What if Al-Quada nukes America?

[Orion999]

I have been curious about this senario for some time and I am curious to hear the communist opinion.

If Al-Quada gets it's hands on one of these supposedly missing Soviet briefcase nukes, and manages to use it to obliterate New York, what do you all believe would be an appropriate American response?

Since it would not be a specific country that attacked us, it would be hard to know who to retailiate against. I personally believe the U.S. Govt. should publically state that the use of any weapon of mass destruction on American soil by Islamic terrorists will result in the immediate nuclear annialtion of their two holy cities Mecca and Medina. This may seem a little harsh to most of you all because the people in these cities will not have been responsible for the attack on America, but what else could we do?

The U.S. would have no choice but to retailiate, so what would you all suggest?


By the way, the answers Bush would have probably done it, Islamic terrorists would never do anything like that, or the U.S. would have deserved it for all of it's past "crimes" is not an acceptable response.

[Sadena Meti]

There never were any briefcase nukes. It was a propaganda ploy. The smallest man portable nukes were the rocket tip based series, all tactical grade and decommissioned, and the US man portable nuke, which was the size of an oil drum, tactical grade and decommissioned

Your rationale that the US should attack an uninvolved city is interesting. By that standard, we should nuke the entire state of Texas for the terrorist actions of W. Or bomb every christian church for in response for the Crusades, witch burnings, and slaughter of native populations. Or attack a city in the nation that installed military bases on holy land (which if you are too stupid to recognize it was the rationale of Bin Laden).

Oh, BTW, you bomb Mecca, Al-Qaeda's membership will go from a few thousand to 1.3 billion.



You fucking moron.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hmmm. It's a good question, alright.

However, I don't think nuking Mecca and/or Medina would be an appropriate response, because (and I know this is kind of the same point you discussed in your own post) the citizens of those places for the most part are not extremists, and do not subscribe to these psychopaths' particular ideals. It would be a lot like retaliating against Germany for crimes committed by neo-Nazi groups in the US.

If anything, nuking the 2 Muslim holy cities would galvanize support for these terrorists amongst Muslims across the globe. Burning hatred of America and the West would become sacrosanct for just about every Muslim on Earth.

Also, nuking these 2 cities would basically be martyrdom galore, and we all know how those Islamofascists love their martyrs. There is nothing to guarantee that such a threat would actually repel the threat of a nuclear attack on America.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 5 2006, 03:03 PM
Oh, BTW, you bomb Mecca, Al-Qaeda's membership will go from a few thousand to 1.3 billion.
Actually, the US wouldn't even need to bomb Mecca, just threaten to do it. That is about all it would take to mandate the anihilation of the US in the mind of every Muslim, and most rational non-Muslims as well. And let us not forget that Pakistan has nukes. Not to mention the EU, which would possibly mandate punitive strikes. I'm sure China would as well.

[D_Bokk]

The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.

[An archist]

The US are nuked by Al Qaida and the secret services can't point to anyone who might have done it? Come on, give the CIA some credit.

Other then that, I agree with redstar.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:17 PM
The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.
Estimate the probability of this occurring.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:17 PM
The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.
you forget about that thing called a survival instinct, most nations have it.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:56 PM
I personally believe the U.S. Govt. should publically state that the use of any weapon of mass destruction on American soil by Islamic terrorists will result in the immediate nuclear annialtion of their two holy cities Mecca and Medina.
How fucking stupid are you? The United States would not bomb any cities in Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration, and most other presidential adminastrations in the past thirty or so years have been extremely cosy with the Saudis.

Take your bullshit somewhere else.

[loveme4whoiam]

If Al-Quada gets it's hands on one of these supposedly missing Soviet briefcase nukes, and manages to use it to obliterate New York, what do you all believe would be an appropriate American response?
I&#39;d call up Jack Bauer or Jack Ryan, or any other fictional character out of any tv show or book by a "political thriller" author written or made in the past twenty years. Do you know just how many book blurbs I&#39;ve read with those exact words in?&#33; Except, of course, replace "Al-Quada" [sic] with "an unknown terrorist organisation" <_<

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 5 2006, 09:23 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 5 2006, 09:23 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 08:17 PM
The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.
Estimate the probability of this occurring. [/b]
Ever so slightly higher than the US government doing something rational and not just bombing the shit out of a country full of "Those eeeeeeeevil muslim brown people".

