Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2 - Page 2

JimmyCracksCorn · December 31, 2003, 23:43

Quote:

Excuse me, but what half the world are you speaking about? Even if you could claim all Americans and all Jews and all Hindus hated Muslims, that gets you 20% of the world. You are missing 30% there.

Because when he said half, he was relying on the results of a complex equation out of which he computed that exactly 50% of the worlds population was pissed off. It wasn't just a colloquialism or anything...

GePap · December 31, 2003, 23:49

Use better colloquilisms.

Sprayber · December 31, 2003, 23:58

What I want to know is, why exactly would the US care what any other country would have to say on the matter if an American city was destroyed in some manner. I mean really, why would we need their permission or approval to respond in whatever manner we wanted. It would be nice to think that other people would look on an American city being destroyed as a bad thing, but their approval at such a time would not matter.

Some people take delight in reminding us how brutal America can be when it needs to. I dont think we have seen anything compared to what you will see if such an event were to take place. For good or for bad, things would fundamentally change in this country far more than what has taken place. It wounldnt be pretty for us or for the people that would fall under the wraith of the United States. It's not arrogance that makes me say that, it's just how it would be.

Sprayber · January 1, 2004, 00:00

Oh yeah, as to the likelyhood of such an thing happening. I'm not exactly convinced of it. If I were going to New York over that time period, this news would not concern me much. I'd be more worried about being mugged there by a New Yorker

GePap · January 1, 2004, 00:08

I would really love someone to post a plausible scenerio of the great terror we would inflict after such an act.. i really am interested becuase for all the big talk of great terror, I can't even imagine a halfway plausible set of actions that would not end up making the situation far worse than even the nuking of a city would be.

The nuking of a city would not even make it the greatest horror of the decade, given that the Rwandan genocide ( 1 million in 3 months) was in 1994...and the Tutsi did not go around countermassacring Hutus (which meant eventually the 1.5 million people who fled in fear of such an act came back). I would weep for the US if we proved outselves less civilized than the victims of an attempted genocide in Central Africa.

Capt Dizle · January 1, 2004, 00:12

People from many parts of the world say we have no culture in America. Well, I don't really care. We have a lot of guns, a lot of nukes and a lot of bucks. And we know how to use them.

When my forebearers from the South kicked Yankee butt time after time those hardheaded northerns just reacted by more and more stiff neck sacrifice. Stonewall was after killing them all. Which pretty much would have been the only way to beat them.

The more terror attacks against the US, the more resolution the US will have to attack terror.

Capt Dizle · January 1, 2004, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I would really love someone to post a plausible scenerio of the great terror we would inflict after such an act.. i really am interested becuase for all the big talk of great terror, I can't even imagine a halfway plausible set of actions that would not end up making the situation far worse than even the nuking of a city would be.

The nuking of a city would not even make it the greatest horror of the decade, given that the Rwandan genocide ( 1 million in 3 months) was in 1994...and the Tutsi did not go around countermassacring Hutus (which meant eventually the 1.5 million people who fled in fear of such an act came back). I would weep for the US if we proved outselves less civilized than the victims of an attempted genocide in Central Africa.

You are talking like a numb nuts. Far worse for whom? Do you think that the voters in Peoria give a rat's ass about Central Africa. Do yout think they would give a rat's ass about Syria if it happens to end up glowing in the dark for the next 10,000 years? Not hardly.

St Leo · January 1, 2004, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
and something tells me the muslem world will end up suffering more in the long run.

Increasing the suffering in the Muslim world is the self-professed objective of the Al-Qaeda.

Quote:

The world would probably not really care what our response was.

After all, murder of innocents is such a perfect justification for murder of more innocents.

Whoha · January 1, 2004, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Excuse me, but what half the world are you speaking about? Even if you could claim all Americans and all Jews and all Hindus hated Muslims, that gets you 20% of the world. You are missing 30% there.

I am still ballfed. How is the killing of 3000 people by one group of likeminded political terro groups all of a sudden an indictment on 1.2 billion people? Anyone who thinks like that thinks just like the terrorists- and that is not some empty headed gov. crap, but the simple truth- people who are unable to seperate and distinguish the actions of certain poltiical entities from the people they either claim to recognize, or recognize legally is just the sort of person that decides to murder other simply for being what they are.

forgetting about Russia, China, and an increasingly anti-immigrant Europe there aren't you?

Killing 3000 isn't an indictment on 1.2 billion people, however if and when millions die it will be.

Vince278 · January 1, 2004, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yes... total BS...

But, assuming they did... they would raise the battle to the next level... and something tells me the muslem world will end up suffering more in the long run. The world would probably not really care what our response was.

We are in total agreement for a change.

