Lets not discuss about what the government has to offer here.

If a terrorist nuclear weapon hits a major city in America, I think the United States would respond with fear and revenge. Not only that, the entire world would shake in it's knees knowing the fact that America will garuantee Mutually Assured Destruction.

When we refer to terrorists, they are not always middle eastern. They all have different ethnic backgrounds and come from different nationalities. Surprisingly, there are American terrorists as well.

Originally Posted by Kane

Lets not discuss about what the government has to offer here.

Indeed, we can discuss why europe is... erm, we can do that in another topic.

Anyways, to clone my earlier post, I think we would go after every hostile nuclear power, hell, we might use nuclear weapons of our own. Like Kane said, we would be filled with fear and revenge, we would probably turn ballistic. Euros and other nations like to compare us to a bully, a child throwing a temper tantrum... well, it would be one hell of a temper tantrum.

Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer

Indeed, we can discuss why europe is... erm, we can do that in another topic.

Anyways, to clone my earlier post, I think we would go after every hostile nuclear power, h**l, we might use nuclear weapons of our own. Like Kane said, we would be filled with fear and revenge, we would probably turn ballistic. Euros and other nations like to compare us to a bully, a child throwing a temper tantrum... well, it would be one h**l of a temper tantrum.

Would you start a nuclear war wich leads only to destruction of the earth? As dead, well cooked meat or as a mutant could be a little difficult to enjoy the possible victory and revenge. I guess that wouldn't be worth of that.

I do not believe that detonation of a small low yield nuclear device would prompt the US to launch nuclear weapons.

Would the response on the offenders be swift and unbending yes. I see the offenders homeland being bombed into the stone age and occupied.

Originally Posted by rocco

typical european liberal response... no offence.
how would you solve terror then? paying fees like spain?
by not responding we only encourage them.
if america had decimated syria and hezbollah after they murdered 200 US troops rather than leave, then perhaps 9-11 may not have occured.

the way the US has dealt with terrorism was to never yeild to their demands. at least that's how it works in theory. there is a balance of compromise and war. there has always been negotiations with terrorists, despite what hollywood portrays with their "we will never negotiate with terrorist" speaches.
historically the first US response to international terrorism was to send our navy out to the Med to destroy the Barburry Pirates. so in some sense you can say we "grew up" with fight in our blood. but europe has dealt with terrorists a lot more often than the US. france is one of the forerunners in counter terrorism techniques and tactics. why wouldn't they be after the hundreds of years of dealing with domestic terrorism? (and, not to mention, coining the term "terrorism") only now are we starting to see terrorist proofing in the US with the removal of trashcans and similar things. the US looked to places like israel and the uk when it came to using the correct vocabulary to describe terrorists. it's because out there they found that by calling a terrorists a "terrorists" they had a sense of romance to them. people were willing to side with those "freedom fighters." but when britain told us to call terrorists "murderers" it changed things. no one sides with a murderer. the point is, europe has experience in the CT area that i believe the US should look at. i'm not saying bow to the knees of terrorists, but there is a middle ground in some situations.
there are always different options to responding to terrorist attacks. sometimes if you look at the situation you can prevent another attack by simply leaving. if our goal is to protect the US and its citizens, then avoiding war is obviously going to be the best choice. i don't believe 9/11 would not have been prevented by retaliating against the attack in syria. there were too many other things that contributed.

Originally Posted by Kane

When we refer to terrorists, they are not always middle eastern. They all have different ethnic backgrounds and come from different nationalities. Surprisingly, there are American terrorists as well.

domestic terrorists in the US are guys like the ALF and white supremecy groups. i'm not saying they aren't a threat, but they aren't a concern because they tend to do things like protest and free lab animals. with the ALF and other animal rights groups, they try to avoid human casualties. even though it's widely agreed upon that it's only a matter of time before one the building they burn down will harm someone. yet they could potentially be a serious backdoor threat.

