The Nuclear Shadow

NY Times ^ | August 14, 2004 | NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

[gcruse]

Destroying their holy sites would have the effect of radicalizing the entire Muslim world, which is what the terrorists have in mind. No, this isn't the Cold War anymore. There is no center of gravity to this enemy, hence offense may not be the best defense.

[Indie]

Yep. We're the good guys and the article blames Bush. Says nothing about the pending islamonazi bomb and our efforts to stop the spread, nor does it mention N Korea, one of the biggest proliferators...besides France of course.

[steveegg]

Destroying their holy sites would have the effect of radicalizing the entire Muslim world....

With the exception of most American Muslims and perhaps the TUrks, they're already there. If you can demoralize a few of them,....

There is no center of gravity to this enemy, hence offense may not be the best defense.

Er, what's your plan? Since the battle's been fully joined, with payoffs and diplomacy proven to be failures, I'd like to see enough of them killed to convince the survivors to quit the fight.

[eno_]

And what a useless waste of newsprint.

Oh the Slimes thinks it is being VERY useful: Simultaneously reducing expectations for the delutional "Christmas in Cambodia" boy, while blaming Bush. From the SLimes point of view, this is Great Journalism.

[JPJones]

In the author's world, war with Iran and/or North Korea is unthinkable. Bah! It may be imminent.

Yup. The Islamnazis don't even have to get a nuclear bomb into the US, 50-100 miles off of NYC/Washington would do just fine.

[neverdem]

This is the same Kristoff who furnished us such "accurate" information about the anthrax letters...

I read Kristoff a little more than I read Krugman which, now, is never. What was Kristoff's take on anthrax?

[JPJones]

Do you really think the US targetting Mecca would slow down for one second a terrorist with the ability to suitcase nuke his target of choice?

No. And I wrote the 'good offense' line with the growing sense that we may have to go nuclear before they do. These suicide bombers and such remind me alot of the Japanese in WWII, (Kamikazes, fanatics, would commit hari-kari before surrendering, etc.) look what we had to do to win that war.

I hope not, but how else to will we get an unconditional surrender from these people?

[JPJones]

Yep. We're the good guys and the article blames Bush.

I know...not only that but it unbelievably gives Clinton credit. Like I said, sad, pathetic 'journalism'.

[gcruse]

I hope not, but how else to will we get an unconditional surrender from these people?

I don't think we will get to an unconditional surrender as long as we are fighting a tactic, an idea.  My thoughts on winning the war involve making the retribution for terrorist acts so swift, so devastating to the terrorist and his family, and so inevitable that the urge to commit an act of terrorism dies of fright in the mind of the killer before it can ever come to hand.  That means no more mister nice guy.  That means torture when needed, profiling, searching for terrorists at airports instead of searching for weapons. 

Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now knew.  The diamond bullet right between the eyes.  You must fight terror with terror.  And we can' t do it.

[Kornev]

"My thoughts on winning the war involve making the retribution for terrorist acts so swift, so devastating to the terrorist and his family, and so inevitable that the urge to commit an act of terrorism dies of fright in the mind of the killer before it can ever come to hand."

Unless you include that terrorist's entire culture and society, it won't work.

[gcruse]

Unless you include that terrorist's entire culture and society, it won't work.

Then the WOT will never be won.  It may fade away on its own, but will never be won.

[Kornev]

It has to be won. We have to threaten them with destruction. This is not that unlike WW2.

[JPJones]

I think you're right on with your first paragraph...agree 100%

You must fight terror with terror. And we can' t do it.

I don't know about that...total nuclear devastation is pretty terrifying... that is if the Inazis truly believe we'll do it.

[JPJones]

Then the WOT will never be won. It may fade away on its own, but will never be won.

That's the dilemma! It won't fade away...these people as I said before are fanatics. So we're back to either losing, or....

[gcruse]

It has to be won. We have to threaten them with destruction. This is not that unlike WW2.

Threaten what with destruction?  Radical Islam is embedded all over the world, including in the US.

[gcruse]

That's the dilemma! It won't fade away...these people as I said before are fanatics. So we're back to either losing, or....

As long as their 'educational' system continues turning out little fanatics eager to die for the cause....

[Kornev]

Their homelands, duh.

[jaykay]

Publish a list of targets in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.. that will cease to exist 30 min. after a nuke attack in the U.S.A.
Leave it up to them to make sure their monkeys stay caged.

[genefromjersey]

Essentially,he parroted the idea that Steven Hatfill just HAD to be responsible,and he skirted the edge of libel repeatedly.(Whether he did so sucessfully may depend on the outcome of Hatfill's windmill-tilting lawsuit.)

[varon]

A third step is to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the U.S. Mr. Bush has made a nice start on that with his proliferation security initiative.

Give me a break. A fricking 'proliferation security initiative' is going to prevent smuggling when the borders have been opened to commercial truck traffic from Mexico allowing them to roam our highways at will???

I'm really curious if our leaders were already brain dead when elected or became that way while in office?