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

Fox News ^ | 03/11/2004 | AP

[HitmanLV]

I don't doubt that there would be a long line of civillians who would want to nuke Mecca and Medina immediately after we suffer a WMD attack.

I think it would be a position that would be seriously entertained by a microscopic minority of those in power.

In any case, I don't see the USA nuking anybody in the kind of situation I described.

As for The Lone Star State's reaction to a second 9-11 style attack (or worse), that's just conjecture on your part. I mean, what is the possee going to do that will be so 'swift, bloody and vengeful?' Go down to the local tavern and talk about kicking arse? Target practice?

I know all americans will be outraged, but specifically what are you talking about?

[Mr. Mojo]

Newsflash: We're already in an all-out war against those "individual" terrorists and their organizations. So if we're hit with terror-nukes it's impossible to take the fight to them any more than we're already doing unless we up the ante and destroy their enablers and the very foundation of their religious fanaticism.

So what exactly would you instead propose we do to these "individual terrorists" that we're not already doing (in the event the U.S. is nuked)? I suspect that if your loved ones were incinerated by these SOB's that you wouldn't suggest taking it to the individual perps themselves, especially since that's precisely what we've been doing all along.

[antivenom]

And let the little "silly willy nilly chicken shit countries" yanked their troops out of Iraq and run back to their european huts....once the wrath of the USA comes pouring down and when the "fallout" drifts across the hemispere's landscape, we can just shrug our shoulders and say....well you were either with us or against us and your poor decision bit you in the butt...go whine somewhere else.

[HitmanLV]

Considering I said earlier we are (and should be) in a war against those individual terrorists, it's not a news flash to me.

Your conclusion is wrong - it will not be impossible to take the war to them any more than we are already but for our use of nuclear weapons. I would prescirbe doing more of what we are doing - toppling the governments of the enablers of these terror groups. Stiking down the terror cells wherever we find them.

In short, I prescribe doing what we are already doing. Also, I would shore up the border, cancel visas and deport visitors from suspect nations, and some more domestic steps.

But nuke major muslim cities? No, I would never advocate that in this context. That's not to say I wouldn't advocate that in other contexts, but not this conext.

Your insight into what I would do if my loved ones were incinerated is wrong. You are not very good at that, Mr. M. In fact, I grew up and lived in downtown manhattan about 1/3 mile from WTC, living there most of the 34 years of my life. Odds are most of my loved ones would not be hurt or killed by the nuclear attack I am speculating on - a 1kt blast or so in midtown. I suspect that strike would kill over 100,000, injure another 100,000 or more. A terrible crime and disatser, no question. But even if my family were killed or hurt

I was in nyc on 9-11-01. I know people who died. I know that wasn't as dangerous a spot as your perch in Washington State that same day, but it was a pretty hot day in old manhattantown.

I fully advocate using force against the enemies of the USA.

Nuking Mecca and MEdina in retaliation to something like that? The word I used was 'Fantasyland.' It would never happen.

[CJ Wolf]

FYI, Some more whining countries and interesting friends. Watch the elections in El Salvador on the 21st. China has been helping the traditional leftist group.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=2437748A-1BA9-4D58-BC5B2A07CB5313BD Cuban President Fidel Castro has congratulated Spanish Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on his election victory, and praised his pledge to pull Spanish soldiers out of Iraq. In a letter published Tuesday in Cuba's Communist Party daily, Granma, Mr. Castro says more than 1,000 young men from small, impoverished Latin American countries have been sent to Iraq as what he called "cannon fodder" under the command of Spain. Mr. Castro said the people of Latin America have the right to expect their immediate return. Troops from Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Honduras have participated in the Spanish-led peacekeeping force in Iraq. Nicaragua pulled its troops out in February, and says it cannot afford to replace them.

[Mr. Mojo]

I would prescirbe doing more of what we are doing - toppling the governments of the enablers of these terror groups. Stiking down the terror cells wherever we find them. In short, I prescribe doing what we are already doing.

In the event of a nuclear strike against the U.S. that's not nearly enough, and I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of Americans would agree with me.

Also, I would shore up the border, cancel visas and deport visitors from suspect nations....

Well, I agree with you on that one. In fact, I maintain that it's reasonable to conclude that because we haven't taken these steps we're not entirely serious about fighting this war. ....or that we have other priorities.

What you fail to grasp is that we're not just talking about a few Islamist nutballs here. We're talking about millions of them, and perhaps tens of millions. And considering that the fanaticism is getting more widespread by the day, it's inevitably going to get to the point where nuking their epicenter - Mecca and Medina - is the only option we have. .....And in the event the U.S. is nuked, not only will that option be on the table, it'll most likely be used.

[HitmanLV]

We will just have to agree to disagree and hope we never find out what happens. I don't see us using nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina in the context I described. You think I'm wrong.

You think we would nuke Mecca and Medina in that conext. I think you are wrong.

Since we are both Freepers, lets just shake on it and continue agreeing on other stuff (I imagine - but I may be wrong - that we probably agree on a whole lot of stuff).

Peace, brother! And lets hope this situation never happens!

[Mr. Mojo]

Ok ...truce. .....we agree to disagree.

But we both heartily agree about not wanting to ever find out who's right (in this instance).

[Centurion2000]

I don't see us using nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina in the context I described. You think I'm wrong.

You are wrong on this one. The United States is the ONLY country that has never used nuclear weapons in anger. This fact alone kept the Soviets off our back. They KNEW we would use them and it was communicated to them in no uncertain terms that if they invaded Western Europe they were going to meet Mr Atom.

The Cold War was a war against rational enemies. Mr Sovietski may have been stupid with his ideologies, but he was rational.

Arab muslims are not. They are going to hit and hit until we decide that all out war must be waged. And the world is going to tremble when we do decide that.

A nuke means all out war to exterminate that enemy. If it is a country, so be it. If it is people, we've done that too.

Ask an American Indian on the reservation about the wrath of the USA.

[esquirette]

I couldn't disagree more. We have shown that we will take it and rebuild in our civil way--trying to show by example how to be nice. I submit as evidence the current price of oil, and our continued willingness to punish our own citizens with draconian security measures while refusing to send the private paying Middle Eastern engineering and aviation students home.

[Iron Matron]

Talk of nuking Medina and Mecca in retaliation, as some on this thread insist, is just adolescent posturing. I am glad that nobody like that is in power.

Absolutely! But I think it's better to purge our outrage among friends rather than taking it to the streets. I myself have expressed very base emotions on this forum, and I apologize to you for our misunderstanding about that.

Most of us do not like feeling powerless, it is good to know we are not alone with our feelings of outrage.

You are right in saying that, as a deterrent, nuclear threats are losing power. Mutually assured destruction put a damper on that for sure! Maybe we should quit selling our secrets to potentates?

[ought-six]

"I question your perception - I can't see how you would think that any of those civilized nations would behave that way. It's a violent, posturing fantasy."

We'll see, won't we? Because it will happen. The Islamists, once they get hold of a nuke, will use it. And, as for civilized nations behaving badly, who would have thought Germany would have gone the route it did in the 1930s and 1940s? Who would have thought the Soviet Union would have happily slaughtered some 30,000,00 of its own people? And China? The "Cultural Revolution" accounted for some 50,000,000 million Chinese dead, at least, all killed by their own government, not so very long ago. Don't tell me about "civilized" nations; their track record is abyssmal.