Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2

[notyoueither]

I fear you may be correct, but I wonder.

We (NATO) are not really into this yet, are we? Not like we have been when we have been serious about threats in the past.

What would happen if NATO actually closed ranks and went after international terrorism with a vengeance and without barbarity? What happens if NATO members spent a significant fraction, comparatively, of what was spent in World Wars blowing each other up, but turned it towards the new battle field?

I don't think the bad guys win, automatically. They only win if we let them.

[Spiffor]

The problem with terrorism is that it is completely different from regular warfare. There is no obvious place where people get trained or build hardware. There is no obvious definition of who's friend and who's foe (in regular warfare, everything is much simpler: any Boche is a foe, any Jap is a foe, etc.)

All western countries have at last taken the terrorist menace seriously, and are now under a real police and secret-service cooperation on this one. But I suppose most services are still wondering how to be efficient in deterring terrorism.

But maybe you're right. Maybe, if we put enough energy and money in chasing down terrorists, maybe if we punish those supporting terrorists where it hurts (their Swiss bank account), we'll instill a climate of fear in terrorist organisations, as nobody could know whether a fellow terrorist is sincere or an agent.

Conspiracies generally fail this way. If we manage to create a terrible climate for terrorist plots (the same way Saddam lived quite isolated for fear of assassination), then we can win without fighting the all-out war against Muslims.

But should they be successful in nuking a city, I don't think anybody will want subtle tactics against "them". "They" are likely to describe a muuuuuch larger population as the terrorists themselves.

[Sprayber]

What I fear the most isn't our response to the external threat, but how it would change our society here at home.

[Spiffor]

I think you should fear both. If you're the keg of powder that lets WW3 loose, you explode just like the rest of us.

[Gatekeeper]

I doubt New York City is going to be destroyed on Feb. 2. If it is, though, the solution is simple: Track down those who were directly and indirectly responsible for it and eliminate them. Using this method, I'm quite sure that most of the Middle East would be left to slog on in its current sorry state.

Gatekeeper

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think you should fear both. If you're the keg of powder that lets WW3 loose, you explode just like the rest of us.

The only problem is, he can only fear one of them "most"

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


The only problem is, he can only fear one of them "most"

Spiffor: The key to restraining the urge to seek vengence in the most cruel ways is in maintaining the consitution as the guiding force of the country. I have little faith in any person on any side of the political fence, but I do have faith in our system. It isn't perfect and there has been been abuses. But an America that has been attacked in such a way as described and without the restraints put on leaders by our system would be a very scary monster in my opinion.

Would such a thing be likely? I don't know. I would like to think that we would embrace our ideas more after such an attack. But with several million dead and many more dieing, I don't know.

[Sprayber]

Course all that is just speculation. I don't think there will be an attack on that scale anyway.. Something smaller perhaps.

[Timexwatch]

I think it's far more likely that we'll have Arabs/Pakis/Afghanis in camps after the nuking of New York. If we were nuked, who would we specifically target?

[Pekka]

Nuke? I call BS.

I think it's obvious to all what's happening here, they call the threats to wear out the US. It's consuming to have these threats for sure, and they have to be taken extremely seriously.

I think we should concentrate on what we know and what is speculation, so we can fight them. Facts are, that they spread rumours to consume our energy levels and to create fear. It's speculating but will be a fact, that they WILL attack again, it's only matter of when and where. Now, the rumour spreading is still effective, but it will lose its power in the future if none of them are carried on. So, I'd say they are waiting when the response to threat is not so energetic from our part, and then will actually go on with the attack. That way they have the upper hand, and can continue shouting threats and it will create panic and all that to new extent. Of course this will lead to a bad situation as we realize we have no choice but to attack first and attack deep and hard.

[Wernazuma III]

I don't have the time to read the whole thread, but is anyone else wondering that this information comes from "Il Giornale", a newspaper owned by Berlusconi's family.
You might remember, it's the guy who, right after Christmas, spread dubious "informations" about a prevented terrorist airplane attack on the pope...
Berlusconi obviously tries goes even further now in spreading more and more fear and panic in the hearts of Italians with the power of his media empire to gain political advantage.

[Whaleboy]

THE DAY AFTER MY BIRTHDAY????

To hell with liberalism... THE BASTARDS!!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, its time for some slaughter...

[VJ]

Italy’s Il Giornale reports from Washington

A newspaper which is owned by a man with direct contacts to Mafia, what an incredibly reliable source.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Berlusconi obviously tries goes even further now in spreading more and more fear and panic in the hearts of Italians with the power of his media empire to gain political advantage.

