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.

 

A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

beef up border security and expell all foreign nationals except those going through naturalisation processes.

if this is done, it is extremely unlikely we should be attacked again, unless by military forces with access to airplanes, large artillery, missiles, etc.


With current methods and technology this simply would not work. It is well understood that a foreign country can not simply send some planes or boats to the US mainland to drop bombs. It's clear that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of working. Why do you think 9/11 worked? Because it was our own planes.

Look at our shipping industry. It is physically impossible to give every box and container a full examination. That's where things would come in.

As for illegal aliens, well, I don't know what to tell you. Border control would only prevent those who haven't gotten in yet. It would do nothing against those who are already here. Plus, we have people here who already have citizenship that would be more than happy to assist in an attack. It's not such a simple enemy to find.

Additionally, after 40+ years of two superpowers aiming weapons at each other and many egomaniac leaders standing by the button, the fact that it never happened says something to me. Everyone wants to be the main player, but if you're the main player of a destroyed world, what do you have?




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Its funny how I am attacked for this idea and it is not even mine.

I would consider the Mecca idea and maybe one or two cities but maybe not even then. I lack the needed information and Intel.


Most in the thread are gearing towards to author of the article only and that is what they should do.....continue on..



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Rarely do I get to read such crap propositions, even in the mud pit forums. If Mecca is destroyed, there'd be tens of millions of muslim ultra fanatics ready to die for the cause, and take their enemy with them. And they might retaliate by destroying majot Christian shrines and relics in Israel and elsewhere, how about that?

Moderate governments will be toppled, and nuclear Pakistan will remain nuclear, AND deeply hostile to the US. Hell, there could be a military coup there and a bunch of nuts might just launch an earnest attack on the US.

Whoever idea this was, is in dire need of qualified medical help.




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
the greatest idea america has had in many years if they want to destroy the world...

seriously...

if america was attacked by TERRORISTS (middle eastern people...) why would we attack NORTH KOREA???

makes no scense...



If America was attacked by Saudi Arabians, why would they attack Iraq? Oh wait.....



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
So.....a bunch of crazed terrorists attack the US and then we kill millions of innocent people...hmm. I think many posters have already pointed out the cataclysmic consequences of that. Not only would we have to worry about a billlion angered muslims trying to kill us, we'd have to deal with our allies who would cut all ties with us and perhaps even become actively hostile. Besides, the terrorists would WANT us to do something like that. It would be a dream come true.

A friend and I were talking about this "idea" earlier... So exactly how do we determine what a "muslim" city is? Many Middle Easten cities have large populations of Christians and other religions. Do cities in Europe and Asia with high muslim populations count? There are bound to be foreign nationals, and Americans in any city we would nuke. Are these acceptable losses? Are they just....collateral damage?

But really Edsinger, stop trying to deflect all the criticism as if you're just presenting someone else's idea for discussion. You said you'd still be willing to nuke a few cities. A few people agreed with you. 100 cities, 10 cities it's still the same idea. The mindless slaughter of a people out of revenge for something a few people did. This is the worst kind of evil. Caligula evil, Vlad Tepish evil.....Hitler-esque evil.

But I suppose all these evil, primitive, reactionary, bloodthirsty urges are justified by 9/11, bald eagles, Jesus, stopping the homos from gettin' married, and the 'merican way of life.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
So.....a bunch of crazed terrorists attack the US and then we kill millions of innocent people...hmm. I think many posters have already pointed out the cataclysmic consequences of that. Not only would we have to worry about a billlion angered muslims trying to kill us, we'd have to deal with our allies who would cut all ties with us and perhaps even become actively hostile. Besides, the terrorists would WANT us to do something like that. It would be a dream come true.

A friend and I were talking about this "idea" earlier... So exactly how do we determine what a "muslim" city is? Many Middle Easten cities have large populations of Christians and other religions. Do cities in Europe and Asia with high muslim populations count? There are bound to be foreign nationals, and Americans in any city we would nuke. Are these acceptable losses? Are they just....collateral damage?

But really Edsinger, stop trying to deflect all the criticism as if you're just presenting someone else's idea for discussion. You said you'd still be willing to nuke a few cities. A few people agreed with you. 100 cities, 10 cities it's still the same idea. The mindless slaughter of a people out of revenge for something a few people did. This is the worst kind of evil. Caligula evil, Vlad Tepish evil.....Hitler-esque evil.

But I suppose all these evil, primitive, reactionary, bloodthirsty urges are justified by 9/11, bald eagles, Jesus, stopping the homos from gettin' married, and the 'merican way of life.


You have voted Flinx for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Way to refuse to accept utter idiocy, yo.

DE



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
edsinger your original post when i read it shocked me, never before have i seen such a dilusional utterly FANATICAL solution in my entire life.
It is also VERY obvious that it comes from a typical Christian, American Patriot point of view.

So you propose launching a nuclear strike against 100 of the largest muslim cities regardless of state?

Many countries including Germany,France,Russia and China have alliances and ties with many peaceful muslim countries, an attack against these muslim countries would be seen as an attack on those countries policies and ways of life. Therefore the allies of these countries would then see America as a direct threat. This would result not only in the destruction of those 100 muslim states, but in turn those countries allies would then point every operational nuclear warhead they have at America...

Lose / Lose situation



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
MrNice
you menchened that China is massing military on the border of Korea. Do you have a link or anything showing that?