[Cryotank Screams]

Personally I think the US could have easily, and could easily take out all terrorist organizations, it&#39;s just they seem to want to leave the masses uncertain of the future, and feel like the have to support the government because who else would defend the US?

Certainly not the anti-war candidates no, we need a war monger to help lead the people to safety, ;) .

At any rate if al-quada did target the US, I think it would be fairly easy to target, their head quarters and bases of operation and kill them all; every last one of those pathetic spectral fascists.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 5 2006, 04:53 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 5 2006, 04:53 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:23 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 08:17 PM
The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.
Estimate the probability of this occurring.
Ever so slightly higher than the US government doing something rational and not just bombing the shit out of a country full of "Those eeeeeeeevil muslim brown people". [/b]
blowing up your own government buildings isn&#39;t "rational".

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 5 2006, 10:14 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 5 2006, 10:14 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:23 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 08:17 PM
The appropriate response is for the US to blow up their own White House, Congress and the rest of their state machinery. That way Al-Qaeda wont have anything to target and will move onto some other Western nation.
Estimate the probability of this occurring.
Ever so slightly higher than the US government doing something rational and not just bombing the shit out of a country full of "Those eeeeeeeevil muslim brown people".
blowing up your own government buildings isn&#39;t "rational". [/b]
I never said it was.

I think somone should take a few more lessons in reading comprehension.

[colonelguppy]

my mistake.

[EwokUtopia]

Ok, why are you so worried about Al-Qaeda? lets look back, 2001, about 1500 Americans were killed by them. Thats the end of the Al-Qaeda striking America story, hundreds of times more Americans have since died of Car Accidents, Smoking, Preventable diseases that they didnt have the money to be treated for, Murder, Suicide, Fire, Drowning, and pretty much any other cause of death you can name? Why not have a war on wreckless driving or tobacco? Those things kill far more Americans than Al-Qaeda ever did, or even has the capacity to do. You have far more to worry about some pissed off white suburban kid with a bit of chemical knowledge than you do of Islamic Terrorism, seriously, I do not understand your fixation with it. It seems entirely irrational to me, as I have never met an Islamic Terrorist, lost a loved one to a car bomb, had my neighbourhood occupied by the Taliban or recieved a letter with anthrax in it, and I highly doubt any of you war hawks have either. I have never even so much as met a Muslim who looked down on me for not being one. If you can give me a reason to be afraid of Al-Qaeda that doesnt boil down to what you saw on the news or read on Alabama Dan&#39;s Super Islamophobic Website Extravaganza, I&#39;d love to hear you out, because this whole fear of terrorism thing is really confusing to me.

By the way, there was an intelligence mistake, the WMD&#39;s are in Iowa, not Iraq.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The notion that there is no state mechanism behind these terrorist organizations is bullshit. Iran and Syria (especially Iran) give many kinds of support to the terrorist Islamic killers.

Let&#39;s take the issue seriously, however, and deal with the question of what to do with an nuclear strike on NYC.

The only step to take, rightly or wrongfully, is the total destruction of Iran, as it is known today, and perhaps Syria as well. But especially Iran.

If NYC was destroyed as you suggest, most Muslims would be apaulled by the action, just as most Americans would not want to see Saudi Arabia destroyed by radical Muslims. However, the radical Muslim leadership throughout Iran would be jumping for joy in Iran, and they would have to be dealt with. If NYC were destroyed, America would have to fight back, and destroy the cities in these nations, AND DESTROY THEM BUT GOOD. If the USA did nothing of any worth, that would spell the end of America in every realistic way.

It would be too bad for the citizenship of these places, but rightly or wrongly, they support these terrorist groups, at least in the same way the Germans "supported" the Nazis, or the Japanese people "supported" their emporer.

The point is, regardless of anyone&#39;s objections to innocent civilians, during such an action and ensuing retaliation, innocence would be subordinate to dealing with assholes who who do such a thing.

Tough stuff, but the question was asked.


A. Hamilton

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well the US Government need to keep legitimate. This war on terror is simply about giving americans an enemy. It was native americans, then communists and now terrorists.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Another Point:

Remember that these organizations and their leadership have a goal, and it is NOT the destruction of the USA.

They have stated over and over again they want two things:

1. They want the USA to not have any troops or any establishment whatsoever in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the "Muslim World" as well.