Sprayber · January 1, 2004, 00:40

I dont think many people would be in a forgiving mood after several million people have been killed.

Vince278 · January 1, 2004, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Hey let them nuke NY. Just evacuate everyone except the members of the NY Giants.

There... everyone's happy.

Vince278 · January 1, 2004, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
and something tells me the muslem world will end up suffering more in the long run.

Increasing the suffering in the Muslim world is the self-professed objective of the Al-Qaeda.

True. That breeds more militants who think we are to blame for all their problems. The real shame is that they are running the good name of Islam into the ground.

Vince278 · January 1, 2004, 01:03

Groundhog's Day?!?!? Those barbarians!

(and the anniversary of my wife and I's first date)

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2004, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The point I'm making is that such an act would remove any possible support they have in the western world...
Sure, a bunch of extremists would dance in the streets, but frankly, that would be it. The rest of the civilized world would be against them... and this would allow action by the United States that would never have been considered before. The war on terror would rise to new levels never seen before, because if they could nuke one city, NO COUNTRY would be safe.

I say if something like that happens, we should leave Mecca, Medina, and every Arab capital glowing in the dark for the next million years. Oh, and gas the Palestinians.

Nubclear · January 1, 2004, 01:07

Only the Palestinians?

Are you anti-semite or something?

Q Classic · January 1, 2004, 01:11

excellent.

now all they need to do is take care of LA, and then CHICAGO CAN REIGN SUPREME!!!!!!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Kuciwalker · January 1, 2004, 01:11

No, just it would solve the Mideast problem. It's difficult for, say, Yemen to send suicide bombers to Israel.

Especially when they're radioactive sludge.

HalfLotus · January 1, 2004, 01:56

Why do so many Americans think it doesn't matter what the muslim world and the rest of the world thinks of our policies? It's always like, well, so and so pissed us off so we're gonna do whatever we damn well please in response. If we exercised a little more tact and restraint in international affairs, others may be less inclined to blow up our major metropolitan centers.

And newsflash, scaring people into submission with our big bad weapons doesn't work on fundamentalists. Winning muslim hearts and minds will make us alot safer from future terrorists attacks than waving our guns around. An ouce of prevention is worth a pound of cure you know.

Anyways, I don't think this particular threat is real, but nuking the Middle East into oblivion wouldn't make me feel better about losing an entire city worth of Americans.

Nubclear · January 1, 2004, 01:57

If they got rid of LA, they'd be doing us a big huge favor

GePap · January 1, 2004, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
I dont think many people would be in a forgiving mood after several million people have been killed.

Yeah, like in 1919, 1945, 1954, 1975, 1979, so forth and so on. Newsflash: there are 6 billion people..the world moves on. It did after rwanda. And as I said, the Rwandas aceted relatively civily after 1/8 of their pop had been wiped out in 3 months and 1/5 of what was left had fled in fear of a retaliation, after 100k plus people had been active murderers of thier very neighbors. I don;t see anyone ever saying "The Hutu cause has been set back decades" even though Hutu extremists killed 100x in 3 months what Al Qaeada has killed in a decade.
But as I said, if the people of Rwanda could chose a resolution to the unimaginable horrors they saw (after the genocide, most dogs in Rwabda were killed becuase they were getting fat of the corpses-for the US to see similar percentages of killed, about 35 million Americans would have to die) that did NOT involve great violence. 1.5 million fled in fear of counter-genocide, something that did not happen and thus people came back. And I will state it again, if Americans prove themselves so weak of character and immoral that they would behave as lesser human beings than this (specially since your "average American" would know the killing only from TV and perhaps know someone killed, but just as likely not, while all rwandans knew killers and killed) example..then perhaps we don;t deserve to win.

NO one has yet to answer my question- anyone have any scenerios in mind hwne you guys open yer yaps? Any?

Quote:

forgetting about Russia, China, and an increasingly anti-immigrant Europe there aren't you?

Europe's anti-immigrant rants have didly to do with 9/11, most Chinese could not care, and Russia makes up 2.5% of the world's pop. NEXT!

Whoha · January 1, 2004, 02:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3223939.stm
sure sounds like they don't care.

France,Denmark, Holland,etc all passing laws specifically targeting muslims sounds like they don't care either.

GePap · January 1, 2004, 02:26

Oh wow, the Chinese government taking actions against gorups that might challange centralized government control..remember, 20% of humanity hates Falun Gong!

Wait, you mean all those countries that did not back pour little execise in Iraq, an attack people like yourself say is simply part of the consequences of 9/11?

So you are syaing the French as both anti-American causde they won't join you little "war on terrors" and at the same time are anti-terrorist by going after Muslims?

