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.

 

New Policy on terrorism

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Everyone remembers MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) back during the cold war, if anyone dared to set off a nuke would be nuked in return.
What if the US had a policy that stated if a dirty bomb/nuke or other WMD was detonated by a terrorist in the US, then Mecca would be nuked.
This is not a conventional war, though the terrorists may be getting funding from dirty governments under the table there are no actual countries to counterattack, so the ones funding have an easy out. And the terrorists say themselves that its a "Holy War" so instead of attacking a country we attack their "Holy sites".I think MAD would be as effective as it was against communism.

What do other people think? And do you have a better idea for a deterrent?




posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
How would you know if the bomb was planted by islamic terrorists, or by someone else?



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
you dont think al quaseda or what ever would not be screaming from the mountians if they auctually pulled this off? instead of the 15 minute tape they would probably release a 2 hour long documentary just to prove to the world that it was them that pulled it off.

anyway, im not trying to say dropping the bomb would be the right thing, but do you think it would stop them? or at least make them stop and think?

[edit on 18-6-2004 by TurtleTrooper]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

What if the US had a policy that stated if a dirty bomb/nuke or other WMD was detonated by a terrorist in the US, then Mecca would be nuked.


How can you possibly suggest this!? Do you think that all Muslims are terrorists or something? Killing millions of innocents at Mecca would be absolutely mad. Not only would every Muslim in the world hate the US but most non-Muslims would as well.

It seems to be an increasing common mentality amongst Americans that using nuclear weapons will solve all problems.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Honestly I don't believe these people care one bit about Mecca. They just use religion as a tool/excuse. If you nuke Mecca they'd just use that as a way of motivating more terrorists. No one in the world would be safe.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
In my opinion, if any type of nuke bomb detonates in the United States you can bet the CIA has some role in it.

There hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11 that were major, so any that are coming will be allowed by the CIA for their own purposes. I don't think the United States would retaliate with nukes either, because there is more money to be made from a conventional war.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
What if the bomb was set and detonated. Then American thought okay then we shall blow up mecca now, then mecca gets blow and we realise it wasn't them....?

Also terrorists are not TRUE muslims, but brainwashed meat. Reglion always spawns its brainwashed meat, they are a minority but unfortunatly these have been trained by elite western forces and have weapons! Media Brainwashed meat is now starting to infect the American and British public. Soon it will be the blind vs the blind.

Punishing the innocent many for the evils of the few is NEVER a good way to go.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
While I think the CIA is one of the dirtiest organizations ever to exist on this planet I don't think they'd be dumb enough to detonate a nuke type device in this country. IF it were found that they did do such a thing it would justify the removal (by force) of our own government. I don't think they would jeopardize and overthrow of our government for the sake of... well.. for whatever reason.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
hey man, they hate us already, how about we stop acting like abused dogs and go on the record and tell them what the deal is. OBVIOUSLY not all muslims are terrorists, but so far all the JIHAD terrorists have been muslim. And the point of the thread is that IF WE HAD THAT POLICY, WOULD IT STOP THEM FROM PLANNING IT? I mean thats what their fighting for, we fight for our freedom and country, they fight for "GOD", lets hit gods house and see how they like it.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I don't think they would jeopardize and overthrow of our government for the sake of... well.. for whatever reason.
The CIA is the United States' real Government. It is part of the shadow Government, the one that directs all policy abroad as well as at home. They are complicit, I believe, in the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands. I believe they'd be willing to further those types of attacks to create a continuance of the current agenda.

I think I read somwhere that one of the Bush's, Bush, Jr. or Bush, Sr., as saying they needed a CIA that could slit a man's throat. As soon as I saw the Nick Berg video being played all across the news, that comment is all I could think about.

The CIA will never be found guilty for reason I mentioned, maybe only certain people would take the blame, and that would be it. They have their hand if every major media network, so all is controlled by them. The CIA is not dumb but one of the smartest organizations which has access to advanced tools of warfare, psychological, biological and chemical.

Don't be so fast to dismiss the power of this organization.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The Berg killing did have CIA written all over. They won't ever get convicted because they control the evidence and they can classify anything that makes them look bad. So the simple act of having the evidence is then a crime.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
TT,
I know what you are trying to say - we need some form of deterrence against terrorism. But unfortunately, history has shown us that terrorism is usually not deterred by organizations or governments who refuse to deviate from the rules of "civilized" warfare. We must somehow "take the gloves off" against these terrorists, but not add any more fuel to the fire by inciting the wrath of those people with nothing against us who just so happen to be muslims.

We are bound by our own laws, which are constructed and enforced by people who do not, as a rule, believe in murder and unnecessary destruction, especially to innocents. However, our current enemies are of a special breed; fueled by religious righteousness and living in the squalor of the third world, their concepts of life, death, right and wrong are not compatible with ours. They are willing to suspend their own morality in the name of what they believe is right - while we are not willing to do the same.