2. They want (and would immediately press for, if #1 occurred) Israel to be destroyed/removed/ended.

That&#39;s all they want.

There are two major problems with their reasoning in this area:

1. If the USA should not "be" in Muslim countries, Muslims should "leave" France and England, and America, as one can argue the reverse argument. The problem is that these same leaders are not calling for Muslims to leave these places and "return to the homeland". Quite the reverse. They cry out whenever France passes laws that make Muslim identity in public school not allowed (like large clothing of some kind on the heads of women). This leadership accuses the US of prejudice when DMVs don&#39;t allow women to cover their faces for photos of driver&#39;s licenses. There&#39;s a lot morel, but you get the idea. If the USA is welcome by a government to be in a place, these organizations of a minority view of violence shouldn&#39;t be able to end that circumstance.

2. Israel&#39;s origins is locked into the United Nations, and is a recognized national body. True, UN&#39;s official position is that Israel should withdraw to its &#39;68 boundaries, but there is should exist. Can such organizations kill people until Israel is destroyed? Can a world body succeed if any band of people could overrule its decisions.

There is a lot more, but I thought I&#39;d add this to the discussion.


A. Hamilton

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 6 2006, 12:23 AM
The notion that there is no state mechanism behind these terrorist organizations is bullshit. Iran and Syria (especially Iran) give many kinds of support to the terrorist Islamic killers.

Let&#39;s take the issue seriously, however, and deal with the question of what to do with an nuclear strike on NYC.

The only step to take, rightly or wrongfully, is the total destruction of Iran, as it is known today, and perhaps Syria as well. But especially Iran.

If NYC was destroyed as you suggest, most Muslims would be apaulled by the action, just as most Americans would not want to see Saudi Arabia destroyed by radical Muslims. However, the radical Muslim leadership throughout Iran would be jumping for joy in Iran, and they would have to be dealt with. If NYC were destroyed, America would have to fight back, and destroy the cities in these nations, AND DESTROY THEM BUT GOOD. If the USA did nothing of any worth, that would spell the end of America in every realistic way.

It would be too bad for the citizenship of these places, but rightly or wrongly, they support these terrorist groups, at least in the same way the Germans "supported" the Nazis, or the Japanese people "supported" their emporer.

The point is, regardless of anyone&#39;s objections to innocent civilians, during such an action and ensuing retaliation, innocence would be subordinate to dealing with assholes who who do such a thing.

Tough stuff, but the question was asked.


A. Hamilton
Except the regimes in Iran and Syria are Shia and Alawit. Making them undesirable for the likes of salafists groups like Al Qaeda. If America wanted to win "the war on terror" the last thing she would do is invade Iran.

[Alexander Hamilton]

If America wanted to win "the war on terror" the last thing she would do is invade Iran.

In a "War", one goes after the targets that urge on the enemy. There was no "rational" reason for Japan to ally itself to Germany, being the German&#39;s views on racism and neither being in the other&#39;s geographic sphere of influence. However, Iran is shouting Death to America and Death to Israel while such organizations plot to destroy NYC. If the plot succeeded, obviously Iran would be a fair target. One can only take so many such attacks.

If three of our major cities suffered September 11 like events, threatening us that if we did anything would only bring on 10 million more martyrs would be a futile threat. By that point, who would care? Why should we?

The United States, as pointed out by so many at this board, is capable of inflicting great harm to others. If, in a war, you tell me that the only way to kill 1,000 of the enemy is to also kill 100 of the innocent, fuck yeah, baby&#33;

[Rex]

Originally posted by Orion999
Since it would not be a specific country that attacked us, it would be hard to know who to retailiate against. I personally believe the U.S. Govt. should publically state that the use of any weapon of mass destruction on American soil by Islamic terrorists will result in the immediate nuclear annialtion of their two holy cities Mecca and Medina. This may seem a little harsh to most of you all because the people in these cities will not have been responsible for the attack on America, but what else could we do?

That&#39;s fucking retarded. You can&#39;t completely destroy two cities because of an attack carried out by non-residents, much less residents of the city. And to do so simply because you can&#39;t think of anything else to do? Not only is that illogical, but it&#39;s self destructive. You know, attacking just anything isn&#39;t the best way to go about things. If we hadn&#39;t been so busy screwing with these people&#39;s borders and governments over the past 100 years, they wouldn&#39;t be attacking us at all anyways.