Lol, the 560 Million Europeans are all being claimed to be 'Liberal' and 'weak' and 'pacifists'.

This is all because the whole of Europe did not jump in the Iraq war.

First of all I am not insulted by being called a Liberal, but anyhow, there are two sides to every argument, and a good and a bad side to every decision.

I believe that to solve for example bullies in school you should never ignore them, but stand up to them, they'll soon run and hide.
This is exactly what the US and the Coalition are doing at the moment, standing up to the bully, and slowly but surely he is running and hiding.

It is a difficult situation in Iraq, and there is no wrong or right answer, and don't be taking the attitude that ALL Europeans are xyz because they didn't invade Iraq; if there was a major threat of war, Europe would fight back.

Heres something for you, My dad (who is British) said he believes America are fighting the right cause, and he said he'd proudly die for America, lol, as he believes Americans would do the same for Britian.

Personally I am going to make a 'phrophecy' lol:

H

The USA will get into a large scale war, it will struggle and fight a war on two fronts. The USA will slowly die by this.

Some Americans claim 'they saved Europes ass in WW2'; I believe in this war Europe will return the favour.

But anyway, whatever point I've made, I've made it.

Sorry to go off topic.

domestic terrorists in the US are guys like the ALF and white supremecy groups. i'm not saying they aren't a threat, but they aren't a concern because they tend to do things like protest and free lab animals. with the ALF and other animal rights groups, they try to avoid human casualties. even though it's widely agreed upon that it's only a matter of time before one the building they burn down will harm someone. yet they could potentially be a serious backdoor threat.

No, ALF and white supremecy groups are not terrorist groups if they only protest. Do you recall the incident of the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing? That is a serious (what you called) a "backdoor" threat.

yet they could potentially be a serious backdoor threat.

Anybody from within our nation or outside our nation have already carried out terrorist bombings. That is why Homeland Security are seeking out potential threats on all fronts.

well kane when i said protests it was just one part of their agenda. recently the ALF broke into an animal research lab in illinois and released lab animals. it may seem harmless, but they've also been responsible for numerous firebombs across the US, which qualifies them as terrorists. same goes for the white supremecy groups, they might protest, but they have also been known to use numerous types of weapons to harm the public. which also makes them a terrorist group. even though groups like the ALF claim they don't want to harm anyone, they already have, yet denied it in many interviews. i believe one of the more recent casualties was a fire fighter that was involved in putting out a fire that they had started.
the oklahoma city bombing couldn't be linked to any major terrorist group, at least not that i can recall. it was definetly an act of terrorism though.

Speaking of Homeland Security, did anyone notice Gov Ridge has resigned? From what I heard, he quit because he realized how difficult it is to try and accomplish what the President wants him too. Now, I'm not talking about stopping the terrorist threat, what I'm talking about is bridging the communications gap between the security agencies. Along those lines, this Bull about them completely revamping the CIA is insane. If anyone remembers, the same thing happened after Military Intelligence failed to predict the attack on Pearl Harbor (where is that "Does History Repeat Itself Thread?"). Our intel agencies are fine, we just need to have them talk to each other.

Originally Posted by egoz

even though groups like the ALF claim they don't want to harm anyone, they already have, yet denied it in many interviews. i believe one of the more recent casualties was a fire fighter that was involved in putting out a fire that they had started.

They're arsonists, not terrorists.

Originally Posted by Kane

They're arsonists, not terrorists.

no, because they fit the FBI definition of a terrorist. they might be charged as an arsonist during trial, but they are terrorists. if you want to be technical they are considered ecoterrorists.
FBI definition of terrorism:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf

Ecoterrorism in the News, ELF, ALF, etc:
http://www.amprogress.org/Files/Files.cfm?ID=383&c=68
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle2766.html
http://miami.staughton.indypgh.org/news/2004/11/293.php
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Eco-terrorism
http://utminers.utep.edu/best/papers...ani/itswar.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm