Doomsday for Islam?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/28/06 | Robert Pfriender

[paul51]

including important strategic allies

We would no longer need any strategic allies if we obliterated any strategic enemies.

[Bommer]

Yeah right! We don't have a govt with the balls to even nail Saudi Arabia, since they are the ones that promote Wahabbi religion and had the majority of the highjackers! Sorry but after the WTC, I would have incinerated Medina and blown up the Dome on the Rock (do the Israeli's a favor) then send the rest of the Muslim world the message that Mecca is next if so much as a fire cracker went off.

[Strategerist]

Painfully bad writing and grammar. Particularly the last clause.

Well, it's what you'd expect from a juvenile masturbatory fantasy from WingNutDaily.

Muslims aren't neatly packed into homogenous areas around the world either within countries, or adjacent countries.

You can't "nuke all the Muslims" by tossing nukes willy-nilly around the world without killing millions of Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists either through direct blast effects or downwind fallout, undoubtedly more non-Muslims than the initial theorized terror attack on the US did.

[GOPJ]

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

The reason the West is perceived as weak is the West is so powerful we must constantly act restrained.

A two year old can kick a six foot 4 inch trained policeman - and the policeman will smile and tell the child to stop. But, if the child gets a knife, the game will be up in seconds. Same with Radical Muslims.

To hear the stories of radical Muslims having 7 or 8 nukes - and acting so big about it, is silly. What a joke. We have thousands of nukes. And many other weapons developed since our grandparents invented nukes. If radical Muslims want to "pull the knife", we'll kill them all. Easily. Quickly. It'll be over in 45 minutes. All their holy sites, all their oil fields, all their dreams. Gone. And we'll come back. They never will. Arabs who love their life and lifestyle should turn Osama and goons in -- cause we won't put up with this crap forever...

[Canard]

I was referring to strategic allies in securing the supply of necessary resources, not just in a military sense.

[jdluntjr]

A nuclear attack on a city would result in a nuclear strike somewhere against "responsible parties." Several nuclear attacks against US cities would probably result in a massive nuclear strike. One-regardless of who is in office, after that kind of devastation, any President who did not strike and strike in a devastating way would be forced out of office almost immediately.

The American people after such a strike would result in an immediate declaration of war against islam. There was lit tle patience towards Islam after 9-11. How much more anger would fire up immediately after such an attack. I think you could say much of Islam would cease to exist. By the way, it's not just the immediate destructive areas of the blast, several nuclear strikes by the US against middle east targets would spread radioactivity throughout much of the region.

[Teacher317]

Even after an al-Qaeda nuclear attack, we would not have the political will to retaliate... no identifiable guilty target, a generation or three of fear-mongering about the horrors of nuclear war, and that nasty little 50-50 political divide (unless it's the Dems somehow becoming the hawks).

Our hundreds of billions were spent on the MAD philosophy. For actual offensive or defensive use in the War on Terror/Islam/Extremists, they're virtually useless.

[isrul]

I don't think Bush would authorize any nuclear retaliation against what he believes to be the religion of peace. We would probably just hear more of the same. Stay the course. Hunt 'em down. smoke 'em out ad bring 'em to justice. Might also hear that a nuke strike on us just proves that they are desperate and we are winning. I don't think Bush has the stomach for it. No matter what happens. Perhaps Israel will do what it needs to survive ultimately. But I'm not even sure of that anymore.

[Publius6961]

The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the "neutron bomb" designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other "Islamic" countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons.

This paragragraph is so satisfying on many levels.
The muslims are blissfully misinterpreting our reluctance to act as fear of world opinion. They will find out, eventually, that they were wrong.
Notice I said "eventually" since I am convinced it is not "if" but "when".

The only difference between this list and my 5-year-old one is that I include many more large and belligerent muslim countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia and, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not one cent for post-destruction relief or reconstruction... God bless the Umma. The late dar al-Islam... They never had a clue, although they had decades to figure it out.

[airborne]

For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack.

We could wipe out most of the muslims in the Middle East with conventional weapons that would leave their land (and oil fields) free of radioactivity and ready for occupation.

We will never back down to 7th century cave dwellers!

[Publius6961]

You can't "nuke all the Muslims" by tossing nukes willy-nilly around the world without killing millions of Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists either through direct blast effects or downwind fallout, undoubtedly more non-Muslims than the initial theorized terror attack on the US did.

Just throw that into your fantasy bag with Global warming or cooling (your choice) and deal with it...

If multi-nukes go off in the US, I feel sorry for you.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Daddy, what are Muslims?"

Exactly!

[Richard Kimball]

The Senate would vote them amnesty.

[ConTex]

I think if there's a nuclear attack on the USA, there's the strong possibility of a military coup that would destroy islam completely if the president didn't order it.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"..Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities..."

Total tinfoil bullshit! What gets me about WND is that they are making another story about another BS story...and on and on.

[paul51]

I was referring to strategic allies in securing the supply of necessary resources, not just in a military sense

The will to survive creates some strategic partners. The article also refers to weapons designed to destroy personnel and not facilities. Presumably, our strategic allies know of their existence.

[Jim Noble]

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

there is no possibility that either George Bush or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing - not in a million years.

[Publius6961]

Our hundreds of billions were spent on the MAD philosophy. For actual offensive or defensive use in the War on Terror/Islam/Extremists, they're virtually useless.

That's almost word for word what Osama argues... and is counting on. He is wrong. Dead wrong.

[Jim Noble]

ready for occupation.

You and what army?

[Migraine]

Yeah right! We don't have a govt with the balls to even nail Saudi Arabia, since they are the ones that promote Wahabbi religion and had the majority of the highjackers! Sorry but after the WTC, I would have incinerated Medina and blown up the Dome on the Rock (do the Israeli's a favor) then send the rest of the Muslim world the message that Mecca is next if so much as a fire cracker went off.

Interesting you say that. It's exactly what I told my students on 9/11. I told them who had done it and what we had to do. I told them that, while precipitous, it was either that, or play patty-cake and PR with them for the next ad infinitum. Sorry, but we chose the latter because the other was "unthinkable". I think it's not only thinkable, it's advisable. And the ragtime cowboys would have crawled back into their own century.