Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2 - Page 6

Nubclear · February 2, 2004, 05:09

self biased · February 2, 2004, 05:19

pity post.

East Street Trader · February 2, 2004, 08:11

It would be good if dissatisfied people did not resort to terrorism. Just as it would be good if nutters did not sometimes go nuts and randomly shoot anyone crossing their path.

But it seems that there are so many of us and life gives rise to such peculiar pressures that these are things we are all going to continue to read about in our newspapers or see on TV news reports.

Among the billions and billions of us the merest handful will ever be directly affected.

But that fact is a bit hard to keep firm hold of. It is very easy, as the WTC atrocity illustrates, for anger and fear to run away with themselves.

I do not pretend that it is easy for politicians to make moderate responses. Far easier, no doubt, to respond in ways calculated to appeal to populist sentiment.

But it seems to me worth hanging on to one or two points for dear life.

One of those is that nuclear weapons and other highly sophisticated modern weapons aimed at mass murder are evil in themselves. We should not tolerate them and should discourage their proliferation.

Getting rid of all those in the hands of our own politicians and military would be an excellent start. To respond to a terrorist attack - whether it targeted New York or any other place - by dropping a nuclear bomb on some other locatioin would be a mistake.

The existence of these awful things on the face of the planet seems to me a greater threat to me and mine than the largest number of terrorists or mad gunmen that my imagination can expand to.

And secondly that the idea of identifying the action of weirdos with some larger group - whether because they share some national or religious allegiance or for any other reason - is also a mistake. The escalation that this leads to is far more frightening than the actions of the weirdos themselves. A brief look in any history book shows the result of doing that.

So I advocate minimalist responses and minimalist precautions.

If we - and this really means the people of the USA at the moment - can keep a sense of proportion it is going to be good.

Main_Brain · February 2, 2004, 08:41

Proliferation (sp?) is the Problem.

Atahualpa · February 2, 2004, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

Happy B-Day btw!!

NeOmega · February 2, 2004, 09:18

Apparently Saddam had a nuke up his ass the whole time, The CIA missed it, and today blew himself up while on trial in a secret court in New York.

John Kerry promised if he were President, Syria will be attacked to sieze its large stockpiles of botulism.

Chemical Ollie · February 2, 2004, 11:38

If New York was nuked this afternoon, America would do nothing. They are Christians after all, and a good Christian turns the other cheek.

Sava · February 2, 2004, 11:53

I still say we make Mecca and Medina glow in the dark...

curtsibling · February 2, 2004, 12:20

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

With what?
An overripe melon?

If Al-Qaeda had nuclear abilities, we in the West would have been made aware of it long ago.

pchang · February 2, 2004, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I still say we make Mecca and Medina glow in the dark...

They have no problem turning on the power all by themselves.

curtsibling · February 2, 2004, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
calm down

this ish isn't gonna happen

i told all you fools i was going to stick bin laden in the grill personally

Better sober up before you tackle him!

:) Smiley · February 2, 2004, 12:33

Why would a Muslim terrorist want to destroy New York, of all the US cities anyway? It has the largest Muslim population in the country.

curtsibling · February 2, 2004, 12:38

Nice point, Smiley!

Ted Striker · February 3, 2004, 01:31

well, what's interesting is all the flights that have been cancelled the past few days

there is a connection to Feb. 2

Boris Godunov · February 3, 2004, 01:33

We're still here, mother ****ers!

Urban Ranger · February 3, 2004, 01:34

Has something gone boom there yet?

Ted Striker · February 3, 2004, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
We're still here, mother ****ers!

That's what I'm talking about.

Bin Laden will be found by the end of the year too.

After I get done punching his azz in the grill.

Barinthus · February 3, 2004, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
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.

That's how it is. Innocents alway die due to someone else's politics. If Al Qaeda or whoever claims to represent Muslims and Muslims don't agree, they have the moral obligation to do something about it. Speak up denouncing Al Qaeda's ideals, be clear that they wouldn't tolerate Al Qaeda's claims to represent them, and so on. After all, evil happens if good men do nothing. By being silent, they will find themselves lumped with their 'representatives.'

Barinthus · February 3, 2004, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Does anyone have an answer to this question?

Where is a terrorist going to get a nuclear weapon from?

I mean, it requires massive infrastructure, enough power to run a small city and wads of cash to make one. That requires a state.

So which state?

1. Iran? Nope. Osama has made it clear that Shia Muslims are the enemies of God.

2. North Korea? Nope. Kim Jong Il is a Communist and they fall under "enemies of God" too.

3. Israel?

4. Pakistan? Musharraf won't give him one. Secular leaders of Sunni Muslim nations are, you guessed it, enemies of God.

5. The Black Market? Nope. There is no black market for nuclear weapons. At least no real one, I mean it's probably like the market for "fashionable desert properties".

That leaves India, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Which one of these states would risk massive retaliation by giving AQ a nuclear weapon?

I'd say none.

A radiological weapon is not out of the question though.

Actually Russia is one of possible sources. After the fall of USSR, the central authority's control over nuclear weapons fell apart. Suddenly Russian nukes are located in countries not submissive to Moscow. With their economic woes, they're unable to pay their scientists and folks responsible to keep an eye on the nuke stockpile. The danger of a scientist selling nuclear materials to terrorists is very real.

Ted Striker · February 3, 2004, 02:00

In my opinion Pakistan is the most likely.

Though they only have a few, they have leaked out so much bomb making equipment that it's insane. Alarmingly, there is probably enough equipment for someone to actually make one...

Berzerker · February 3, 2004, 02:08

It's Feb 3rd in NYC, any bombs go off?

blackice · February 3, 2004, 02:52

The world has them by the A$$ yet rumour is a wonderful tool of war.

Barinthus · February 3, 2004, 02:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's Feb 3rd in NYC, any bombs go off?

Only the one in my bathroom

Drake Tungsten · February 3, 2004, 02:56

Quote:

We're still here, mother ****ers!

God Bless Bush!

notyoueither · February 3, 2004, 04:03

[Marvin the Martian voice]

Where is my kaboom, my satisfying kaboom?

[/Marvin the Martian voice]

With apologies to anyone who took this threat seriously.