[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.

[ought-six]

"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."

Then Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, China, and Russia are like "petulant children", because I can guarantee they'd nuke in retaliation of being nuked first (I didn't mention North Korea because it IS a petulant child, no two ways about it). If Islamists nuked, say, Moscow, are you telling me that Putin would just go after the individuals responsible? Be serious. Russia would understand perfectly that such an attack was done for and on behalf of radical Islam, which enjoys wide support throughout the Islamic word, and it (Russia) would unleash the hounds of hell against the Islamic world (which Russia knows despises Russia, as well as it despises America; and Russia already is having to deal with its own home-grown Islamic extremists, so it would see such an attack as an even more immediate threat).