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.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
You would be better served spending your time learning than focusing your "fury".
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.
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.
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.
So you are saying muslims are stupid enough because they indentify with a building? that is extremely condescending don't you think?
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.
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
All I am talking about is the threat of responding to a nuke with a nuke.
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?
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.
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?
First of all, we AREN'T nuking them. That is the whole point! It is the THREAT of nuclear retaliation.
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.
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.
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.
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]