was to get us out of the region. Before 9-11, there weren't many countries that would allow the American Military on their soil. There's a reason we have to fly our wounded to Germany for treatment.

Now we have two countries that will let us keep a few bases on land.

The irony of the media's coverage of the famous "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier is that the ship had actually accomplished it's mission.

It's mission was to house and service the planes that enforced the no fly rules for the previous decade.

Since we have Baghdad airport, floating airports were no longer needed. Their mission in the region was accomplished and now they're (and at least two others) floating around the China sea rattling sabres at the N. Koreans.

Nice work Osama! You gave Bush EXACTLY the excuse he needed to set up shop on your precious sand. If you want to know how long we'll be there, ask a German.

Then there's the bottom line....

I think every Muslim knows that it wouldn't be hard for the US to level Mecca if it got right down to it. If worst comes to worst, we can take out some mosques and tell them that Mecca is the next target. I think those "peaceful mainstream muslims"I keep hearing about would finally get around to cleaning their own house real quick.

The fanatics seem to value their holy sites more then life. That will eventually be their downfall.

My point?

Don't let the media play your fears. They know that fear sells ad time and they have to please the stockholders.

If we stop hanging on every little casualty report and look at the war in broader and more historical perspective, we'll see things are going pretty damn well.

(What were the original casualty estimates?10,000 the first week? 20,000?)

And this is a politically correct baby-war. If we have to get really serious about it, we can just pull a Kosovo and bomb their cities for months on end before a grunt ever sets foot on the ground.

If the mainstream muslim world is too scared to deal with that rabble of walking dead we call terrorists, then they're sure as hell not going to risk coming up against the US military.

They had no absolutely idea what they were up against.

Face it, Iraq was the strongest nation the Arab world had to offer and we ate them alive.

Don't worry, ladies, we'll protect you



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I think they should let it be known that they should destroy every muslim city in the event of a nucluar attack.

However if a nuke attack happened, then we would only retailiate equally a measured response, and will be seen by the world as being mercyful.

Bush the Merciful



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotemojo
If we stop hanging on every little casualty report and look at the war in broader and more historical perspective, we'll see things are going pretty damn well.

(What were the original casualty estimates?10,000 the first week? 20,000?)

And this is a politically correct baby-war. If we have to get really serious about it, we can just pull a Kosovo and bomb their cities for months on end before a grunt ever sets foot on the ground.

If the mainstream muslim world is too scared to deal with that rabble of walking dead we call terrorists, then they're sure as hell not going to risk coming up against the US military.

They had no absolutely idea what they were up against.

Face it, Iraq was the strongest nation the Arab world had to offer and we ate them alive.

Don't worry, ladies, we'll protect you


Kudos m8, that was awesome and to the point. They know not what some do in their name...or do they? Of course they do and I like your idea the best.

An Attack on the US with a WMD means that one of the big three mosques gets wiped out, if they don't clean house then, then drop the hammer.

People in ATS say you cant bomb a unnamed country. We I would argue that Bush set the tone, if you harbor them, then you are guilty by association. Hell yes they would clean up and fast.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
All this talk about nukes and WMD's is scary and I hope it never comes to that, but if it does and the superpowers do come together it will be just like it says in revelations and the antichrist would be in sheeps clothing for 3 1/2 years then the real crazy stuff starts happening.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The fact of the matter remains that nuking Mecca is a symbolic gesture with no tactical value what so ever. Nuking Mecca will not make the problem go a way...
Quite the opposite in fact

If you want to talk serious potential actions that would occur and not just wishful thinking by christians well here goes...
I foresee the nation at first split between those urging caution and those howling for blood (I foresee those unaffected howling the loudest look at 911 for example). There will be attempts made to maintain rationality but I fear it will be overwhelmed by the howling mob madness winning out in the end.
It will be cold and calculating madness though, brutal and efficient like a stalinist purge.

I foresee the lockdown of america for the foreseeable future we might not go dictatorship but things will get ugly at home... and I dont mean just for Muslims. Free speach will be suppressed at levels unprecedented in American history (you could probably kiss ATS goodbye) freedom of movement completely restricted I imagine some kind of internal passport system put in place like the Soviet Union had. All muslims would be rounded up "for their own safety".

Any nation that refuses to cooperate with America in the apprehension of the fiends will have nine different flavors of pain dropped on them and I dont mean nukes. We're talking regime change on a scale unprecedented in recent history... and if you think we're being rough in Iraq ( which honestly sometime I do)you aint seen nothing yet.

We would probably start fighting terrorism in even nastier ways then Israel does. Assasinations would be just the begining Guantanomo would seem like a summer camp by comparison and Abu Ghraib a health spa.

I would foresee potential conflict between Europe and America over our extremeist policies. Nothing major at first just sanctions and condemnation but potential war if China and Russia get involved and back the "free" world ( and I dont mean America). In short Armageddon....

Now all these things might not come to pass if a nuke hits but some of them will and a lot of them might and at any rate this is not a road we want to go down especially not irationally and at the drop of the hat.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Lets hope it does not get as bad as you portray, but it very well could.

scary stuff




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join