The best thing we could do would be to declare that we will no longer pursue our interests in their countries, especially if it goes against the interests of their people. If we are further attack, we will pursue the attackers. Attacking random targets for the fullfillment of getting back at our "enemies" isn&#39;t really getting back at our enemies. It simply creates more "terrorists," and, simply, is just plain sick.

Your scenario is stupid, racist, and sick.



The U.S. would have no choice but to retailiate, so what would you all suggest?


In case I didn&#39;t previously make it obvious, blowing up cities wouldn&#39;t be retaliating. You can&#39;t win a game of football by attacking the spectators.

[kaaos_af]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:56 PM


Since it would not be a specific country that attacked us, it would be hard to know who to retailiate against. I personally believe the U.S. Govt. should publically state that the use of any weapon of mass destruction on American soil by Islamic terrorists will result in the immediate nuclear annialtion of their two holy cities Mecca and Medina. This may seem a little harsh to most of you all because the people in these cities will not have been responsible for the attack on America, but what else could we do?

Yeah, sure, you do that. But say bye to Boston, Chicago, New York, New Orleons, Washington, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City and whatever other major cities you have left.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:56 AM
I have been curious about this senario for some time and I am curious to hear the communist opinion.

If Al-Quada gets it&#39;s hands on one of these supposedly missing Soviet briefcase nukes, and manages to use it to obliterate New York, what do you all believe would be an appropriate American response?

Since it would not be a specific country that attacked us, it would be hard to know who to retailiate against. I personally believe the U.S. Govt. should publically state that the use of any weapon of mass destruction on American soil by Islamic terrorists will result in the immediate nuclear annialtion of their two holy cities Mecca and Medina. This may seem a little harsh to most of you all because the people in these cities will not have been responsible for the attack on America, but what else could we do?

The U.S. would have no choice but to retailiate, so what would you all suggest?


By the way, the answers Bush would have probably done it, Islamic terrorists would never do anything like that, or the U.S. would have deserved it for all of it&#39;s past "crimes" is not an acceptable response.
You are obviously too mentally defficiant to understand the complications of nuclear war. If one person sends a nuke off there will be retaliation which will result in nuclear which will most likely result in a nuclear winter and over 3/4ths of the population dead.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:03 PM
my mistake.
I was quite taken aback by this, when did you become so polite?

[colonelguppy]

when i&#39;m mistaken i&#39;m not going to be a douche bag and try to play it like i&#39;m not. i&#39;m only hostile if i get treated with hostility, which seems to happen alot on this board.

[Alexander Hamilton]

kaaos_af wrote:
Yeah, sure, you do that. But say bye to Boston, Chicago, New York, New Orleons, Washington, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City and whatever other major cities you have left.

This is ludicrous and plain stupid. If these organizations had the capacity to do this they would do it now. How would they accomplish this, and why do you presume any of the Middle East powers would be around after NYC were destroyed?

If these "Forces for Islam" accomplished more serious harm to the US, you can expect:

1. a very different USA to emerge from the event, and,

2. the near or total destruction of the nation states with any slight association with these organizations.

The USA has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1814, and the phsychology of invasion is not part of our thinking.

But, kaaos_af, any People can be pushed to react with total death and destruction. This say good bye to our major cities is crap. After we atom-bombed two cities in Japan, did we worry about out cities?

kaaos_af,
On what do you base your reply? How would the logistics of the killers accomplish this? Why do you believe the US would not do something to destroy all of our enemies in this region (or at least the powers that could continue to attack us)?


A. Hamilton

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Estimate the probability of this occurring.[/b]
I&#39;m replying to what the US should do not what they will do.

colonelguppy
you forget about that thing called a survival instinct, most nations have it.
Nations aren&#39;t human.

[colonelguppy]

you&#39;re right, they&#39;re made of humans.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 6 2006, 06:08 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 6 2006, 06:08 PM)
t_wolves_fan
Estimate the probability of this occurring.
I&#39;m replying to what the US should do not what they will do.
[/b]
Why waste time on normative arguments that have no chance of occurring?

You know what, no one should commit a crime.

Wow I feel better.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy) you&#39;re right, they&#39;re made of humans.[/b]
The human isn&#39;t the target, the state is.

t_wolves_fan
Why waste time on normative arguments that have no chance of occurring?

You know what, no one should commit a crime.

Wow I feel better.
Oh yeah. My mistake.

Here, I was replying to a thread about Al-Quada nuking the USA. Why make a "probable post" when the probability of this dumbass scenario your idiot capitalist buddy thought up is: ZERO to begin with?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:46 PM

Oh yeah. My mistake.

Here, I was replying to a thread about Al-Quada nuking the USA. Why make a "probable post" when the probability of this dumbass scenario your idiot capitalist buddy thought up is: ZERO to begin with?
So the moral of your story is that it&#39;s ok when the other guy does it.

Seriously, which do you believe is more probable: Al Qaeda detonating a nuclear weapon in the United States, or the United States destroying its own government?

However improbable the first event, and I agree it&#39;s highly unlikely, the second event is absurd to even contemplate.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 6 2006, 02:46 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 6 2006, 02:46 PM)
colonelguppy
you&#39;re right, they&#39;re made of humans.
The human isn&#39;t the target, the state is. [/b]
yeah but the state is run by humans with the intent of preserving their institutions, aka a survival drive.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)So the moral of your story is that it&#39;s ok when the other guy does it.

Seriously, which do you believe is more probable: Al Qaeda detonating a nuclear weapon in the United States, or the United States destroying its own government?

However improbable the first event, and I agree it&#39;s highly unlikely, the second event is absurd to even contemplate.[/b]
You&#39;re asking what&#39;s more probable: nuclear holocaust or revolution?

I&#39;m going to go with revolution. Then again, I guess that just makes me an optimist...

colonelguppy
yeah but the state is run by humans with the intent of preserving their institutions, aka a survival drive.
If they were truely concerned about survival, they wouldn&#39;t be capitalist.

[colonelguppy]

wait i thought we were talking about preservation of institutions... either way we&#39;ve been surving on capitalism for like 200 years now.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
wait i thought we were talking about preservation of institutions... either way we&#39;ve been surving on capitalism for like 200 years now.
You call thousands of people needlessly dieing by war, starvation and curable dieases "surviving"?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 6 2006, 05:14 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 6 2006, 05:14 PM)
colonelguppy
wait i thought we were talking about preservation of institutions... either way we&#39;ve been surving on capitalism for like 200 years now.
You call thousands of people needlessly dieing by war, starvation and curable dieases "surviving"? [/b]
well, all hyperbolic statements aside, our governments in place as are most our institutions so yeah. and that is what we set as the term for survival in this thread soooo...

[Alexander Hamilton]

[QUOTE]You call thousands of people needlessly dieing by war, starvation and curable dieases "surviving"?[QUOTE]


D_Bokk, would you please stop writing about life under Stalin on the O.I. board.

Thanks,

A.H.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
D_Bokk, would you please stop writing about life under Stalin on the O.I. board.

Thanks,

A.H.
Is this suppose to phase me?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:46 PM
The human isn&#39;t the target, the state is.

Then explain to me why terrorist say death to westerners, behead westerners, and target places with large groups of people; people are the targets.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
Then explain to me why terrorist say death to westerners, behead westerners, and target places with large groups of people; people are the targets.
Really "terrorist say" those things? I always thought "Death to America" was the slogan. Mind quoting them?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:45 PM
Really "terrorist say" those things? I always thought "Death to America" was the slogan. Mind quoting them?
No, I can not provide specific quotes, such as "death to westerners," and it was rather to bold of me to say that, however just because you interpret "death to america," as meaning death to the state does not mean they meant it as death to the state of america and not americans; and the fact is that they target westerners, and those whom live a western way of life; look at the pictures below, and tell me that they do not target people.

http://gipi.typepad.com/internetpolicy/images/KimSun-il.jpg

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/20050201/gijoe_held_hostage-thumb.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/21/xin_48090121080255443943.jpg

http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2004/05/288193.jpg

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
No, I can not provide specific quotes, such as "death to westerners," and it was rather to bold of me to say that, however just because you interpret "death to america," as meaning death to the state does not mean they meant it as death to the state of america and not americans; and the fact is that they target westerners, and those whom live a western way of life; look at the pictures below, and tell me that they do not target people.
Then why do you even continue to post your nonsense?

