American Hiroshima: yes to if, no to when

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 11080
PAGE 4 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIMONWHO

Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:56 PM

Actually that little theory is very similar to what we call "politicians logic" in that if you present any politician with a problem and a possible cause of action, they will take it on the logic that:

a) this situation is terrible
b) we must do something
c) this is something
d) ergo we must do this.

But let's look at it from a slightly different perspective. July 1988, London is struck by a dirty bomb and the IRA takes responsibility. Do you think the British government should:

a) track down precisely those responsible and go through proper procedures

or

b) nuke Dublin and Boston?

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:04 PM

Quote:
But the only point at which that might be ineffective is the life-style issue. Bases in Saudi isn't the only problem they have with us. It's the much broader issue of our culture that concerns me. The Islamic fundamentalists will not be placated by mere military withdrawal, because their horror comes from what they perceive to be our morally bankrupt lifestyle. We're infidels and in their logic we've got to die. It's hard to reason with that. Not to mention that they aren't solely state funded which means that if one nation (e.g. Saudi Arabia) cracks down, they'll simply pack up and move elsewhere (e.g. as from Sudan to Afghanistan).

There are many rationales for terrorism, and not all terrorists are unreasonable "lifestyle/ religious" fanatics. The Palestinians just want their houses and their land back. The Sunni Arab Iraqi insurgents want control of the Iraqi government again (not possible) and their foreign helpers want US withdrawal from Iraq (possible). And don't forget that we armed the Taliban to the teeth in our fight against the USSR, so even WE are guilty of fostering terrorism! Lumping "them" all into one category makes the problem insolvable.

I agree that they're not solely state-funded. Afghanistan is basically a narco state; the warlords prolly get a lot of their funding that way. (And BTW- for some strange reason, although we officially support Karzai, our $$ went to the warloards. Go figure.)

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So I started a a thread with the hope that folks might talk about whether they believed a nuclear attack was inevitable or not. 'Cause I really don't think it is. Ah well, best laid plans...

I, for one, don't think that a nuclear bombing in this country is inevitable. There's just no data on which to make that assessment.

I do, on the other hand, think that it's only a matter of time before there's another terrorist attack here for 2 reasons: 1) they're still pissed off at us, and 2) they've done it before (there's precedent).

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Seriously, my point was just that doing nothing can sometimes be as productive, if not moreso, than doing something. Dong ma?

Seems to me we all agree that terrorism is bad. Where we seem to have disagreement is 1) the root causes, and 2) what we should do about it.

Is that a pretty fair summary?

Oh, also, it seems that there's a fair amount of concensus that nuking something isn't the answer.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

PIRATEJENNY

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:49 PM

Quote:
I read over in another thread, and you've been kind enough to restate here, your belief that a nuclear strike against this country is inevitable. I thought, oh no, not Jenny too! So I started a a thread with the hope that folks might talk about whether they believed a nuclear attack was inevitable or not. 'Cause I really don't think it is. Ah well, best laid plans...

at the rate we are going, I do feel that its inevitiable. our policies and our actions are only leading to a tragic outcome, unfortuntly its going to be tragic for us.

we aren't doing anything to foster peace and goodwill, with the middle east, china and even the former soviet union, all of these nations can probably and will benifit from taking us down a few notchs if not outright They each maybe motivated by diffrent agendas but they all have a stake in seeing it happen. maybe I'm just jaded but I don't think so , not based on what I've observed. I don't see any actions on the part of our current government to make changes that would bring an end to the choas, if anything it seems they are doing their best to keep it going.

It doesn't take a brainiac to know hate only breeds more hate, violence breeds more hate and violence. even people who didnot have anything against us now do, because we've invaded their country and forcing our polices on them. These people may not have the technology or the sophistication to do anything right at the moment, but they've got something even more powerful, they have the motivation the will and the determination to hurt and destroy us. Its an all consuming passion and if someone wants something bad enough believe in something strong enough its going to happen..thats the law of nature!!

you can only bully someone for so long before they fight back and kick your arse!!

you can only hit a dog so many times before he bites you.

our time is running out..fast!!! thats the way I see it, its only a matter of time call it Karma..but its coming.

I don't want us to get bombed or attack, but when it happens I think part of me will feel like in someway we all deserve it because we see with our own eyes whats happening and we do nothing to stop it to prevent it, we close our eyes go on about our daily life, ignore whats happening or live in outright denial pumping ourselves up with moral superiority and self-rightiousness hanging on to our attitudes with all our might and not evolving to the changes thats happening in a forever changing world, because were scared, because its easier to go along then to do anything we make excuses for our governments actions because we don't really believe we can do anything or make a diffrence

we've set ourselves on path and there is no turning back, the question now is what are we going to and what can we do.

I don't have any solutions but I know that bombing people isn't the answer that surely will just make things worse for everyone in the longrun..

maybe the solution is to start thinking about the longrun ....ask ourselves what kind of future do we want to live in , do we want our children to live in, and take action to make that future happen!!!

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:26 PM

Thanks for bringing the discussion back on track. The header SHOULD have given me a clue! I don't think it is at all "inevitable". However, I also think it's realistic- even preferable- to talk about what we should do IF it should happen, even if that involves doing NOTHING except act in response mode (medical treatment, decontamination etc.) It's like any emergency - if you've thought it through and you've gone through the motions beforehand, you'll be able to respond thoughfully. Your friend has had a chance to explore his emotions with you before the event. That's a GOOD thing.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:39 PM

Take heart, PirateJenny! Take a look at this speach here from Republican Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas, no less:

Quote:
Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win," explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr071405.htm

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there yo

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:42 PM

Nuke them before they Nuke you
Another quality home game from Butler Bros.

RoboChrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:01 AM

" They hate us not for some specific thing we've done (at least, not originally for some specific thing), but because our way of life is an affront to Islam. "

What ? Thats a load of crap.

Do you want a list of reasons why US foreign policy in the region has made these people hate the US ? Don't be blind to the past

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:11 AM

Nuking Mecca would only be an effective retaliation against a nuclear strike on US soil if it was known that the Arabs were knowingly and willingly responsible for the attack and were able effect more such attacks. In that case, I would think that we would have no other choice but to strike somewhere in Saudi Arabia. Maybe not Mecca, but somewhere.

The problem is that Islamic Terrorism, unlike Nazism or Fascism or Japanese Imperialism, is a product of a culture that is unconfined to any region or group of states (even though certain states and regions are obviously more heavily infected with this culture). Most of the terrorist in the London attack were British citizens born in Britain. Nuclear weapons are weapons against states, not cultures, and as such they are very ineffective as an offensive tool in the war on terror. In order to attack Islamic Terrorism, one must attack the culture that breeds it.

Blowing up Mecca would probably kill quite a few terrorists, but it wouldn’t damage the culture of Islamic Terrorism, because they really don’t care whether Mecca gets blown up or not. The ruined, feudal Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was a perfect example of what the culture of Islamic Terrorism considered a perfect state. Blowing these people back to the stone-age is exactly what they want.

Now if you really want to strike fear into the heart of Islamic terrorists, then turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. That will do far more damage to Islamic Terrorism then nuking Mecca.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE