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.

 

TERRORISM: France Defends Right To Nuclear Reply To Terrorism

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
All other things aside, Chirac is a politician and pretty much anything he says publicly has a political motivation. If it is true that this has nothing to do with Iran, he must have some need for conservative support. Considering his history it is probably difficult for him to get the backing of conservatives for anything and it takes a dramatic public gesture to get any at all. If this announcement was motivated by something other than that he probably would have been more specific. It seems to me that whenever a politician is vague it’s to hide their real purpose in what they say or do. I wonder if an important vote is coming up?




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Wait...

So if I attack France, they are going to launch an Nuclear Weapon on the United Kingdom? Surely, they should mean if any STATE or STATE SPONSORED terrorist organisation. Because the idea of attacking a Nation that didn't do the action itself seems wrong to me.

[edit on 19/1/2006 by Odium]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
After reading more in depth stories on this, the quotes were very reasonable...
he said they MIGHT respond that way if it was warranted...

and to that, I agree...

threatening to blow up a country like afghanistan for an action like 9-11 would have been stupid and irresponsible though...
which seemed to be the gist of the controversy...

all is calm... game on...



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
If it ever comes to this and the French launch a nuclear attack against a "terror-sponsoring state"... I really hope they got more solid evidence than what Bush had when he started the war in Iraq. Actually this is not a contest of who is worse, US or France. The point is that by launching a nuclear attack against anybody for whatever reason, you put the whole world at risk. There will always be those who will question the validity of the "evidence" which would justify such action.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
and you people bitch about the US wanting to start a nuclear holocaust. we only fight fire with fire. the only time we'll even think about breaking out the nukes is if someone nukes us frist. but the french....damn....i didnt think they had the balls.


now of course the rest of the EU will condem this and then the other countries will have anti nuclear protests and such then france will apologize and continue to test it weapons in the desert.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
.............
Now, if France attacks a creates a war of choice, we are under no obligation to help them, just as they chose not to help us in Iraq.


Oh I see, if it had been the U.S making this comment your response would have been to bash and blame the U.S. for saying this...but it is ok for France to do this..... the double standards I tell you...


Originally posted by curme
.....................
Being a New Yorker, I can't believe that Iraq has made everyone forget who helped us get the guys that attacked us.


Oh really?... and why do you forget the findings of intelligence services in other countries? Countries such as Spain, the Czech Republic and even Russia, that Iraq was planning on making terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and these countries presented evidence that there were elements within the Iraqi regime that were in contact with Al Qaeda terrorists, and even one of the terrorists involved in 9/11 which was put on trial in Spain and found by a Spaniard judge to have been helped by the Iraqi embassy....

How easily do you forget this, and how fast you, and others like you, start yelling, bashing and blaming the U.S..... But now, France makes a statement that they will use an atomic bomb to respond to terrorist attacks, and it appears that at least some of these same people that were so eager to bash and blame the U.S., are willing to accept this from France.....



[edit on 19-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
After reading more in depth stories on this, the quotes were very reasonable...
he said they MIGHT respond that way if it was warranted...

and to that, I agree...


......


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
threatening to blow up a country like afghanistan for an action like 9-11 would have been stupid and irresponsible though...
which seemed to be the gist of the controversy...

all is calm... game on...


Hold on a second....let me get this straight.... You first say that it is alright for France to use a nuclear weapon if any terrorist attacks are sucessful there....and then you say that the U.S. using a nuclear weapon against Afghanistan for the attacks of 9/11 would have been stupid and irresponsible?.....

WTF???????

First, you are contradicting yourself..... Second, you are saying that it is alright for France to respond in this manner but the U.S. should not do this?....... and then there are people around these forums that say that they don't hate the U.S........

BTW, imo I don't think any country should be using nuclear weapons as a response if they are attacked by terrorists.

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   


"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said


Sounds like he's talking to the US and Israel.

After all, no country or nation has used terrorism to attack anyone. Bin Laden and Al-Zaraqwi don't work for any President or King do they?

The only leaders of state who use terrorist means on other nations would be America and Israel if you consider CIA and Mossad psy-ops as terrorism.

Now ask yourself, why would Iran want to attack France unprevoked? There's no reason, so why would Chirac be talking to them? Russia? Nope. Palistine? As if. Hmmm....



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

After all, no country or nation has used terrorism to attack anyone.

Not true. In what has been called "the worlds first terror attack", in 1807 the Brittish performed a terror attack against Denmark when they bombarded Copenhagen. It was done to terrorise the civil population there and break down the moral or something. They used warships to bombard Copenhagen.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   
All this nuke talk and suprisingly the Doomsday clock hasn't ticked closer to midnight.


2002 | Seven minutes to midnight

Little progress is made on global nuclear disarmament. The United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Terrorists seek to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons.


Red skies at night comes to mind.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
War and the french excert ... Algerian Rebellion
Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French."

Let's just not mention that shortly after the French had a humiliating withdrawal due to brown colored guerillas in Algeria, the US had an equally humiliating withdrawal as well due to yellow colored guerillas wearing pijamas in Vietnam. Laugh all you want.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
so, let's say that Paris was hit in a fashion like Madrid or London were hit.

who gets the nuke?

