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.

 

WTC the financial MECCA of the USA

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

You would be better served spending your time learning than focusing your "fury".



Learning what? Conspiracies based on heresays, on speculation and ignorance of the facts? Trying to build a puzzle of 100 peices out of 1000000 peices with no picture? And all the while being fed lies from political figures who have a benefit from leading you astray?
The US is a free country with freedom of the press. This has its ups and downs. It downs is that any lunatic can say his mind and have a following. The ups are that true as well as false information is out there. I read the consipracy theories about 9-11 and I do not believe that the US leaders would ever attack their own people or assets when it is of such magnitude.
I do have my theories about 9-11 though.




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I read the consipracy theories about 9-11 and I do not believe that the US leaders would ever attack their own people or assets when it is of such magnitude.


Right. I read a few theories about the Mossad involvement.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
WTC and buildings like that are symbols, yes, but no American is stupid enough to identify with a building. Sorry. We're too smart for that.


So you are saying muslims are stupid enough because they indentify with a building? that is extremely condescending don't you think?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I read the consipracy theories about 9-11 and I do not believe that the US leaders would ever attack their own people or assets when it is of such magnitude.


Right. I read a few theories about the Mossad involvement.


Good for you. Any more lame-brain theories?

I guess the fact that muslims did it and that they pride themselves about it just isn't enough.
Roll in the age old 'it was the Jews' libel - why not it is most convienient.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

So you are saying muslims are stupid enough because they indentify with a building? that is extremely condescending don't you think?

As an American, I have never made a pilgrimage to the WTC and I do not plan to do so.

I also do not pray, daily, in the direction of Wall Street.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Personally, I like the idea of the threat of nuking Mecca. The reason being that radical Islam only respects their own Islamic centers. If they honestly believed that their most important religous sites would be nuked, and thus completely obliterated, I doubt that they would feel the need to attack us in a like wise extreme way.

Basically, I do NOT advocate the bombing of Mecca because of a terrorist attack. However, I do like turning our now world wide reputation of near unchecked agression into a feared threat of retaliation to terrorits.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Personally, I like the idea of the threat of nuking Mecca. The reason being that radical Islam only respects their own Islamic centers. If they honestly believed that their most important religous sites would be nuked, and thus completely obliterated, I doubt that they would feel the need to attack us in a like wise extreme way.

Basically, I do NOT advocate the bombing of Mecca because of a terrorist attack. However, I do like turning our now world wide reputation of near unchecked agression into a feared threat of retaliation to terrorits.



Dear AMM,

for the threat to be plausible, one has to do a demonstration. Example: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, nuking as much as a garbage will create a furor in the world, coz people don't like seeing nukes falling anywhere at all.

Also, nuking Mecca (God I can't believe we even have such a thread) would be tantamount to a summary execution of hostages on a mega scale.

I mean, if you stoop to the level of your enemy which you consider barbaric, then you have already lost the war. So why bother.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Why does it always have to go nuclear anymore? If the U.S. was going to stage a retaliatory strike on a place like Mecca (I have no idea what purpose that would serve), is Mecca such a hardened target that it would require nuclear weapons? Talk about overkill.

Aelita, is that your studio? I play too, although I sold most of my gear, and I've gotta get some new stuff.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
honestly,

if all of you humans want to go kill each other;
the more the merrier


leave me out of your rediculous conflicts,
and i will support your war

as long as me and my child are alive and ok (and left out of it)

i will be more than happy to see all of you kill each other
im getting tired of psychopaths anyways

what better way to a perfect world than to let all the psychos kill each other off

just leave the nukes out of it; keep it conventional

what id really love to see is a Politicians' brigade; where all of the politicians and all of their children are DRAFTED into service in IRAQ hotspots

nothing id love more to see than our Politicians FIGHTING THEIR OWN STUPID WARS

thankyou 4 your time



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
i will be more than happy to see all of you kill each other
im getting tired of psychopaths anyways

what better way to a perfect world than to let all the psychos kill each other off

just leave the nukes out of it; keep it conventional


You're telling psychos not to use nuclear weapons? If they had that kind of common sense, they probably wouldn't be psychos. Right?



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Dear AMM,

for the threat to be plausible, one has to do a demonstration. Example: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, nuking as much as a garbage will create a furor in the world, coz people don't like seeing nukes falling anywhere at all.

Also, nuking Mecca (God I can't believe we even have such a thread) would be tantamount to a summary execution of hostages on a mega scale.

I mean, if you stoop to the level of your enemy which you consider barbaric, then you have already lost the war. So why bother.


Deat Aelita,

We do not need to make a 'demonstration'. Everyone in the world knows if they nuke us, we will nuke them back. My idea is to simply extend that threat to radical Islam. It's simple. We make it public foriegn policy that if radical Islam uses a WMD against us, we in turn, use ours against them.