Every sly politician knows to milk profit from any opportunity. The way Sept. 11 was recuperated by politicians across the globe was sickening (and we still see the effects). Berlusconi is especially bad in this regard: about every non-conventional opposition in Italy is tagged "terrorist" nowadays

[Dr Strangelove]

What the heck. Why February 2? IIRC the date September 11 had some meaning for the attackers, but does the date February 2 have some meaning for Muslim extremists?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sprayber

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

So in essence you are saying Americans and our leader are lesser human beings, of weak character and underneath, scared immoral beings?

Wow, very high opinion of the US you have there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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?

If the attackers were a non-state political terro grousp, were exactly would this great retaliation strike? HUH? Are you that dense tat you fail to understand that te response to a massive attack by a state actor is FUNDAMENTALLY different than how you can react to the acts of a criminal organization?

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?

I have no doubt it would rase in intensity- you guys have just failed to come up wit any ideas as to how that would not lead exactly to , as Spiff has said, the outcome the terrorist want.

o I guess you agree with Sprayber's rather gloomy interpretation of the quality of Americans, and this the US owuld screw up the aftermath of such an act with uterly unthinking actions.

Wow, you have a very high opinion of Americans as well.

[Alex]

that threat is BS. but it's part of their tactics: to instill fear and terror in the hearts and minds of those people they hate.

as for me, i'd like to see the anihilation of the human species. we're just pathetic lifeforms.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

But they also would LOSE that war at the outset, pretty badly. So it's a lose-lose situation.

[Kuciwalker]

If the attackers were a non-state political terro grousp, were exactly would this great retaliation strike?

*points at his first post in this thread*

[GePap]

That was the sort of answer I revile. As funny as a video of Holocaust victims being buried.

[Kuciwalker]

Personal opinions aside, it's a serious answer to your question.

[Seeker]

Well I hope they search every big truck and transport ship.

And open up all those 'mysterious abandoned warehouses' we see in comic books about New York! They're the perfect cover for villains making city destroying bombs!

[Sava]

If a nuke goes off in an American city...

1. Impeach Bush (or should we wait for this incompetent boob to let more Americans die?)
2. Nuke Mecca, Medina, and Riyahd...
3. Support India and take over Pakistan

[Sava]

for the record... this is total BS

in the last week, our terror threat level has taught me:

1. be scared of people carrying ALMANACS!
2. be scared of AMBULANCES!
3. every middle eastern man who argues or even SPEAKS on an airplane is a terrorist!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
1. Impeach Bush (or should we wait for this incompetent boob to let more Americans die?)

Yeah, this is most certainly the most urgent thing to do

2. Nuke Mecca, Medina, and Riyahd...

Nuking their two most holy cities is certainly the best way to have Muslims stop hating us. You should also nuke Jerusalem, and you'd be set
You can't even argue nuking these cities would serve killing Muslims, since they are little populated. And it's unlikely to be the place of residence of terrorists

3. Support India and take over Pakistan

YAY! Why stop at a few millions dead when you can have a whooping BILLION!

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm ... now that I think about it, Feb. 2 is my birthday. That'll take the wind out my sails if NYC gets hit on my bday.

Gatekeeper

[Evil Knevil]

Still.... afterwards you can call it the Black Apple! ha ha

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yeah, this is most certainly the most urgent thing to do

sorry, I don't want to get nuked again because my president is an incompetent piece of ****... put somebody in there who can do the job right... that would be priority number one. I never did understand why after 9-11, the country rallied around this drunken frat boy who TOTALLY IGNORED terrorism. Clinton used to have a weekly briefing on terrorism. He had advisors and intelligence people come up with plans to deal with the stuff. He did what he could without Congressional funding because Republicans were too busy trying to find out who sucked his penis, rather than what OBL was doing.

Nuking their two most holy cities is certainly the best way to have Muslims stop hating us. You should also nuke Jerusalem, and you'd be set
You can't even argue nuking these cities would serve killing Muslims, since they are little populated. And it's unlikely to be the place of residence of terrorists

it's about principality... the Islamic world, whether it wants to admit it or not, has declared war on us (I say us, because it's not just America buddy)... sure... people dismiss it as "a few extremists". I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Kids in the Muslim world wear T-Shirts of OBL. Islamists have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of supporters. Sure, the regimes in the region (except for Iran and Saudi Arabia) may not actively support their efforts, but they allow them to exist. And America shouldn't sit back and wait to get hit again. And if an American city gets nuked??!! Well that's it. All bets are off. Any civilians not wanting to be vaporized should get the **** outta Dodge.

YAY! Why stop at a few millions dead when you can have a whooping BILLION!

maybe the world would be better off...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alex
that threat is BS.

No ****! If they actually had the ability to do it, they would have already tried to do it with out giving out such info.