Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2

[Spiffor]

Chirac is an arrogant dweeb and *******, I'm in full agreement with that.
But it takes more than a dweeb to start a nuclear war. It takes a madman, or someone whose aims are fulfilled when the nuclear war starts. Chirac is neither.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jack_www
GePap:

I dont know about Europe, but I think I would know how the USA would react to such an attack. First you must realize that couple of million of people would be dead from such an attack. If you think that 9-11 angered most Americans, this would have a much far reaching effect.

Interestingly enough, I have never even said how Europe would react. I brough how the people of Rwanda reacted to 1/8 of the population killed by a significant other portion of their population- an event that for the uS to recreate would mean the deaths of 35 million people. Certainly the massacre in rwanda had far reaching consequences, including helping to set of the war in the Congo, which has been extreemly deadly- but one thing that did not happen was blind retaliatory killings, which is what most people in this thread seemed to think would be the response, perhaps correctly.

First I doubt there would be a attack in a short period of time. I think that American Intelligence would first go to work finding out were this weapon came from. At the same time a draft or if enough people volunteered, the US millitary would see a major moblization. The Nation Guard would also be called up.

I agree with the first- as for a major mobilization fo the army, the conseuqences and cost of thse would be far reaching- certainly something to do with thinking.

Also I think much tighter security at the borders and ports would be seen as well. Just like after 9-11 and the airports. We would see a complete shut down of all ports and the border untill security could be upgraded.

Certainly would see an increase in security- but a shutdown? The economy of the country would not react well.

Once the nation is found that supplied the weapon, well I think that they would not have a very fun time. ALso I bebt that nations like Syria, Iran, and North Korea would be invaded one by one, and the ones not being invaded first would be given a certain period of time to come clean or face the might of US millitary.

Even if we did mobalize, we would not have the resources to do this without ending American prosperity- 2. None of those states would be the likely conspirators, thus the validity of such a act would be beyond questionable- if invading Iraq did nothing to stop a WMD attack, what would invading Iran and Syria do besides take up more American treasure and lives?

If we still have Bush in office this would be a certainity. I just hope it never happens.

For all my hate of the Bushies, they are not stupid.

[Heresson]

Je ne connais pas bien la politique francaise, mais il semble que le Francais n'aiment pas les Polonais, n'est pas vrais?
C'est tres triste. Je pense que la majorite de Francais sont ignorantes dans l'affaires de l'est d'Europe.

J'espere que je n'ai pas se trempe.

[Cruddy]

Re: Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2

Originally posted by Vesayen

http://www.debka.com/

Italy’s Il Giornale reports from Washington: Al Qaeda publishes new threat to “annihilate New York” on February 2...

Holy camoley, you're quoting the Paparrazi for news?

Why not Marvel comics?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
BTW, I don't suppose that you would argue the fact that Sadaam is a terrorist would you? And, as you put it, "please" on the tierd old argument that other leaders may be guilty of the same crimes.

World leaders can be mass murderers , war crminals, and criminals against humanity and still not be terrorist. At best you can label him a sponsor of terorism, though not of international terrorism, but localized terorist groups like Hamas and IJ.

We are talking about a post nuclear attack on New York right? The US would have no problem funding and fielding whatever size military that would be needed to handle the job. Soldiers could begin to take the field within 10 weeks of enlistment. To equip them with the latest gizmo's could take a while as production ramps up, but there is really no need for that. There are vast amounts of less than state of the art military equipment around. The new soldiers would likely be used as occupiers with older 2nd level equipment while the experienced and well equiped units formed the edge of the spear. Even this would probably not be necessary however, given the nearly 40 year old Pentagon requirement to be able to fight two major wars at one time. The US is far from mobilized at this point, but a nuke attack could change that quickly.

The cost of this would be immense (add to it the cost of rebuilding, add to it the cost of higher security- lots of costs)- the more extreme the result, the more extreme the econmic downturn- so this more expensive army would have to be fielded with less money. as for two wars- we are already engaged in one and its aftermath- who gets to be the lucky second? And will the pentagon make a plan for 4 wars? Ignore tha fact that any sort of international coolition for Iraq style pre-emptive wars aimed not at the sources of the actual attack, but again some experiment in dmeocratization which might pay dividends of in 10 years if at all would not be forhtcoming- and for all is power, the uS still relies on foreign basing rights, unless we decide to take over bases, which then multiplies the number of little wars.

The sad fact is that the viabilty of a military solution to such an atatck is very low, and would see vastly diminishing returns- turn this into the sort of "US invading the whole ME" sort of scenerion- and we just lost.

Once again, I invite you to step down off the liberal diaz and look at the world for that which it is.