The westerners they target are their enemies, such as the Pentagon, White House and the bourgeois in the Twin Towers. I never would have thought that a "communist" would want to protect the "western way of life." How are you not restricted?

Where are those pictures taking place? America? Britain?

No? So what were they doing in the Middle East? Hmm? Were they stealing the oil, spewing out lies in the media, killing innocent civilians?

I&#39;ve managed to keep my head on my shoulders, and I live in the West. Why is that?

[Cryotank Screams]

Then why do you even continue to post your nonsense?

I would ask you the same question, but I know it would result in a pointless flame war.

Just because I did not provide a specific, “black and white,” quote does not mean the rest of my post was non-sense; I admitted it was to bold of me to say the terrorists say outright "death to westerners," and then I also gave another theory right afterwards, thus don&#39;t start another ***** fit because I disagree with you, when I tried to have a civil debate.


The westerners they target are their enemies, such as the Pentagon, White House and the bourgeois in the Twin Towers. I never would have thought that a "communist" would want to protect the "western way of life." How are you not restricted?

Really? How many people of the white house have they killed? How many people that work in the pentagon have they killed? Zero, they kill civilians, soldiers, tourists, and journalists, really attacking the state eh?

Where in my post did I say I wanted to protect the "western way of life,"? what? I didn&#39;t, I said those whom live a western way of life, which could be westerners or westernized people.


So what were they doing in the Middle East? Hmm? Were they stealing the oil, spewing out lies in the media, killing innocent civilians?

Yea, because tourists and journalists steal oil all the time don&#39;t they? :rolleyes: .

The only thing they could be guilty of is reporting news, whether it was biased or not is irrelevant, they were doing a job, furthermore no every journalist reporter "spews out lies," infact a lot of the media is highly critical of the military presence in the middle east, and exposes every crime, and mishap that the soldiers, military, and government commits, in regards to the middle-east.


I&#39;ve managed to keep my head on my shoulders, and I live in the West. Why is that?

Is their a strong muslim presence in america? No.

Did the american founders have a middle-eastern world view? No.

Has america had a long history of strong middle-eastern cultural and historical presence? No.

Thus their will not be a strong breeding ground for islamic fascists, thus it&#39;s not a problem on american soil, thus it&#39;s not the middle-east, thus that is why you have "kept your head," and not been targeted on your own soil.

[Invader Zim]

I suspect if such an event were to occur, the middle east would rapidy become a very dangerous place to live - alliences over oil or not.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer
I would ask you the same question, but I know it would result in a pointless flame war.

Just because I did not provide a specific, “black and white,” quote does not mean the rest of my post was non-sense; I admitted it was to bold of me to say the terrorists say outright "death to westerners," and then I also gave another theory right afterwards, thus don&#39;t start another ***** fit because I disagree with you, when I tried to have a civil debate.
I&#39;m not the one making baseless claims.

Really? How many people of the white house have they killed? How many people that work in the pentagon have they killed? Zero, they kill civilians, soldiers, tourists, and journalists, really attacking the state eh?

Where in my post did I say I wanted to protect the "western way of life,"? what? I didn&#39;t, I said those whom live a western way of life, which could be westerners or westernized people.
Planes targeted the Pentagon and White House, however they didn&#39;t do much damage. The WTCs weren&#39;t meant to fall, there&#39;s no way Al-Quada could have possibly predicted that the towers would crumble. Only a few hundred, at most, should have died.

Soldiers are the attack dogs of the state. Tourists should steer clear of warzones and journalists are liars.

You clearly are painting the "terrorists" as the bad guy and "innocent" civilians who follow the "western way of life" as the poor victims.

Yea, because tourists and journalists steal oil all the time don&#39;t they? rolleyes.gif .

The only thing they could be guilty of is reporting news, whether it was biased or not is irrelevant, they were doing a job, furthermore no every journalist reporter "spews out lies," infact a lot of the media is highly critical of the military presence in the middle east, and exposes every crime, and mishap that the soldiers, military, and government commits, in regards to the middle-east.
For that specific example, I was speaking of the Western workers going over to keep the oil pumping.

The policeman who killed Fred Hampton was "doing his job;" George Bush is "doing his job;" the weapon manufacturers are "doing their job." And every single one of those people are wrong.

Mainstream media is worthless... and now you&#39;re defending their reporting.