Just as if Russia during the cold war, had attacked us first we would respond. It would not have been all of the Russian peoples fault that they attacked us, but they WOULD pay the price. It is no different then all of the Muslims in Mecca paying the price for radical Islam.

And again, I would like to make it clear that this would NOT ever be followed through with. It would be a nuclear deterent, just as Russia, China and everyone else knows tat the US has a nuclear deterent. If radical Islam believes that Mecca would be destroyed if they attacked us with a nuke (or chemical/biological weapon) then perhaps that would be enough for them to rethink doing it.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Why does it always have to go nuclear anymore? If the U.S. was going to stage a retaliatory strike on a place like Mecca (I have no idea what purpose that would serve), is Mecca such a hardened target that it would require nuclear weapons? Talk about overkill.

Aelita, is that your studio? I play too, although I sold most of my gear, and I've gotta get some new stuff.



My idea is a retalitory nuclear strike. It would fallow Islams own 'eye for an eye' policy. If there is a simple suicide bomber or something, clearly there is no reason to go nuking Mecca


In fact, there would be no reason to attack Mecca at all. All I am talking about is the threat of responding to a nuke with a nuke.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
quote : You're telling psychos not to use nuclear weapons? If they had that kind of common sense, they probably wouldn't be psychos. Right?


LOL 27jd

good point
lol



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
All I am talking about is the threat of responding to a nuke with a nuke.


I don't think that threat would be a deterrent. It would be an invitation with incentive. What better way to bring about the apocalyptic events that a fire and brimstone type religious man like Bin Laden or his followers are banking on? If we were attacked with a dirty bomb or small nuke and we turned around and just nuked Mecca, not only would we be knowingly killing far more innocents than terrorists, but we would make Bin Laden a god among muslims as well as those who just dislike us because they feel we are already too heavy handed. Think Bin Laden is hard to find now? Wait til there's several billion people who worship him. Not to mention the possibility of triggering an all out nuclear exchange w/Russia, who wouldn't be too happy about us nuking their part of the world to blindly and spitefully lash out at the actions of a criminal organization.

OR

We could not lash out with nukes, show restraint and be almost guaranteed world cooperation in the hunt for those responsible. It would seriously challenge those who currently feel the U.S. is wreckless and a danger to the world if we were to take such a hit and not respond with nukes. Not saying we don't respond, but not with nukes.

I know the first impulse is to fry everybody out of anger. However, not only would that make us as bad as the terrorists, but we would be giving Bin Laden the opportunity to live his dream, an extremely bloody conflict with the U.S. that could result in the end of the world as we know it.




[edit on 12-4-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't think that threat would be a deterrent. It would be an invitation with incentive. What better way to bring about the apocalyptic events that a fire and brimstone type religious man like Bin Laden or his followers are banking on?


Thats the thing. Thats not what he wants. He wants an Islamic world. What better way to threaten that then to tell him we will destroy Islams most important city?



If we were attacked with a dirty bomb or small nuke and we turned around and just nuked Mecca, not only would we be knowingly killing far more innocents than terrorists, but we would make Bin Laden a god among muslims as well as those who just dislike us because they feel we are already too heavy handed. Think Bin Laden is hard to find now? Wait til there's several billion people who worship him. Not to mention the possibility of triggering an all out nuclear exchange w/Russia, who wouldn't be too happy about us nuking their part of the world to blindly and spitefully lash out at the actions of a criminal organization.


First of all, we AREN'T nuking them. That is the whole point! It is the THREAT of nuclear retaliation. Those who think he is a god feel so already, those who understand he is a sick # know so already. The lines are already drawn. And there is no way Russia would even think about gettin into a nuclear exchange with us over this. Why would they do that? They aren't hurt in the least by this action, they hate Islam themselves, plus they value their own lives.




OR

We could not lash out with nukes, show restraint and be almost guaranteed world cooperation in the hunt for those responsible.


Again, I never said we should nuke them - I said we should NOT nuke them. All I said is that if we had a stated policy of retaliating with a nuke, it would provide a deterent.



It would seriously challenge those who currently feel the U.S. is wreckless and a danger to the world if we were to take such a hit and not respond with nukes. Not saying we don't respond, but not with nukes.


And thats exactly what would happen if we did what I wanted too. Plus we have a better chance of NOT getting nuked in the first place.



I know the first impulse is to fry everybody out of anger. However, not only would that make us as bad as the terrorists, but we would be giving Bin Laden the opportunity to live his dream, an extremely bloody conflict with the U.S. that could result in the end of the world as we know it.