The world? What world? Do you mean the mountains and oceans? No, you can;t cause they do not, could not care. Do you mean the biosphere, other living things? Nope, you can;t either. So you mean the network of connections between human societies. You know what though, that network and how it works is based on rules people made up, a lot of times arbitrarily. Only a few are universal, going abck to the beginning of manking, but most the the rules, and most of the 'reality' you inhabit is a creation, somehting that sprung up only about 5000 years aog, so, for even less that 10% of mans history. If our ancestors could come up with a whole new set fo rules, thus completely transforming human life- I fail to see why we are all of a sudden so inept and incapable.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
World leaders can be mass murderers , war crminals, and criminals against humanity and still not be terrorist. At best you can label him a sponsor of terorism, though not of international terrorism, but localized terorist groups like Hamas and IJ.

So now we recognize classes of terrorist? "Oh this guys okay...He's only a regional terrorist" Utter crap GePap. terrorism in all its forms must be stopped. Afghanistan was the base of attack against us, Iraq had repeatedly, over a twelve year period, defied international will and as you say was a sponsor of terrorism (notice no distinction between international and regional). AFAIK we have no plans to invade anyone else on the table. Pressure is being applied to a number of states to change and that pressure is international. They will get their chance, just as Iraq did. The outcome will be based on their response. Libya is an example of one of these outcomes...Iraq is another. The point is that the war on terror is a systematic approach. Even the Taliban was given a chance to survive.

The cost of this would be immense (add to it the cost of rebuilding, add to it the cost of higher security- lots of costs)- the more extreme the result, the more extreme the econmic downturn- so this more expensive army would have to be fielded with less money. as for two wars- we are already engaged in one and its aftermath- who gets to be the lucky second? And will the pentagon make a plan for 4 wars? Ignore tha fact that any sort of international coolition for Iraq style pre-emptive wars aimed not at the sources of the actual attack, but again some experiment in dmeocratization which might pay dividends of in 10 years if at all would not be forhtcoming- and for all is power, the uS still relies on foreign basing rights, unless we decide to take over bases, which then multiplies the number of little wars.

Certainly the cost of mobilization would be high. Rather than resistance from the people, they will probably demand a mobilization if New York is nuked. Typically, Americans invest more in their government during war and mobilization itself creates major economic activity. Even with the major economic downturn the loss of New York would cause, I don't see financing a war effort as an issue in these circumstances.

To the second point in that paragraph...We are not talking about a pre-emptive strike to try to set up a democracy. We are talking about identifying a country behind the acquisition and use of Nuclear weapons against New York City. There will be no doubt that the civilized world would be behind any action that we take against those responsible. No country can allow that scenario to go without devestating consequences or the whole world becomes more at risk.

The world? What world? Do you mean the mountains and oceans? No, you can;t cause they do not, could not care. Do you mean the biosphere, other living things? Nope, you can;t either. So you mean the network of connections between human societies. You know what though, that network and how it works is based on rules people made up, a lot of times arbitrarily. Only a few are universal, going abck to the beginning of manking, but most the the rules, and most of the 'reality' you inhabit is a creation, somehting that sprung up only about 5000 years aog, so, for even less that 10% of mans history. If our ancestors could come up with a whole new set fo rules, thus completely transforming human life- I fail to see why we are all of a sudden so inept and incapable.

Certainly the world can change...and it it is. The type of changes that you advocate would all be good if everyone bought into them. The problem is that Western countries are ahead of the philosophical curve from the developing countries. We simply cannot expect them to react to our "new values" in international relations...Well I guess we could expect it, but that would be pretty unrealistic in many cases.

Oh and btw, what's up with the oceans and mountains crap...you know you know what I meant.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Je ne connais pas bien la politique francaise, mais il semble que le Francais n'aiment pas les Polonais, n'est pas vrais?
C'est tres triste. Je pense que la majorite de Francais sont ignorantes dans l'affaires de l'est d'Europe.

J'espere que je n'ai pas se trempe.

Here's your correction:
"Je ne connais pas bien la politique française [feminine adjective], mais il semble que les Français n'aiment pas les polonais, n'est ce pas vrais [idiom]? C'est très triste. Je pense que la majorité des Français sont ignorante [When there are feminines and masculines together, the plural becomes masculine] des affaires de l'est de l'Europe.

J'espère que je ne me suis pas trompé [Verbs with "se" use the auxiliary "être" in past tense]

As for the answer: the French traditionally have sympathy for the Poles and many people of Eastern Europe, because they have been with us more often than not in history (this is not exactly a rational feeling, but you'll never hear the Poles, Czechs etc. are evil, whereas you'll hear plenty of that about Germans). Now, there are prejudices against Easterners in general because of their poverty, too.
But in one way or another, there is little feeling towards the Eastern Europeans. They're simply far, and haven't influenced us enough recently for us to really identify them, and have positive or negative opinions.

