|
Posted on 12/01/2004 1:04:29 AM PST by eakole
"Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and a man I respect immensely for his intelligence insights, says the United States faces an "inevitable" al-Qaida attack with weapons of mass destruction.
"What would be the U.S. response to such an attack?
"Now is the time to think about the unthinkable.
"Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans, at least some of them, need to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack. …"
"… * The Islamist world and its allies need to know there will be an unprecedented nuclear response to any attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We don't need to be specific about which major cities and installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response will be overwhelming, resulting in far greater death and destruction than what is inflicted upon the United States. We need to let the terrorists know that addresses of response have been determined. Those counseling the terrorists that such an attack on the United States is justified should be among the first to experience the horror."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Everybody, eventually.
well now.......
hhhmmmm....
If the US says that Syria or Iran will be nuked then it provides incentive for small-time enemies of Syria or Iran to launch a WMD attack against the US (anthrax, sarin, ricin or radiological bomb, all fairly available to smaller countries...) and then provide clear evidenc it was Syria or Iran.
Otherwise how does the US know for sure the origins of a WMD attack. There is no missile trail.
Terrorism is a cancer that can only be cured with a massive dose of radiation.
What's this guy trying to say, Squantos? It's a bit of a mystery. Thanks in advance. :)
I vote for the Samson Option.
I much prefer FAE's to nukes, no radioactivity to worry about afterwards. You can go right in after the firestorms have abated. We already used them in DS and OEF, we will just have to use a few more at a time.
Here's a fun topic. / tongue in cheek
I think he's wishing more than speaking......I like the way he wishes . Short version IMO he's selling the threat as it should be ....to other countries. Not ours.
Stay safe !
|
The MSM could only dream of such a scenario: Bush fails to protect the US, and them kills millions overseas in "cowboy-like" retaliation, blah, blah, blah. And the images would immediately shift from dead Americans to dead people overseas, "Bush started WWIII" protests in Europe, blah, blah, blah.
Started and ended...
You are applying rationality to a Joseph Farah screed. Cut that out!
We certainly have the addresses of the monsters who are giving approval to the terrorists. I hope we do.
This needs to be beyond the planning stages by now. Discussion yes. Resolve yes. Ready time, yesterday.
One problem to consider is the event that we elect a muslim, internationalist, milquetoast or "Benedict Arnold" President.
You pinged me to THIS as a fun topic/tongue in cheek?
Am I still sane or is my head hurting too much? LOL!
I want you to know, I read the whole article.
For once, I agree with JF.
We do need to tell the Islamic world that we'll nuke all of them
if we're attacked with WMD's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Excellent. The engineering solution to this problem begins to creep in around the edges of the mainstream. Yes, we need to have this discussion.