I believe that if it is readily apparent, to us and the rest of the world community, that there is a world-wide terrorist organization that a) wants to destroy us b) has already murdered our citizens c) refuses to negotiate d) receives either support or sympathy from other countries, organizations and states.....that we should deal with them and those who support them in EQUAL and MEASURED responses.

Having the moral high ground and not resorting to murder is always preferable, until innocent people start dying on national TV. (at this point, lets just leave Iraqw out of this - I'm only referring to terrorists like AL Queda). The terrorists have to know that if they lift a hand against us, then the consequences will be exceptionally harsh, perhaps even more harsh than they are willing to except. Now Im not saying that nuclear weapons should be involved here, UNLESS some state or country can be shown to have directly supported a terrorist attack against us. For example, hypothetically, if it was shown that Iran played a major role in supporting the 911 bombers (financially, training, logistics, intelligence, etc.) then I believe that a response would be required. A major response, perhaps even a small nuclear weapon against a strategic or economic target.

Innocent people gonna die? You bet. But you know what, that would have been the fault of the governing officials of that country for getting involved with terrorists, not ours. We are going to have to face the fact that if these terrorists continue to plan and execute 911 style attacks against us and our allies, we are going to have to get blood on our own hands to stop them. We should start by killing all known friends and family members of known and wanted terrorists. It may be a small response, like assassinating a senior member of a government or foreign company. It may be larger, like haveing a US sub torpedo a ship that was shown to have transported material supplies to for a terrorist organization. Maybe we shoot down an airliner carrying a group of wanted terrorists who figure they are safe flying with the general public. Maybe we have to nuke a small city. It all depends on the provocation. Pretty soon the terrorists start to think that they are never going to be safe, nor will their friends and family will be safe, or even their homeland. Get them thinking like this and maybe it will deter them.

However, it seems very likely that we will have to endure many more 911's before this way of thinking becomes acceptable. Until then, stand by to get your nose bloodied.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
"The CIA is the United States' real Government. It is part of the shadow Government, the one that directs all policy abroad as well as at home. They are complicit, I believe, in the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands. I believe they'd be willing to further those types of attacks to create a continuance of the current agenda".

Man oh man, now there is some high-quality bovine manure! Where did you learn about the CIA? From TV?



[edit on 18-6-2004 by Pyros]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
thanks pyros, you understand what im trying to explain. They never had the gloves on, and we are fighting with them on, and with one hand behind our back.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurtleTrooper
hey man, they hate us already, how about we stop acting like abused dogs and go on the record and tell them what the deal is. OBVIOUSLY not all muslims are terrorists, but so far all the JIHAD terrorists have been muslim. And the point of the thread is that IF WE HAD THAT POLICY, WOULD IT STOP THEM FROM PLANNING IT? I mean thats what their fighting for, we fight for our freedom and country, they fight for "GOD", lets hit gods house and see how they like it.

1. Not ALL Muslims hate the people of the United States. There are millions of Muslims who live in the U.S. and even more Muslims around the world who are against violence and terrorism. Do you honestly think that murdering thousands or millions of innocent men, women and children would decrease the threat of terrorist attacks on us? Talk about fuel for their fire!! Non-Muslims and quakers would even be enlisting as suicide bombers if we did something that horrific!

2. The United States and the Muslim religion have plenty of common enemies who would love to see Mecca reduced to ash. Adopting this type of strategy would provide them with the perfect opportunity to, say, detonate a dirty bomb in the US, and claim responsibility on behalf of al-Qaeda. Hell, al-Qaeda didn't even have to claim to be behind the 9/11 attacks, like they have in their other ones, in order to be accused of it. Do you not think there are equally fanatical people out their who hate Arabs and Islam enough to use such a policy for their own ends?

When in the hell did sinking to the level of your enemies, become such a popular thing to consider? We are supposed to hold fast to our principles and set an example for others who don't live in a "free" society, especially when those principles are challenged. How are we any different or better than the terrorists if we throw everything we are SUPPOSED to stand for, out the window the minute our resolve is tested? ...if we resort to killing innocent human beings, in a contest of bloody knuckles, against an opponent who places no value on life?

I believe that it would be better for 10,000 of us, myself included, to suffer at the hands of some asshole terrorists, than for 1,000 innocent people to suffer at our hands, for no reason other than the fact that we had sunk to the same reprehensible level as the terrorists.
That's probably not going to be a very popular opinion, and I'm not saying that I value one person's life more than another's, it's just the way I see the situation. Murder does not justify murder! Maybe if we start following policies like this, we should start executing the families of murderers in order to deter murder, as well! Now there's an idea!!