Do they sit around playing eeny meeny miny meaux
catch a muslim by the teaux
this is where the nuke will geaux
eeny meeny miny meaux



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The French response to a terrorist attack is very alarming.

Given France's history, what does France (and other governments) know that we common folk will never find out?

France is very passive towards it's enemies so for Chirac to say this is way out of left field. In fact, it's not even in the stadium. It's out in the parking lot close to the road.

(Opinion Alert) Leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 911, those in the know had to make an effort to not notice the obvious signs.

It almost seems that one of those "efforts" is about to take place.

Honestly, if it took Osama years of planning and millions of dollars to pull off 911, I'm not impressed. Given his resources, one would think he could have had a much higher impact.

I guess he is to caught up in our national symbols to understand that it's the loss of life that really effects us. Although we are the most materialistic nation on earth, Osama overestimates it's importance in comparision to human life.

If I were an evil-doer in September of 2001, I would have gone straight for the NFL stadiums on opening day. Your looking at 30,000 dead per stadium.

I hate to be a fear mongol. We've been tricked into being afraid over and over again. But it seems this time, the government is simply brushing it off. A real "yeah, whatever" attitude. Is this what Osama has been waiting for?

An attack on the US now would nullify some coming pressures.

Without making wild speculation, it's hard to say what is going to happen or when. If the weatherman says its going to rain everyday, sonner or later he will be right. That's not my idea of a "hit."

My guess?

A city in the US is about to suffer some sort of WMD. The city to evacuate isnt in the United States. It's in Iran. Tehran.

If such an attack occurs in the US and I lived in Tehran, I'd get out. Run for the hills and don't look back, Literally.

The writing was on the wall leading up to Pearl Harbor and 911. And it's on the wall right now.

The specifics are still up in the air but it's clear to me what the intentions are of Osama and the US government.

If you believe in the duck tape theory, you better go buy afew cases right now.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
so, let's say that Paris was hit in a fashion like Madrid or London were hit.

Who says that's all it takes for them to start nuking? All we have right now is Chirac saying nuclear retalliation is possible, not that he has an itchy thumb near the red button.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666Who says that's all it takes for them to start nuking? All we have right now is Chirac saying nuclear retalliation is possible, not that he has an itchy thumb near the red button.


I was pointing out the stupidity of the French stance. If you attack us, we have the right to nuke you. It's nonsense as the only thing you can do to hurt these people is take away their funding. they don't have homes. osama's living in an f'n cave. Nuke it. Nuke it twice. Big whoop.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
France has (for once) the correct response. The only way
to get a bully not to attack you is to make it very clear that
they won't survive the attack.

Good for France.


Only thing ... do they actually have the guts and smarts
to push the nuclear button? I certainly hope so.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
some of these same people that were so eager to bash and blame the U.S., are willing to accept this from France.


Yep. Just proves the point .. some folks are anti-anything-america-does
and pro-anything-leftist-countries-do. It doesn't matter what the 'thing'
is ... if America does it, it's wrong, but if left-wing Europe does it, it's
good.


Glad you caught that Muaddib.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
France has (for once) the correct response. The only way
to get a bully not to attack you is to make it very clear that
they won't survive the attack.

Good for France.


Only thing ... do they actually have the guts and smarts
to push the nuclear button? I certainly hope so.




what makes you think this would act as a deterrant. Do you think Osama's sitting in his cave talking to his crew and saying "ooh france is going to nuke someone if we bomb a cafe. we should avoid them now"?

as I said, there is no nation to nuke so it's nothing more than an idle threat. Even if an attack took place and the terror organization was linked to a nation such as Iran, they wouldn't nuke them. It wouldn't be accepted on the global level. Do the citizens of Iran, the majority of whom apparently want a more western type democracy and who would embrace the west if not for the lunatic fringe leading them, deserve to die?



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
[what makes you think this would act as a deterrant.


Because the terrorist leaders always send others to die, but they
never put themselves in harms way. If suddenly they were threatened
with certain death from a battlefield nuke ... their cowardice would come
shining through for all their followers to (finally) see.

I agree with you on Iran. I don't think France would have to use
a battlefield sized nuke over there. MOST of young Iran wants
no part of the wing nutz running the place and they'd rather have
MTV than fight a 'holy' war. Iran will have a civil war soon, and the
youth will rise up against the religious nutz running things.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by curme
.............
Now, if France attacks a creates a war of choice, we are under no obligation to help them, just as they chose not to help us in Iraq.


Oh I see, if it had been the U.S making this comment your response would have been to bash and blame the U.S. for saying this...but it is ok for France to do this..... the double standards I tell you...

[edit on 19-1-2006 by Muaddib]


There is no double standard. If someone attacks us, or France, we both are justified to retaliate. Even help one another, as in after 9/11 when France helped us in Afghanistan.

Now if France wants to create conflict with nations that pose no threat to them, we are under no obligation to help. Just as they are in obligation to help us when we start attacking nations for no justifiable reason, as in Iraq.

What's so hard to understand?




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join