Is their a strong muslim presence in america? No.
Talk about anti-Semitism. There are quite a few Muslims where I live and my roommate&#39;s parents are Muslims - but he&#39;s an atheist.

Did the american founders have a middle-eastern world view? No.
What?

Has america had a long history of strong middle-eastern cultural and historical presence? No.
Huh?

Dude, I live in the West and Al-Quada hasn&#39;t gotten to me yet. That&#39;s all I&#39;m saying... you&#39;re blowing this way out of porportion. The "terrorists" haven&#39;t killed nearly as many Westerners compared to the Westerners who killed people from the Middle East.

Thus their will not be a strong breeding ground for islamic fascists, thus it&#39;s not a problem on american soil, thus it&#39;s not the middle-east, thus that is why you have "kept your head," and not been targeted on your own soil.
What the fuck?

I got restricted for saying "Jewish Capitalist" or at least that&#39;s the shit excuse CC is giving me. And this is the second time this guy has said "Islamic Fascist" without an ounce of opposition. What&#39;s the deal guys?

[Little brother]

I think my initial response would be
"well, who saw that coming?" whilst rolling my eyes
Then realise how fucked we are gonna be for the next so so many years and prepare for the end of all things......
A bright outlook hey.

[Cryotank Screams]

I&#39;m not the one making baseless claims.

How is saying that you might have interpreted a slogan one way, when it could possibly mean something more or something different a baseless claim? How do you know specifically what the slogan means, and or what it means to the people whom believe in it?


You clearly are painting the "terrorists" as the bad guy and "innocent" civilians who follow the "western way of life" as the poor victims.

Woa, I think that people whom follow an oppressive ideology, that take westernized people out of the streets and beheads them all in the name of an imaginary friend as bad guys? That is so unreasonable isn&#39;t it? I am not saying that the people they kill are totally innocent, I am saying that I would like to see the terrorist shot in the head because they are spectral fascist, so yes I am saying they are "bad guys."

Maybe you see spectral fascists as good guys?


Talk about anti-Semitism. There are quite a few Muslims where I live and my roommate&#39;s parents are Muslims - but he&#39;s an atheist.

A). What does judaism, and the semitic people have to do with muslims? Why even bring that up or try to argue that?

B). Compare the influence of christianity to that of islam, which has a stronger presence and influence? That was my point, islam does not have that much prominence in american culture, and society, yes their is muslims i america, and quite a few I would imagine, but still islam does not have a strong influence.


What?

I was saying what kind of world-view did the founders of america have? Not a middle-eastern one, considering people of the middle-east were not involved in the american revolution.


Dude, I live in the West and Al-Quada hasn&#39;t gotten to me yet.

That&#39;s because you live in the west; if you lived a westernized life, and criticized islam publicly, and were a revolutionary leftist in the middle-east, it would be way different, from you doing it in the safety of the west, where you can say what you want, and were islam does not have the dominance it does there, and is not ingrained into the culture.


Al-Quada could have possibly predicted that the towers would crumble. Only a few hundred, at most, should have died.

They flew commercial planes into a sky scraper, what did they think would happen? What did they want to happen? Did they not want to kill a massive number of people, and an economic center, i.e. bring the towers down?


journalists are liars.

Highly debatable.


The policeman who killed Fred Hampton was "doing his job;" George Bush is "doing his job;" the weapon manufacturers are "doing their job." And every single one of those people are wrong.

I said the journalists are doing their job, and that they report all the crimes and mishaps that are committed by the soldiers, military, and the government, and are highly critical of the war, and military presence, is what they are doing wrong?


and now you&#39;re defending their reporting.

I said not all reporters are spewing out lies, how is that saying I support all mainstream reporters and their views?


What the fuck?

I got restricted for saying "Jewish Capitalist" or at least that&#39;s the shit excuse CC is giving me. And this is the second time this guy has said "Islamic Fascist" without an ounce of opposition. What&#39;s the deal guys?

I also call them spectral fascists, what&#39;s your point? Why should I be restricted because I call people who want a ghost to rule society, and an oppressive ideology to rule the world, and act like fascists, and whom rule like fascists, what they are?

I&#39;m not talking about a race, I am talking about islamic terrorists which could mean anyone whom follows this idiocy.

[D_Bokk]

You mind actually making that readable?