Your siding with the US and your behaviour in Brussels last month put Poland in French news, and didn't make you popular here. However, as soon as these shallow news will be forgotten, the French should resume their trend of slight sympathy towards the Poles.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
So now we recognize classes of terrorist?

I sure hope so. I think the terrorists being our enemies, we should try to analyze what we know, to preciseley know what is to be targeted first, what is an actual terrorist group, what is a guerilla that uses terrorism as an aside, what is a maffia parading as terrorists, or what is a terrorist group parading as a maffia etc.

Only when we can know precisely the enemy, we can strike it well. The willingness to say "X is evil so I don't want to understand it" is an inefficient approach.

[Tattila the Hun]

Well, if any New Yorkers here see a blinding flash of light outside, be sure inform us. Try to be quick, hmmm?



Yes, better wear sunglasses. And a christmas hat?

[Heresson]

Damn. I forgot my French. It's sad, as my mum teaches French. But i'll have to recall it soon. I have some books to read in French.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by GePap


I agree with the first- as for a major mobilization fo the army, the conseuqences and cost of thse would be far reaching- certainly something to do with thinking.

Well if I nuke just blew up a major city of the United States, the millitary would be out in force. Also people would be calling out for blood from those who were behind this attack.
I bet at first the millitary would be placed at the borders and stationed at other possible targets to try and avoid a repeat attack as the Government trys to figure out what happened. Also You would have to watch out for riots as some people may take advantage of the situation.

Certainly would see an increase in security- but a shutdown? The economy of the country would not react well.

I am not talking about months on end. But similar to the total shutdown of the nations airports after 9-11. I am sure that such an increase in security would not take that long.

Even if we did mobalize, we would not have the resources to do this without ending American prosperity- 2. None of those states would be the likely conspirators, thus the validity of such a act would be beyond questionable- if invading Iraq did nothing to stop a WMD attack, what would invading Iran and Syria do besides take up more American treasure and lives?

Let me give you an example of what might happen. Lets say North Korea was the nation that sold the terrorist the nuke. We would most likely spend a couple of years just invading that nation. While this is happening, the US just tells the other nations that might be haboring terrorist that they have a certain amount of time to stop or they are next.

Then we might even see anther invasion if there is enough trained people in the millitary and the invasion in NK is going well.

For all my hate of the Bushies, they are not stupid.

Have you heard what President Bush himself has said? He said that 9-11 changed how he views the world. In his mind the United States can no longer wait for a threat to present itself before the US takes action. Thus this is the reason he gave for going into Iraq in that interview he had on ABC. That Saddam was a treath to the United States, or at least had could be become a threat, and he took action to get rid of that threat before he had a chance to hurt the US.

If a nuke was used on a major US city. You dont think that this would just make this more so in the mind of President Bush? I think so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


So now we recognize classes of terrorist? "Oh this guys okay...He's only a regional terrorist" Utter crap GePap. terrorism in all its forms must be stopped. Afghanistan was the base of attack against us, Iraq had repeatedly, over a twelve year period, defied international will and as you say was a sponsor of terrorism (notice no distinction between international and regional). AFAIK we have no plans to invade anyone else on the table. Pressure is being applied to a number of states to change and that pressure is international. They will get their chance, just as Iraq did. The outcome will be based on their response. Libya is an example of one of these outcomes...Iraq is another. The point is that the war on terror is a systematic approach. Even the Taliban was given a chance to survive.

While cals for end to all terrorism are admireable (look who is eeking pie in the sky), the reach makes a huge difference. Under what pretext, for example, would we go after Hizbullah after such an attack? If they had ntohing to do with it we would attack under what excuse? Don;t be terrorist? BUt not all states (and this goes beyond Arab states) label them as such, so..again, would we be saying- if you consider someone a terrorist take them out? Yup, those terroristic Falun Gong- lets the Chinese government erradicate them. President Reagan hailed as freedom fighters Sabimvi (Is this right), you know the anti-communist terrorist leader in Angola..and we condemned Mandela as a terrorist- that problem, what makes you a terrorist and what gives the international communuity the right to act against you would not go away with one, even 10 nukes. You keep mentioning only arab states- but would we go into Sri Lanka after the Tamil Tigers? Into Indonesia after etrrorist? What about Aceh separatists- are they terrorists? Into all of Central Asia? Why do only anti-Israel terrorist gorups make the list (which are basically the groups supported by the states you mention). And if these states, just like Angolan terrorist praised by Reagan, do not participate in international acts of terrorism driven by ideological concerns (which is what drive Al qaeda), then you CANT classify them as the same and act equally, specially given the teneous definition of terrorist orgs that exist worldwide.

