Nucear Terrorism

[vyo476]

What do you think the appropriate retaliation for a nuclear attack by terrorists on American soil would be?

[vyo476]

And before anyone even mentions it...yes, I committed a typo and misspelled "nuclear" in the title. The "l" key on my laptop doesn't always work properly.

Feel free to make fun of me...with this acknowledgment of the error in mind.

[Dave]

Part of me wants a full nuclear response. If we are talking about state sponsered terrorism, we could go after the sponser of the actions. I've also kind of kicked around the idea of going after Islamic holy cities. The first attack could draw a response of nuking Medina, and a public statement that any following attacks would result in the destruction of Mecca. Maybe holding their holy cities hostage could form some form of deterrent against Islamic fundamentalists. To me, thats the closest we can come to the mutually assured destruction policies that worked for us in the Cold War.

[Castle]

Well, since we're just going to sit and wait for it to happen (and it will happen sooner or later) its really hard to say how we will respond. It also largely depends on who is in the White House at the time.

Iran will have the bomb and is very friendly with terrorist groups begging for the chance to light one off here in America. If you can put 2 and 2 together, extrapolating the eventual result is quite simple. Iran should be told before this happens that they'll be little more than a great big hole in the ground if we're hit. Make them at least consider the advantages of keeping their nukes on a tight leash.

However, the US will never tell them that much less make good on it so it makes little difference. We'll sit and wait and play the UN game some more.

-Castle

[Sadistic Savior]

We would probably just do what we are doing now, but in a more draconian manner.

No, we are not going to nuke anyone just because we got nuked ourselves. We are not going to kill millions of innocent people just to make a point or to make ourselves feel better. It's not going to happen. (M.A.D. is so 1980s)

However we would be far less tolerant of non-democracies than we are now. The "you're with us or against us" view with regards to terrorism would have real teeth finally.

[Castle]

We would probably just do what we are doing now, but in a more draconian manner.

No, we are not going to nuke anyone just because we got nuked ourselves. We are not going to kill millions of innocent people just to make a point or to make ourselves feel better. It's not going to happen. (M.A.D. is so 1980s)

However we would be far less tolerant of non-democracies than we are now. The "you're with us or against us" view with regards to terrorism would have real teeth finally.
I agree that we would most likely not respond in kind but if we did (and I would without hesitation) it would be for much more than a point or two. It would make clear to the next savage with a bomb that there will be a terrible price to pay while most likely saving the millions in the next American city targeted by islamic terrorists.

I'm curious, "our view with regards to terrorism would have real teeth finally"
Could you further expand on this? Short of a swift and crushing response to a nuclear attack, what would terrorists regard as real teeth in our approach?

-Castle

[Sadistic Savior]

I agree that we would most likely not respond in kind but if we did (and I would without hesitation)

Why? What would be the point of killing millions of innocent people that their government wouldnt care about anyway? There is no point.

Do you think Saddam would care if we retaliated and killed a million Iraqis while he was in power? He would not lose a minute of sleep over it.

It would make clear to the next savage with a bomb that there will be a terrible price to pay while most likely saving the millions in the next American city targeted by islamic terrorists.

Most of them wouldnt care. MAD only works if the other party cares that they are retaliated against. If the other party see's death as a ticket to paradise, MAD no longer functions as a deterrant.

I'm curious, "our view with regards to terrorism would have real teeth finally" Could you further expand on this?

We should not be cooperating with any non-democracy. Period. Many Paleocons (and some neocons) have the flawed idea that non-democracies (such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) can be employed as tools. But aside from the fact that supporting a non-democracy is incredibly immoral, they are also inherently volitile. They do not have to answer to their people. They can make decisions on a whim.

Right now, we do not really have a zero-tolerance policy with regards to terrorism. Because we work with other nations that are sympathetic to them because we want to use them as tools. Even now we are making diplomatic ovatures to Iran out of expediency.

Short of a swift and crushing response to a nuclear attack, what would terrorists regard as real teeth in our approach?

