Max Sinister
Banned
@Aldroud: If VoCSe hadn't reported you, I would've. The world is so lucky that you aren't in charge of the US. Dubya's bad enough, but you prove that some are even worse.
Discussion on Terrorism, September 11th and what could have happened
- Thread starter Darkest
- Start date
Aldroud
Banned
As I you my friend.
My report:
Maybe for you non-military, non-Americans on the board here you just don't understand U.S. policy. For the last 50-some years, the American policy has been 'hit us with a WMD, we hit you back'. The 9/11 attack was the first such instance since the end of WW2. The fact we didn't respond in kind - ACCORDING TO POLICY - leads me to believe future terrorists/ enemy states will think the US won't respond.
A nuclear weapon is a tool. Used appropriately, it is an effective tool. Used inappropriately, and it's one of the more counter-productive tools in the toolbox.
We're all tribesmen with bigger spears now.
Same to you buddy.
Wow. What a knee-jerk reaction. I'm sure SOME folks with certain political leanings will consider this trolling. Meh, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, I'm on the side of angels. But let me ask you this, then. Suppose 15k-20k people HAD died as was first reported. Do you seriously think our response wouldn't have been that much greater?
Max Sinister
Banned
"A nuclear weapon is a tool. Used appropriately, it is an effective tool. Used inappropriately, and it's one of the more counter-productive tools in the toolbox."
So you know that, but don't understand it makes no sense to punish a group of terrorists who come from several different countries by throwing a nuke on a city which people happen to have the same religion as the terrorists?
It's not that the king of Saudi Arabia had commanded Al Qaida to attack the US.
So you know that, but don't understand it makes no sense to punish a group of terrorists who come from several different countries by throwing a nuke on a city which people happen to have the same religion as the terrorists?
It's not that the king of Saudi Arabia had commanded Al Qaida to attack the US.
Aldroud
Banned
AQ was tied into the government of the Taliban if you're seeking justification. I'd rather see tacnucs used on training camps/mountain caves, but as I said, I don't think the specifics of the targeting are that concerning.
CBS News Linky
And the ever popular Wiki
Am I the only one who finds this damning on the part of the Taliban?
CBS News Linky
And the ever popular Wiki
Am I the only one who finds this damning on the part of the Taliban?
Why, hello there, little facho boy! So, you think that the bomb is a suitable tool?
How about we detonante one in a city of YOUR OWN country? After all, if they all think like you, it is REALLY the Empire of Evil.
GTFO, facho brute.
How about we detonante one in a city of YOUR OWN country? After all, if they all think like you, it is REALLY the Empire of Evil.
GTFO, facho brute.
Hendryk
Banned
What WMD? 9/11, correct me if I'm wrong, was conducted with jetliners. If a Boeing is a WMD, then every last two-bit country in the world has WMDs.
I notice that to you, nuking random people out of spite qualifies as an appropriate use of nuclear weapons. And then you act all surprised when we express our gratitude that you're nowhere near the big red button...
You may mean this in jest, but unfortunately in your case it's all too true. Your ethics are straight out of the Stone Age.
Of course. You're American. How could an American not be on the side of angels, even when he advocates nuking random people?
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
There's 3 big problems with that argument here, genius:
1) Using nuclear weapons against "a city or two" would have been many times more destructive than 9/11.
2) Have you ever heard of the notion of war crimes?
3) Just who the fuck were you going to bomb?
I won't waste my time listing the consequences of such an act.
"Knee-jerk reaction"? "Certain political leanings"? "The side of the angels"? Let me ask you something: Do you ever leave that ideological hole you've dug yourself into?
BTW, I can't wait to see which one of us Ian's going to punish.
Hendryk
Banned
No, of course, why would they? Those ragheads are all the same. Afghanistan, Iraq, what's the difference?
Aldroud
Banned
Hendryk
Banned
Well then, best to preemptively nuke every country in the world that has an airliner.