To the second point in that paragraph...We are not talking about a pre-emptive strike to try to set up a democracy. We are talking about identifying a country behind the acquisition and use of Nuclear weapons against New York City. There will be no doubt that the civilized world would be behind any action that we take against those responsible. No country can allow that scenario to go without devestating consequences or the whole world becomes more at risk.

After 9/11 Afghanistan was that type of attack, identifying those regimes giving direct aid to the enemy and taking them out. Iraq, which is the model you keep metioning was not that type of attack, sopecially since the admin. can NOT prove support of Al Qaeda. And world reaction shows this_ the whole world supported our attack into Afghanistan: at most, people who in private disagreed kept their mouth's shut, but the three states that had supported the Taliban cut that support, and that was it. The world community was deeply split about Iraq- exactly becuase it had only a tangetial connection to 9/11. A nuclear attack would not invalidate the apprehension about wars with tangetial connections to the perpetrators of such an attack. A nuke does not wipe history away- ask the Japanese if being nuked all of sudden removes sins.

Certainly the world can change...and it it is. The type of changes that you advocate would all be good if everyone bought into them. The problem is that Western countries are ahead of the philosophical curve from the developing countries. We simply cannot expect them to react to our "new values" in international relations...Well I guess we could expect it, but that would be pretty unrealistic in many cases.

You are speaking about the US acting not like a western developed state, but some vengeful actor not seen for a while. In essence, you are saying that sometimes one must be evil to defend good- simple problem- fi you act evil you keep evil alive, and thus undermine the "victory" of good. If we fight wars to 'defend american values' by ignoring those values and not applying them in our reaction, we failed in the mission to protect our values.

Oh and btw, what's up with the oceans and mountains crap...you know you know what I meant.

Wrong- when people start leaving things unsaid, then these things, which are ussualy the central bit of any saying, become ignored. As Mills calls them, unquestioned 'truths'. Say what you mean, without blank spaces.

[Kuciwalker]

For all my hate of the Bushies, they are not stupid.

I don't think he meant Bush being in office would result in the attack - I think he meant the mobilization etc would be done by the Bush administration.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Let me give you an example of what might happen. Lets say North Korea was the nation that sold the terrorist the nuke. We would most likely spend a couple of years just invading that nation. While this is happening, the US just tells the other nations that might be haboring terrorist that they have a certain amount of time to stop or they are next.

Then we might even see anther invasion if there is enough trained people in the millitary and the invasion in NK is going well.

There are 4 possible sources for sucha nuke (which would be Hiroshima sized, and thus not going to kill millions, though seevral hundread thousand is no consolation) are:
1. they make it on their own: the issue then is shutting down the places were it was made, the sources of the fissionable material.
2. They got it by theft from an existing stockpile- issue then is finding the thiefs, anyone who aided them, securing stockpiles further.
3. They got it from sympathizers from an exisitng stockplie- probably Pakistan: big issue here.
4. Sold to them, probalby NK.

NOw, if the handover was somehting so simple as a sale, the invaidng NK would certainly happen- though any state that could sell nukes would have more of thier own, so the war is unlikely to be simple and not messy.

Pakistan is an even bigger mess. In my mind, this is the likeliest source, and would present the uS with the worse possible sceenrio. NO matter who big we made our army, occupying a nuclear power of 130 million, next to an unfriendly nuclear neighbor is just askign for some monumental problems for decades to come.

Have you heard what President Bush himself has said? He said that 9-11 changed how he views the world. In his mind the United States can no longer wait for a threat to present itself before the US takes action. Thus this is the reason he gave for going into Iraq in that interview he had on ABC. That Saddam was a treath to the United States, or at least had could be become a threat, and he took action to get rid of that threat before he had a chance to hurt the US.

Sadly, the President has failed utterly to show Saddam was a threat to the US or that he could be a realitic threat (China might become a threat to the US- do we invade China? Canada could become a threat to the uS as well? And the UK..we don;t know what hisotry lies ahead), and thus has discredited his pre-emptive policy significantly worldwide. Which is why it is all baoput having liberated the Iraqi people know, and god help anyone who asks "where are the WMD's"? wars for humanitarian reasons are different than pre-meptive wars. Too bad Bush screwed up and atatck an non-threat.

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker

For all my hate of the Bushies, they are not stupid.

I don't think he meant Bush being in office would result in the attack - I think he meant the mobilization etc would be done by the Bush administration.

I know what he meant, and that was wht my response was to.