Aggressive action against all non-democracies. At a bare minimum, we should cease all trade with them. That includes China. That includes Saudi Arabia. All non-democracies should be viewed for what they are: Enemies of freedom and eventual threats to us.

But that is not going to happen until a catastrophic event like a nuke going off in a major city takes place. Which will be unfortunate.

[Truth-Bringer]

Why?

Yes, why did you have to come here you idiotic Neocon troll?

Who invited this fool?

[Sadistic Savior]

Yes, why did you have to come here you idiotic Neocon troll?

I am exploring other forums due to technical problems on Politicalforum.com.

Why does my presence upset you so much?

Who invited this fool?

A user named "gamingperson" sent me a private message on PoliticalForum.com with this site, asking me to join. So I did.

Are you going to run away from this forum now too? Heh heh

[Truth-Bringer]

I am exploring other forums due to technical problems on Politicalforum.com.

Why does my presence upset you so much?

It doesn't upset me. I quickly realized you were completely and totally irrational a long time ago. I just want to save everyone else the trouble of wasting their time with a devout Neocon Kool-Aid drinker.



Are you going to run away from this forum now too?

I didn't run away from politicalforum.com. They can't get their speed up to par, so it's pointless. But you should stay there. It's a perfect match for you, since it's a waste of time.

[Sadistic Savior]

It doesn't upset me.

Sure looks like it from your posts. I thought you were going to have a conniption there for a minute.

If this is you when you're calm, I'd hate to see the kind of hissy fit you throw when you're upset, heh heh

I just want to save everyone else the trouble of wasting their time with a devout Neocon Kool-Aid drinker.

I am sure they appreciate you forming their opinions for them. Maybe they'll send you some flowers or something.

[Castle]

Why? What would be the point of killing millions of innocent people that their government wouldnt care about anyway? There is no point.
I'm no fan of killing millions of innocents, much less a single innocent person, but that is the ugly fact of war. I would prefer a non-nuclear solution. If we are assuming here that the US has already been hit, it is hard for me to rationalize another UN style approach which generally accomplishes little.

Do you think Saddam would care if we retaliated and killed a million Iraqis while he was in power? He would not lose a minute of sleep over it.
No, he would not care as he would most likely not be alive to care. However, Saddam was not responsible for providing a nuclear device to terrorists that would in turn detonate said device in an American city. If he was in a position to do so at some point in the future, I have no doubt that he would have.

Most of them wouldnt care. MAD only works if the other party cares that they are retaliated against. If the other party see's death as a ticket to paradise, MAD no longer functions as a deterrant.
True if you are dealing only with the pawns that terrorist leaders send out to do their dirty work. They are more than happy to get their 72 virgins. Middle Eastern governments that support these pawns and their terrorist networks care very much about self preservation.



We should not be cooperating with any non-democracy. Period. Many Paleocons (and some neocons) have the flawed idea that non-democracies (such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) can be employed as tools. But aside from the fact that supporting a non-democracy is incredibly immoral, they are also inherently volitile. They do not have to answer to their people. They can make decisions on a whim.

Right now, we do not really have a zero-tolerance policy with regards to terrorism. Because we work with other nations that are sympathetic to them because we want to use them as tools. Even now we are making diplomatic ovatures to Iran out of expediency.
Agreed.

Aggressive action against all non-democracies. At a bare minimum, we should cease all trade with them. That includes China. That includes Saudi Arabia. All non-democracies should be viewed for what they are: Enemies of freedom and eventual threats to us.

But that is not going to happen until a catastrophic event like a nuke going off in a major city takes place. Which will be unfortunate.
Well......trade sanctions have been tried and you saw how Saddam dealt with it. Oil-for-food! He got richer and his people suffered. Of course that was our fault for imposing the sanctions....yeah right!

I agree totally that nothing will be dealt with until we are burned again and then the left will say we should have done something to prevent it or that we were in on it to start another war. How convenient to have it both ways.