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
most "muslem" countries alreadyhate the us. Many muslem clerics teach them from the youngest age to hate and want to kill americans. well, if that is ok, then it should be ok to teach all americans to hate muslems and want to kill them from the youngest age-fair is fair. If they send terriosts groups to bomb and kill americans, then it is ok to send our terriosts (cia) to bomb and kill them too. Oh, i don't know, something like for every american found dead, they might find an equal number of muslems dead the next day-no claims to credit. for every building bombed, the next day a mosk should get blown up0no credit. Wouldn't take too long for them to get the message, and if they don't the rest would explain it to them.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   


When in the hell did sinking to the level of your enemies, become such a popular thing to consider? We are supposed to hold fast to our principles and set an example for others who don't live in a "free" society, especially when those principles are challenged. How are we any different or better than the terrorists if we throw everything we are SUPPOSED to stand for, out the window the minute our resolve is tested? ...if we resort to killing innocent human beings, in a contest of bloody knuckles, against an opponent who places no value on life?


I dont know what you stand for, but im for defending myself. im not gonna let some dirtbags bomb us then hide while we just sit there. I had a math teacher in highschool whos best lesson was this "Kids remember, theres no such thing as a fair fight. If someones coming after you go for their balls"

and sometimes its necessary for innocent people to die. No one likes to see it (except for terrorists). but for example ww2 if we did not bomb japan who knows how many people would have died taking that island. My grandfather was a lt col during ww2 and he fought all over, and im glad we "sunk to their level" and nuked them or my grandfater could have died taking that freaking island. did kamakize pilots have any value in life? it worked on them.

in conclusion, im saying we need to raise the price of killing americans so high that they cant pay it, aka nuke a terrorists hometown any time we are attacked.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   


I believe that it would be better for 10,000 of us, myself included, to suffer at the hands of some terrorists, than for 1,000 innocent people to suffer at our hands, for no reason other than the fact that we had sunk to the same reprehensible level as the terrorists.


THAT IS SUICIDAL AND SELFISH YOU CANT JUST LET THIS STUFF GO ON! YOU SAY "MYSELF INCLUDED" BUT YOU HAVE NO WAY OF PICKING WHOS FIRST.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by TurtleTrooper]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Man oh man, now there is some high-quality bovine manure! Where did you learn about the CIA? From TV?
Actually, no, I did not learn about the CIA from the dumb-box TV. I learned about this organization from the Internet, not from networks that are controlled by the CIA themselves.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurtleTrooper
I dont know what you stand for, but im for defending myself. im not gonna let some dirtbags bomb us then hide while we just sit there. I had a math teacher in highschool who's best lesson was this "Kids remember, there's no such thing as a fair fight. If someone's coming after you go for their balls"

I have no problem with going after the "dirtbags" who are responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians. I think that we should be furiously pursuing any and all of the animals which have killed and terrorized our country and its people. The difference in strategies between your proposed strategy, and the advice of you former teacher, however, is: Your teacher said to kick the one who's attacking you in the balls; You've suggested that, if you are being attacked by fanatical Catholics, you should retaliate by kicking the Pope in the balls.


and sometimes its necessary for innocent people to die. No one likes to see it (except for terrorists). but for example ww2 if we did not bomb japan who knows how many people would have died taking that island. My grandfather was a lt col during ww2 and he fought all over, and im glad we "sunk to their level" and nuked them or my grandfather could have died taking that freaking island. did kamikaze pilots have any value in life? it worked on them.

I don't really expect to change your opinion on whether we were justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians, or not, but I would like to mention a couple things you may or may not have heard before.

The Japanese army was all but defeated in June, 1945 and their government was seeking Russia's help to end the war in July 1945. The U.S. was aware of this at the time thru intercepted Japanese cables. But the U.S. did not keep up with this change in Japan's position. Link

Many of the top ranking military, government, and scientific officials prior to our use of the A-bombs, agreed that the destruction of Japanese cities by means of atomic bombs... could not be justified in the present circumstances. Link

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
--ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

And if you think they weren't TRYING to nuke Japanese civilians, think again.
Target Committee, Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945
" Dr. Stearns...has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification:
(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter,
(2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and
(3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise...
It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance...In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed...

in conclusion, im saying we need to raise the price of killing Americans so high that they cant pay it, aka nuke a terrorists hometown any time we are attacked.

As I alluded to earlier, if you are willing to adopt this kind of primitive thinking in regards to foreign murderers, then you must also apply it to domestic murderers. They are just as guilty of terrorizing their victims and their victims' families, as foreign terrorists are. Just not on such a large scale, usually.
If a terrorist/murderer came from your hometown, would you consent to the town being destroyed, and everyone with it, in retaliation for their crimes? If not, then how can you condone the use of such measures against anyone else?

THAT IS SUICIDAL AND SELFISH YOU CANT JUST LET THIS STUFF GO ON! YOU SAY "MYSELF INCLUDED" BUT YOU HAVE NO WAY OF PICKING WHO'S FIRST.

I never said the perpetrators of the crimes and their accompli should be given carte blanche to murder and torture people at will! I said that I don't think we could ever be justified in destroying innocent lives just because someone else was hateful enough to do it to us. I would never want those I love to call for the destruction of an entire town because I was killed by the hatred, ignorance, and fear of someone that once lived there. To do that would be truly selfish.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join