Aldroud
Banned
Well, it'll certainly be refreshing if we have an impartial review. Of course, I tend to note that certain political beliefs are granted greater leniency, e.g. it's okay to advocate shooting the Vice Presidents nuts off or opening wishing for the assasination of President Bush withour repercussion. So I have little doubt that the moral liberal outrage demonstated by the postings here will weigh against me.
Meh, the First Amendment only applies to governments, not private citizens or organizations.
George Bush is in the White House and all is right with my world.
Hendryk
Banned
I'm sure he sees himself as very brave, taking us vicious liberal pack dogs all by himself. But then, some principles have to be defended even against all odds. The right to invade whichever country is less powerful than yours, the right to throw nukes around to express your displeasure, etc... Where would we all be if such incontrovertible moral imperatives were left undefended?
Flocculencio
Donor
Well, what can you expect from someone who describes himself as a fascist. Gotta love fascists* who've grown up in liberal democracies- they clearly haven't got a fucking clue what they're talking about. Wonder how Aldroud here would have fared had he been born in an actual fascist country.
*and, to be fair, political extremists of any stripe
MrP
Banned
Now that made me laugh.
I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care. Nothing says don't fuck with me like a mushroom cloud and if ever there was a case to use one, 9/11 was it. You hit us with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit right back. Seems we held back and thus encouraged resistance.
If the planes had hit around 11 AM or if the initial reports of 15k+ dead were accurate, I wonder if we would have vaporized a city or two.
Good Lord, man. That's a truly frightening thing to say.
Nuclear weapons are not weapons of first resort, but of last resort. And to be employed when other options are unavailable or impractical.*
Suggesting dropping a nuke on a city without even ascertaining the peripheral involvement of the inhabitants is just insane. Fundamentalism would go through the roof. The concept of using nuclear weapons as a suppressive measure is one I'm only familiar with thanks to MacArthur - and even he wanted to use them on the enemy Army.
I'm very surprised at your choice of the phrase "knee-jerk reaction" to describe the reaction people are having to your suggestion. If America had responded to the attacks by firing off nuclear missiles that obliterated a few cities in the Middle East - no matter what the country - that would have been a "knee-jerk reaction." A most unwise one, too.
EDIT: * And even then I don't like their application.
Aldroud
Banned
See, this is the part I love about liberals. Don't discuss the argument/counter-argument, take the other position to absurd extremes. Please point to anywhere in my posts I said I advocated nuking a random Islamic country. I believe what I said was
I think that pretty much states I'm NOT advocating ANY target in particular.
If you seek to use my words, please use them precisely. I said I was a libertarian fascist. Let me spell that out for you: Libertarian-------a great deal of the political spectrum-----fascism. My beliefs cover a pretty wide range and can be found across the spectrum, so I prefer not to be pinned down by some two-second soundbite of a political position, to wit: neo-con. Far too constraining for my beliefs.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Oh, so just drop it somewhere, doesn't matter where as long as the camel-jockeys burn. Yes, that's much more rational.
How 'bout Bucharest, there are some Arabs and Turks there? Try to target the south-east specificaly, that's where my neighborhood lies and it has a sizable Muslim community. Or how about the town of Techirghiol, home to a large number of Turks and Tatars (as well as my maternal grandparents)?
Last edited:
Oh, I see, that makes it so much better.
NOT
The target doesn't matter as long as you nuke someone, does it? Not even an attempt to distinguish between civilians and military, ally and foe? Just a callous contempt for human life? There is no argument or counter-argument to be made because what you're advocating is ludicrous in the extreme--it is genocide, whether you like to admit or not.
Aldroud, you really are naive--quit playing the martyr, because you dug your own grave. Like Flocculencio, I pray to God that the majority of the US military is made up of people like Baldie and Matt, rather than you.
NOT
The target doesn't matter as long as you nuke someone, does it? Not even an attempt to distinguish between civilians and military, ally and foe? Just a callous contempt for human life? There is no argument or counter-argument to be made because what you're advocating is ludicrous in the extreme--it is genocide, whether you like to admit or not.
Aldroud, you really are naive--quit playing the martyr, because you dug your own grave. Like Flocculencio, I pray to God that the majority of the US military is made up of people like Baldie and Matt, rather than you.