-Castle

[Truth-Bringer]

I am sure they appreciate you forming their opinions for them.

They've got their own opinions. I'm just letting them know yours are slightly deranged...like when you admitted you'd kill 7 year old children if the government passed a law requiring you to do so. You're a good little Nazi, and that's all I'm trying to convey to people.

[Sadistic Savior]

like when you admitted you'd kill 7 year old children if the government passed a law requiring you to do so.

When did I say that? Can you post a link to the quote for me?

[Castle]

Umm.... I'm getting the impression that Truth-Bringer has major issues with you Sadistic Savior. So far, I've seen no evidence that you are a Nazi so what did I miss?!

-Castle

[Sadistic Savior]

Umm.... I'm getting the impression that Truth-Bringer has major issues with you Sadistic Savior.

Oh boy does she. It irritates her to no end that people dont ignore me. She will address every member of the forum begging them to ignore me...it's like watching Wile E Coyote try to catch the Road Runner.

I would be really surprised if she hasnt already contacted the administrator in an attempt to get me banned.

So far, I've seen no evidence that you are a Nazi so what did I miss?!

She likes to take quotes from me way out of context, as she did above. Thats why she wont link to it. Because people will follow the link and see that she took it out of context.

I'm no fan of killing millions of innocents, much less a single innocent person, but that is the ugly fact of war.

It doesnt have to be. There is no point to retaliating against people who dont make the decisions anyway.

If we are assuming here that the US has already been hit, it is hard for me to rationalize another UN style approach which generally accomplishes little.

I gave an alternative to a UN-style solution.

Me: Most of them wouldnt care. MAD only works if the other party cares that they are retaliated against. If the other party see's death as a ticket to paradise, MAD no longer functions as a deterrant.

True if you are dealing only with the pawns that terrorist leaders send out to do their dirty work.

Most of the leaders believe the same thing. They are not rational. Bin Laden is just as convinced that he will go to paradise when he dies as any of his suicide-bombing minions are. If someone like that ever became a dictator, yes, they are fully capable of dying if they believe they can take us with them.

Middle Eastern governments that support these pawns and their terrorist networks care very much about self preservation.

The current ones do. In a chaotic situation such as Iraq, there is always the possibility that a radical could take power.

Well......trade sanctions have been tried and you saw how Saddam dealt with it.

Trade Sanctions will not result in a long-term policy change. That is why they are insufficient. That is why we cannot trust any non-democracy, no matter how benign.

Trade Sanctions mean nothing if the masses have no decision-making power anyway. Because the ruler(s) will always be the last to feel them.

[vyo476]

They've got their own opinions. I'm just letting them know yours are slightly deranged...like when you admitted you'd kill 7 year old children if the government passed a law requiring you to do so. You're a good little Nazi, and that's all I'm trying to convey to people.

We welcome all viewpoints with scathing diatribes and venomous word attacks. That by no means indicates we actively want anyone to leave. The suggestion may come up but usually only as a point in conversation, rather than an actual request for someone to leave the board.

So, in all good faith...welcome, Sadistic Savior. We're probably going to attack every single one of your ideas, but that doesn't mean you aren't welcome.

[USMC the Almighty]

Truth -- why all the personal attacks? Address his points or simply ignore him.

[9sublime]

At least show us where he said he would kill 7 year old children if you're going to say it.

[Truth-Bringer]

When did I say that? Can you post a link to the quote for me?

I can't get on the politicalforum.com site right now, due to the aforementioned problems. You you know very well that you said it. Then of course you tried to cover it up and say "Oh, but I'd try to leave the country first." Then I replied with "But the government is going to pass a law preventing people from leaving in order to avoid legal obligations." And then you realized you were trapped.

Be careful what you ask for S.S. I'll keep checking their site and you know you're about to be publically exposed.

[Truth-Bringer]

Truth -- why all the personal attacks? Address his points or simply ignore him.

The guy's just so arrogant and full of himself, that's all. He's attacked numerous people on the other forum we were members of. I'm just giving you all a warning.

