Congressman: 'Take out' holy sites If terrorists nuke U.S.

C/Cpl. Chirico said:
I rarely ever post here, but I couldn't resist this topic.


While I agree that nuclear retaliation is the only way to go, you guys seem to forget an alternate scenario.

If the terrorists made the threat to detonate nuclear devices in US cities, I'm pretty sure we could prevent that from ever happening if we threaten to nuke Muslim holy sites. That might be the only thing that could prevent them from doing that.

This is exactly what I said in a previous post. I believe that the better good would come from moderates turning in radical Imams who are doing the recruiting. It will have to be addressed by the true Muslims to crack down on friends and neighbors if they advocate murder.
 
one question though: do you want to be remembered forever as the generation who destroyed those monuments? i mean, they are sacred for a reason.... i dont think threatening to bomb them would have any effect on the terrorists, other than to :cen: them off even morel their twisted brand of religion means they will still be devout even without the sacred locations.
 
Locke said:
one question though: do you want to be remembered forever as the generation who destroyed those monuments? i mean, they are sacred for a reason.... i dont think threatening to bomb them would have any effect on the terrorists, other than to :cen: them off even morel their twisted brand of religion means they will still be devout even without the sacred locations.

No, it won't make an impression on the terrorists whatever is done. I would pin my hope on the real Muslims to come forward and rid the world of these people forever. By the way, we weren't warned when they sucker punched every country in which they are allowed to spread terror. I revere life much more than any monument in the World. Obviously, they show no such reverence for any of the religions of the World and since they bomb their own Mosques, for their own either.
 
do you want to be remembered forever as the generation who destroyed those monuments?

Do you want to be known as the generation that allowed it's citys to go up in plumes of smoke and fire and do nothing.
 
Missileer said:
This is exactly what I said in a previous post. I believe that the better good would come from moderates turning in radical Imams who are doing the recruiting. It will have to be addressed by the true Muslims to crack down on friends and neighbors if they advocate murder.

So how many of the worlds 1-1.3 billion muslims are terrorists, how many of them do you think you can justify killing and more importantly how many of those who are moderates would remain moderate after the event.

Unfortunately I think this congressman has validated Samual Johnsons* famous quote
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

* I have no doubt that someone will try and attibute this quote to Abe Lincoln but Lincolns quote is a little different and given that Johnson 1709-1784 was dead a good 25 years before Lincoln was born I think johnson gets the credit.
 
Only cowards count the enemy before the charge, it's much easier to count the bodies later. Victory belongs to the courageous.
 
Missileer said:
Victory belongs to the courageous.

is that what they said at Nanking? from what iv read victory belongs to those who want it the most and are prepared to do the extreme. it doesn't mean they were right, it just means they were more brutal and combat effective
 
Locke said:
Missileer said:
Victory belongs to the courageous.

is that what they said at Nanking? from what iv read victory belongs to those who want it the most and are prepared to do the extreme. it doesn't mean they were right, it just means they were more brutal and combat effective

I don't care what they said at Nanking. I care about what they said at D-day and all other just conflicts. You seem to see the dark side of everything and I dwell on hope of peace and tranquility, but there is a price. Cowards die many deaths, the valiant taste of death but once.
 
you can dress up combat death in valour and heroics and sacrifice, but in the end, you are still dying alone on the battlefield slowly with a shot to the torso.

doesn't mean i wouldn't do it, im just not into dressing things up wrongly

not that i feel the need to justify myself, but i dont always see the darkside, its just on topics like this there isn't really a bright side
 
Missileer said:
Only cowards count the enemy before the charge, it's much easier to count the bodies later. Victory belongs to the courageous.


Man you have a career in writing fillers for fortune cookies, I mean really how many cliches can you fit into a sentence?

This thread is kind of pointless given that any large scale launch from the US is more than likely going to be met by a retalitory launch from pretty much every nuclear capable nation in the affected area which will more than likely be India, Pakistan, China and Israel (obviously not all against the USA but I wouldnt like to be living in Israel when the middleastern radiation cloud comes sailing by nor would I want to be in the US when China gets its share of the radiation.

So really the choice comes down to whether the US considers the attack worth ending humanity.
 
MontyB said:
Missileer said:
Only cowards count the enemy before the charge, it's much easier to count the bodies later. Victory belongs to the courageous.


Man you have a career in writing fillers for fortune cookies, I mean really how many cliches can you fit into a sentence?

This thread is kind of pointless given that any large scale launch from the US is more than likely going to be met by a retalitory launch from pretty much every nuclear capable nation in the affected area which will more than likely be India, Pakistan, China and Israel (obviously not all against the USA but I wouldnt like to be living in Israel when the middleastern radiation cloud comes sailing by nor would I want to be in the US when China gets its share of the radiation.

So really the choice comes down to whether the US considers the attack worth ending humanity.

You say cliche', I say real world. Read a newspaper or watch the news. Do you actually believe that any country in the world would dare launch a nuclear attack against America? If so, which country or countries are you talking about and who exactly has the sophistocation to deliver weapons that far?
 
chewie_nz said:
iraq.



wasn't that the reason the US invaded?

Just as I suspected, you can't read. Or just refuse to believe when you do. I think the list of broken UN resolutions has been posted enough times that if you don't understand world politics, you never will.
 
but you went in to find the WMD's, iraq had WMD's which is why they were breaking the resolution. right?


you use the UN resolutions to back up your case with one hand, yet condem the UN as being irrelevent with the other.


to the origional question, countries with the means to deliver nukes to the continental united states;

france
russia
china
UK

(i may be missing some)
 
Its true we went into Iraq on bad intelligence, but based on the intelligence we had, there was no other choice. If saddam used WMDs on Israel, nuclear retaliation would be almost guaranteed. If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit. The result would be Bush's head on a pike on the white house lawn.

but rabs but rabs, what about North Korea???!?!?!

North Korea wants nuke for itself, and would in all likelihood not give them to a terriost group. Also if they did use a nuke they realize retaliation would wipe them off the face of the earth. N.Korea also isnt really has crazy has everyone thinks, they aren't islamo-nazis and want to exterminate the jews, they want nukes for international respect and a bargaining chip. I'm not saying N.Korea should be allowed to have nukes, but we can trust them to not use them and time for negotiations is acceptable. However, if we get a firm fix on there nuke sites and we know almost certainly we can get all of em, blow em to f'in hell.
 
so what you're saying is that you consider North korea to be less able to attack it's neibours than a country that had been bombed almost every other week for ten years.


sorry mate. i dont follow that.


if the US took a shot at "regieme change" in NK you would have to deal with china. thats why the US didn't and wont.


how about a brutal dictator who has been killing and exiling his own countrymen for the better part of 25 years? robert mugabe
 
chewie_nz said:
but you went in to find the WMD's, iraq had WMD's which is why they were breaking the resolution. right?


you use the UN resolutions to back up your case with one hand, yet condem the UN as being irrelevent with the other.

Indeed this has been the more amusing aspect of this little spat I have even manages to smirk my way through posts blaming the UN for the poor intelligence that lead to the war, I personally have become a more ardent UN supporter than I used to solely because they have stuck to their guns over Iraq.
 
Back
Top