E-Mail: Attack on U.S. '90 Percent Ready'

Fox News ^ | 03/11/2004 | AP

[HitmanLV]

You are almost a parody of what people think impulsive, thoughtless, immoral conservatives are like.

Seek professional help. Your position is thankfully in the most microscopic minority.

[boris]

"You are almost a parody of what people think impulsive, thoughtless, immoral conservatives are like."

Now we know you are a troll...since none of those adjectives describe conservatives.

--Boris

[HitmanLV]

Of course not, Boris. But there are people who think that, and you only bolster their opinion.

I'm no troll - I've been a regular poster for several years.

[mdmathis6]

You drop them on their holy shrines or threaten to, you do things to force them to coalesce and come out into the open where they can be destroyed. By taking out mecca, medina, and the omar mosque, you psychologically remove the physical connections they have to Islam. They place great faith in outward things...remove those emblems and show their version of Allah to be power-less, and you reveal a huge chink in their armor!

[ought-six]

Yeah, you sound just like John alQerry: What alQerry and you both embrace is to treat the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue; i.e., just bring to justice those who actually committed the act of terror. By your logic, suicide bombers are "brought to justice" when they blow themselves up (and countless innocents along with them). Thus, you would advocate abandoning Bush's WOT right now, because the 19 terrorists who carried out 9/11 died in the attacks, so they "were brought to justice." Suicide bombers are bred quite easily in the Islamist world, so we'd be facing acts of terrorism against us from now until ddomsday if we were to follow your line of thinking. I subsribe to the concept of total war when we are fighting for our national and cultural survival (yes, survival, because th eIslamists will not stop until they are either destroyed or they turn America into an Islamic republic: You know that, and that is not a patronizing comment). My comment about nuking them was in response to them nuking us first. And in reality, if they do get a nuke, they will use it, and you cannot dispute that. And yes, I'd turn their holy sites into green glass.

[HitmanLV]

Yes, I do dispute that, we won't use nukes in a situation like that.

I support treating the war on terror as a war, not a law enforcement issue.

You skew what you project to be my logic. I do not give suicide bombers any kind of 'pass' regardless of why you thuink I would. I advocate going after their infrastructure and agents with military might.

Your advocacy and insistence of going nuclear is more like a petulant child's behavior. No way we would go nuclaear after being on the receiving end of a small nuclear attack via a terror network. It just won't happen - your fantasy of holy cities as glass is, thankfully, a fantasy.

[lakewriter]

The five-page e-mail claim, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at Al-Quds al-Arabi's London offices. It said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain," and carried out what it called Operation Death Trains.
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.


I just got through quickly checking each post in this thread and no one has addressed the above section of the article. In regard to the Spain vote yesterday - getting our friend's party dumped because of his 'stirring the terrorists pot,' - I wondered if the Spaniards thought they'd be hit-free because of the election results. I assume they did.
Let's check out that sentence above again...."This is PART of settling old accounts with Spain..."

[Iron Matron]

Since, according to their koran, I'm a so-called infidel, I sadly find myself in the position of having to be a cowboy in this upcoming "game".....


DITTO.

They dont want what they're gonna get if they even TRY and MESS with American Patriots!

[Iron Matron]

Grow up - denial isn't a river in egypt, nor am I in denial. What you describe would be a terrible course of action that most folks would not justify. Even after thousands of our own innocents are murdered, that is not an unlimited license for us to do what you prescribe.


I beg to differ - nukes did a world of good for the Japanese!

I at least admire the Japanese warrior though, they wore uniforms -fought bravely for their ideals, nuclear was the only solution to their mind-set.

Muslimes, however, are slimey, slithery, cowardly creatures who do not deserve to fight our soldiers - they only deserve DEATH. Nukes would also be the perfect solution for them as well!

[Iron Matron]

Spain will now be seen as weak. I dont expect the muslime to respect that - I sure dont.

[Iron Matron]

So you want to blow up holy cities in response?

I missed the first round.

HOLY cities?



There is nothing holy about muslimes who worship pedophile gods, they are a cowardly, murdering bunch of snakes who wish to harm MY COUNTRY, MY CHILDREN, MY LIFE!!!!! Let their supposed holy cities BURN!

There cities may be "holy" in satans realm , so lets send them there!

[HitmanLV]

Beg to differ if you want. If you seriously think nuking several large muslim cities and holy sites is a legitimate response to terrorist attacks, you need professional help.

[Mr. Mojo]

They may or may not be "90% ready" to attack us. But if we are [attacked], and it's a major one that sends out economy down the drain, I'd estimate there would be a 99% chance that Mecca and Medina would be made of glass and ash before the end of the day.

[Mr. Mojo]

If you seriously think nuking several large muslim cities and holy sites is a legitimate response to terrorist attacks.......

Depends on the attack. If we're hit with something similar to what happened in Spain the other day, then the nuclear response would be very inappropriate. But if one of our cities is nuked, Mecca and Medina should immediately be destroyed.

[HitmanLV]

This response I keep on reading on FR is tiresome.

The US could suffer 3 small nuclear blasts in 3 major cities, for example, say in the 1kt range. The devestation would be astonishing and tragic. The act would be criminal and insane.

The US would not respond by nuking any holy city or holy site, sorry. Keep that type of talk in barrooms and taverns across the fruited plain, after a few drinks. Most people favor a sober response.

I can't see how any rational person would advocate the destruction of holy cities in response to the behavior of a well heeled, dedicated, and outlaw fringe group that identifies itself with the religion of the holy cities.

Frankly that kind of talk is disgusting. It's certainly not conservative. The US will not use nukes, even in response to a limited nuclear hit stateside (as I described). eleiving anything else is denial and adolescent posturing, akin to the exaggerated machismo, chest-beating, and arrogance of some of our most extreme Muslim critics.

It;s not productive. It's not mature. It's not realistic. There is no logical, rational, and moral nexus to respond by immediately destroying Mecca and Medina.

Thank goodness people who think like that aren't in power.

[Mr. Mojo]

I can't see how any rational person would advocate the destruction of holy cities

Who said anything about holy cities? I said "Mecca and Medina." ;)

Btw, you're in for a rude awakening (if we're hit with nukes).

[HitmanLV]

Haha! Fair enough!

I actually expect us to be on the recieving end of a WMD attack someday. I can't say when. But if you expect we would nuke in return, you are in for a disapointment.

Again, I didn't say that we should not respond with force. It's just that nuking cities is not my idea of a reasonable or realistic response.

[Iron Matron]

Professional help huh? I'm sure you are more than able to make that determination. That is the same way a democrap responds when he/she/it does not like the answer.

You need to wake up and smell the roses, ya know? Jews wound up in death camps from not being able to see the big picture when it came to town. . . .

[HitmanLV]

Yes. I can't see how anybody can look at the political dynamics in the USA today, and come to the conclusion that you did.

What specifically in the political climate in the USA makes you think any of our elected leaders in a position to make those decisions would do as you suggest?

Sorry - once again, seek professional help.

[Mr. Mojo]

Well, there are WMD attacks and there are WMD attacks. Most likely the only thing (in the foreseeable future) Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist orgs can pull off are bio/chem attacks .....and possibly a radiological bomb or two. If such attacks happen, I agree with you that nuclear retaliation is highly unlikely. .....although I suspect our response (whatever it is) will indeed be severe. But a nuclear attack (conducted most probably with "suitcase nukes," some with a far greated yield than 1kt) destroying NY, DC, LA, Chi, and/or other major cities is a whole different matter altogether. Hundreds of thousands (or possible a few million) Americans would be dead, our economy would be annihilated.......we'd be tetering on the brink of total collapse. And in that case I just think we'd have no other choice but to respond in kind, directed at the very heart of our enemy's fanaticism.

Hopefully we won't ever find out which of us made the correct prediction.