Yet again, did you read what I said? You are acting like I wanted to nuke them. By the way, how would Islam get a bloody war against the US? They have no way of atacking us, much less the whole world.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Yeah but AMM, how do you propose to go about 'threatening' them? Should we move ourselves to DEFCON2 or something like Kissinger and Nixon did in 1973? Mobilize our missile boats and play wargames in the persian gulf?

Don't you think the international court of law would see us as having antagonized Iran and arabs in general? I say the answer is yes. We (the USA) already have stated that our policy is pre-emptive warfare. What do you think that means for the Busheir reactor and any tenuous middle east peace?

It is foolish to talk so glibly in regard to nuclear weapons. Would you propose a ground-burst nuke? Something that'd carry lots of lethally irradiated silica into India and beyond? You cannot threaten with nukes because that just makes people's trigger-fingers even more itchy.



[edit on 13-4-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Friends, romans, countrymen.

Who was talking about Nuking anything. Why is bombing automatically associated with nuking? In this day and age you can threaten to destroy a shrine by 'conspiracy weapons' while making it look like a natural disaster. Hell you don't even have to have this weaponry. Psyops can just suggest that an earthquake inducing device (or a meteorite) can be used against one shrines to establish a deterent.

Again I do not propose we go to war against Islam. I just want make people realize that the WTC attack was an attack against a culture and a way of life. Those fundamentalists targeted symbols of the free world which in there minds is the heart of our way of life. Therefore I draw the similarity to attacking Mecca.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Thats the thing. Thats not what he wants. He wants an Islamic world. What better way to threaten that then to tell him we will destroy Islams most important city?


He is also very aware there's no way in hell he's going to convert America, or the west in general. We stand squarely in the way of what he wants, and he and other fundamentalists have made it perfectly clear we are the enemy. How can you not take into account the value extremists place on martyrdom, and why would the most extreme not feel an attack on Mecca to be the ultimate martyrdom to carry out the will of god?



First of all, we AREN'T nuking them. That is the whole point! It is the THREAT of nuclear retaliation.


I'm aware that you mean to threaten. That was my first point, that if they took the threat seriously, it wouldn't be a threat but an invitation. And if they didn't take us seriously what's the point anyway?



And there is no way Russia would even think about gettin into a nuclear exchange with us over this. Why would they do that? They aren't hurt in the least by this action, they hate Islam themselves, plus they value their own lives.


I tend to agree, but I wouldn't say there's no way. That's why I stated the possibility of Russia getting involved, but I guess that's irrelevant if we're just making empty threats.



Yet again, did you read what I said? You are acting like I wanted to nuke them.


No, I know you don't want to nuke them. And again, that's why my first sentence addressed the "threat" issue, then I wandered onto stating my opinion about actually nuking Mecca like a few on ATS have suggested. I guess I should have made it clear I wasn't only addressing you.



By the way, how would Islam get a bloody war against the US? They have no way of atacking us, much less the whole world.


They would probably start by attacking our interests overseas and drawing our soldiers to them, from there who knows where it would go, or who would be on who's side. Whatever would happen, chances are would suck.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Friends, romans, countrymen.

Who was talking about Nuking anything. Why is bombing automatically associated with nuking? In this day and age you can threaten to destroy a shrine by 'conspiracy weapons' while making it look like a natural disaster. Hell you don't even have to have this weaponry. Psyops can just suggest that an earthquake inducing device (or a meteorite) can be used against one shrines to establish a deterent.

Again I do not propose we go to war against Islam. I just want make people realize that the WTC attack was an attack against a culture and a way of life. Those fundamentalists targeted symbols of the free world which in there minds is the heart of our way of life. Therefore I draw the similarity to attacking Mecca.


What's the point of retaliation if it's cloaked in the illusion of a natural disaster? How would it deter any future attacks if we didn't make it known the consequences of attacking us? Only a very select few would know America answered when terrorists came calling?

I understand you're drawing a comparison, but I think the discussion has branched out into actually striking back against Mecca, or creating a policy threatening to do so.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

What's the point of retaliation if it's cloaked in the illusion of a natural disaster? How would it deter any future attacks if we didn't make it known the consequences of attacking us? Only a very select few would know America answered when terrorists came calling?

I understand you're drawing a comparison, but I think the discussion has branched out into actually striking back against Mecca, or creating a policy threatening to do so.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by 27jd]


The threat does not have to be overt but covert. The select few on the other side who know this will then need to excersice a measure of restraint and reassess their methods of attack. This, in essence, will create a new mode of operation. The enemy would understand that they can attack military targets only and off american soil.
If you think Bin Laden calls the shots for Al-Qaida I suspect you are wrong. He will not be able to operate without a base of operations and support from Iran, Syria and other Arab/Muslim countries supporting him. The select few in those same countries could then come to a realization that it would be in their (and the Muslim world's) best interest to turn Bin-Laden and his deranged gang of cohorts in.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join