Make up your mind boy.

Spiffor · January 1, 2004, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
This is obviously a scare tactic.

They are terrorists. That's their point. And it works.

Whoha · January 1, 2004, 02:36

yea, because Falun Gong has mounted attacks that have killed Chinese like the muslims have.

My argument, and the original argument, is that the Muslims have pissed off most of the worlds major players, that has been demonstrated.

notyoueither · January 1, 2004, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Yeah, like in 1919, 1945, 1954, 1975, 1979, so forth and so on. Newsflash: there are 6 billion people..the world moves on. It did after rwanda. And as I said, the Rwandas aceted relatively civily after 1/8 of their pop had been wiped out in 3 months and 1/5 of what was left had fled in fear of a retaliation, after 100k plus people had been active murderers of thier very neighbors. I don;t see anyone ever saying "The Hutu cause has been set back decades" even though Hutu extremists killed 100x in 3 months what Al Qaeada has killed in a decade.
But as I said, if the people of Rwanda could chose a resolution to the unimaginable horrors they saw (after the genocide, most dogs in Rwabda were killed becuase they were getting fat of the corpses-for the US to see similar percentages of killed, about 35 million Americans would have to die) that did NOT involve great violence. 1.5 million fled in fear of counter-genocide, something that did not happen and thus people came back. And I will state it again, if Americans prove themselves so weak of character and immoral that they would behave as lesser human beings than this (specially since your "average American" would know the killing only from TV and perhaps know someone killed, but just as likely not, while all rwandans knew killers and killed) example..then perhaps we don;t deserve to win.

NO one has yet to answer my question- anyone have any scenerios in mind hwne you guys open yer yaps? Any?

Are you really this dense?

Are there no scenarios that you can imagine in which American strategic weapons would be employed against people other than the Russians or Chinese, rightly or wrongly?

Can you not imagine that a nuclear strike on the United States, or on most any other place in the Western world, would most likely trigger a very large reaction by all members of NATO, whether that be nuclear or not?

Give it a rest. What Ming said is that something like this would raise the intensity of the conflict. He is very right, and well he should be. Others said that the reaction might be severe, and that might be regretable. So, can you stop foaming at the mouth for a bit?

Spiffor · January 1, 2004, 03:08

It is obvious the reaction of the US in case of a nuking would be extremely severe, and most probably misguided given that a terrorist group is nothing like a state.

And the terrorists would have won, because their aim from the beginning was to have war declared between the US/the West and the Arab world. They have already succeeded into raising the hatred between Westerners and Muslims, and they sure want to continue.

notyoueither · January 1, 2004, 03:16

What happens if it is a Western European target, and the Yanks have the excuse domestically of the NATO treaty to back Europe's play?

How rational would Europe be if it were Paris or Berlin laying in a radioactive rubble?

I'm not convinced the US would go ape-****, but I do wonder what each of us would think were it our homes that were the targets.

Sprayber · January 1, 2004, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Yeah, like in 1919, 1945, 1954, 1975, 1979, so forth and so on. Newsflash: there are 6 billion people..the world moves on. It did after rwanda. And as I said, the Rwandas aceted relatively civily after 1/8 of their pop had been wiped out in 3 months and 1/5 of what was left had fled in fear of a retaliation, after 100k plus people had been active murderers of thier very neighbors. I don;t see anyone ever saying "The Hutu cause has been set back decades" even though Hutu extremists killed 100x in 3 months what Al Qaeada has killed in a decade.
But as I said, if the people of Rwanda could chose a resolution to the unimaginable horrors they saw (after the genocide, most dogs in Rwabda were killed becuase they were getting fat of the corpses-for the US to see similar percentages of killed, about 35 million Americans would have to die) that did NOT involve great violence. 1.5 million fled in fear of counter-genocide, something that did not happen and thus people came back. And I will state it again, if Americans prove themselves so weak of character and immoral that they would behave as lesser human beings than this (specially since your "average American" would know the killing only from TV and perhaps know someone killed, but just as likely not, while all rwandans knew killers and killed) example..then perhaps we don;t deserve to win.

Jesus, do you live to argue with people? Newsflash. I'm not talking about the rest of the ****ing world....... I dont give a **** about what the rest of the world does. I dont care care. I am saying that here in the United States of America, they will not be in the mood for forgiveness

Spiffor · January 1, 2004, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not convinced the US would go ape-****, but I do wonder what each of us would think were it our homes that were the targets.

Probably about the same as Skywalker. The gut reaction of hate and vengeance is perfectly understandable and human, that's why I don't blame it.

And that's precisely why scare tactics are so efficient. Should the terrorists succeed in nuking a capital city, we're basically doomed to enter their dreadful game.