[Sadistic Savior]

I can't get on the politicalforum.com site right now, due to the aforementioned problems. You you know very well that you said it.

You'll have to post a link to referesh my memory.

Be careful what you ask for S.S. I'll keep checking their site and you know you're about to be publically exposed.

I dont have a problem with you posting link to support your claims. You officially have my permission, heh heh

[Castle]

Truth-Bringer
If what you say is true, Will it not eventually surface in this forum as well? Everyone can then make their own call. No sense getting bent out of shape over it.

-Castle

[Truth-Bringer]

Truth-Bringer
If what you say is true, Will it not eventually surface in this forum as well? Everyone can then make their own call. No sense getting bent out of shape over it.

-Castle

Castle, trust me, I'm not bent out of shape. Everyone's perception on this is wrong. You guys haven't dealt with S.S. as long as I have. Again, I'm just putting out a "disclaimer." And frankly, some of you may agree with many of his political opinions, so you will forgive many of his other shortcomings.

[USMC the Almighty]

The guy's just so arrogant and full of himself, that's all. He's attacked numerous people on the other forum we were members of. I'm just giving you all a warning.

Who cares? Like Castle said, what he does on other forums doesn't really matter to us here. If he starts acting up here, then we'll take appropriate action. Until then, debate the issues.

[Truth-Bringer]

You'll have to post a link to referesh my memory.


Here it is - the first post - I state "So if the government made a law stating people must murder one 7 year old child per year, you would have to do that?"

You reply:

"If its the law, yes."

Then you try and explain it away by saying it wouldn't legally be possible, etc., etc. But you did admit that you would kill 7 year old children if the government passed a law requiring you to do so. And that's why S.S. is the perfect name for a good little Nazi like you. Here's the link. (http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20465&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=64)

[Truth-Bringer]

At least show us where he said he would kill 7 year old children if you're going to say it.

Ask and you shall receive...

[9sublime]

I am asking.

[Sadistic Savior]

Me: You'll have to post a link to referesh my memory.

Here it is

Ah...allow me to post the full quote:

You: So if the government made a law stating people must murder one 7 year old child per year, you would have to do that?

Me: If its the law, yes. Of course it would never happen for obvious reasons. But it is legally possible. In your example, if I had no other choice, I would move to another nation and surrender my citizenship. Because America would no longer represent my ideals.

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20465&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=64

As you can see, I did not say that I would murder a 7 year old. I said that if your ridiculous example were to even come true, I would move to another nation before committing such an act.

I assumed the "you" in your quote was referring to people in general being bound by the law, not myself specifically.

For additional claraification, this statement was right above it:

You: So if you had a 7 year old son in this situation, and someone murdered him, you would just accept it, right?

Me: No...I would move to another country and/or work to put a stop to the law legally. Children are already legally murdered in this country. We use the euphemism of "abortion" to describe it. That doesnt mean I am out bombing abortion clinics.

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20465&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=64

Thanks for posting the link so we could clear up that little bit of confusion.

[Truth-Bringer]

As you can see, I did not say that I would murder a 7 year old.

ROTFL. Caught in plain view and you're still lying. I said you tried to explain it away, but you said "If it's the law, yes."

Now please stop lying, nazi boy.

[Sadistic Savior]

ROTFL. Caught in plain view and you're still lying.

If everyone can see it, what are you worried about?

I said you tried to explain it away, but you said "If it's the law, yes."

You took my words out of context. So I posted my full quote and clarified my position.

[Truth-Bringer]

You took my words out of context.

You made a clear admission regardless of the context. Your attempt to twist what you said is like attempting to answer a question by saying "yes I definitely would but no I wouldn't" Your "context" is irrational and a clear attempt at obfuscation.

[vyo476]

You guys have been at this for almost a week now. Besides the fact that thread topic seems to have gone out the window, don't you think its time to put the "Let's Murder 7-Year-Olds" thing to rest?