There were several posts saying how horribe and wrong it is to retaliate with nukes, and how crazy one would be to consider retaliating with such a thing. But I had not hear any one how horrible it would be in a WMD is used against the U.S., or how crazy the people are that want such a thing to happen.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
MrNice
you menchened that China is massing military on the border of Korea. Do you have a link or anything showing that?

There were several posts saying how horribe and wrong it is to retaliate with nukes, and how crazy one would be to consider retaliating with such a thing. But I had not hear any one how horrible it would be in a WMD is used against the U.S., or how crazy the people are that want such a thing to happen.


And I doubt you ever will hear that in these forums. Best you can hope for from the liberal Americans (that would also be getting nuked by terrorists) is "oh well, it would be nasty here, but we should never consider going after the ones that did it" or God forbid a preemptive strike to stop the attack.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
People, let's not forget that ninety-nine percent of what makes MAD so effective is fear itself, not the actual destruction. By simply declaring MAD on a certain nation may cause a few realationship problems it will however give us something to bargain with. The US could simply declare it but never actually fire a nuke, it worked with the U.S.S.R. so it is a proven practice.

The two questions are the terrorists going to think we're bluffing and continue to strike?, and if they do take us seriously, will they gamble the lives of millions for what they believe in?



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
centurion1211
Thanks for reading my post. Nice that some one else can see the same point.

Cyber,
As was stated before, MAD worked with the USSR, because we both had enuff sence not to use the nukes. This is a different enemy now. They dont care about keeping peace. They are phyco death mongers. Destruction is what is desired. I would like to think that the fear of the retalition as was stated at the begining of this thred would work, but I dont really know if it would. After it actually happens things might be different.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If this became official policy, I think the terrorists would do it anyway. They have no respect for human life. If they hit the US with WMD and you did not follow through on your threat, they would claim that you are a toothless tiger, scared to fight. If you did follow through on the threat, they have millions of new recruits, all after your blood and all ultra-hardline.

I'm not sure how much the loss of their holy sites would truly concern them, they may see it as an acceptable price for the destruction of the US and as someone posted, Mecca has been destroyed and rebuilt before.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Sadly MAD sounds like a good idea, but the more I read this thread the worse of idea it looks like. It's really a bleak situation. I suppose our best option is to retailiate proportionatly and try to keep out of other people's business, we can let the UN take the blame.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Chris McGee
You are quite right with your statment of what will happen if we do not retaliate when atacked. Those same terms you used have already been used by the terrorests. Sad but it is true.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx

But really Edsinger, stop trying to deflect all the criticism as if you're just presenting someone else's idea for discussion. You said you'd still be willing to nuke a few cities. A few people agreed with you. 100 cities, 10 cities it's still the same idea. The mindless slaughter of a people out of revenge for something a few people did. This is the worst kind of evil. Caligula evil, Vlad Tepish evil.....Hitler-esque evil.


So what you are saying is it is ok to kill lots of Americans but they are not allowed to retaliate in kind? Why not give a warning so as to avoid anyone dying?



Originally posted by centurion1211
And I doubt you ever will hear that in these forums. Best you can hope for from the liberal Americans (that would also be getting nuked by terrorists) is "oh well, it would be nasty here, but we should never consider going after the ones that did it" or God forbid a preemptive strike to stop the attack.


Amen to that! You said it well.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Edsinger the problem is that we can't just go nuking random civilians, that would make us as bad as the terrorists. So the actual useage of nukes is out of the question.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Thats the thing though we are allowed to respond in kind!
We are allowed to slaughter terrorists by the boatload we're just not allowed to randomly slaughter civilians like you are advocating because contrary to popular belief there are muslim civilians who arent terrorists...



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Thats the thing though we are allowed to respond in kind!
We are allowed to slaughter terrorists by the boatload we're just not allowed to randomly slaughter civilians like you are advocating because contrary to popular belief there are muslim civilians who arent terrorists...


Then why arent they crying out for the leaders of the Jihad to stop killing innocent blood? Why? Why should we have to follow rules when they YEARN to see us die and cheer in the streets when we are attacked? Why?

why when they celebrate when we die?




[edit on 6-12-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
In reply to Edsinger
"A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities".

You forgot the defense against MAD..
effective secondary retaliation. That
can take many forms.

The enemy attacks, the US uses its' nuclear forces
to counter attack, and then..

the enemy makes a generational response and
personal and 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years
may pass, but eventually EVERY person in any
way accountable for implementing the policy
of "vaporizing 100 Muslim cities" is killed, their
families are killed, their friends are killed, every
person however remotely associated with them
is killed. And before each one of them is killed
they are tortured to extract the names of others
involved, and then those others are killed.

You get the idea? If I were a Muslim that would
be my response. And if that meant appearing to
surrender, or bowing to a superior force, or being
a slave forced to accept unsolicited Western world
idealism.. then that is what I would appear to do.
But I would not forget. My children would not forget.
And multiply that by a few billion people and
the outcome of such a conflict is clear.

The US government would not survive.

Your idea is.. uh.. not wise.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockanYou get the idea? If I were a Muslim that would be my response. And if that meant appearing to
surrender, or bowing to a superior force, or being a slave forced to accept unsolicited Western world idealism.. then that is what I would appear to do.


If you were a Muslim then you would stop the people who want to nuke the cities in the first place instead of secretly yearning for it to happen. Islam will never rule over the earth. ever.

Muslims can stop this , if they wish to......but no they want to see it happen, not all of them I will grant, but they aren't speaking out against it because they then become targets.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join