Al Qaeda threatens chemical attack on Tel Aviv

[Pax]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Where did you get "you Isrealies and supporters" From what I read only one advocated it and now its "you isrealies and supporters"

Sorry. I mean all persons who would support using nuclear weapons against countries that are not governed by AQ.
Once again, Sorry to lump all Isreali's into one jar.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
So, you think that getting 150 million US citizens killed was not MAD, also?

Yes it is, but those number are achieved by thousands of warheads many at the Megaton levels.

[Chemical Ollie]

If they were about to do something like that, I would not think they would announce it before they did it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'd rather be on the receiving end of a chemical attack than a conventional attack.

We're very lucky that the terrorists are wasting so much energy trying to acquire such an impotent weapons system. Gas isn't banned because it's super-effective, it banned because it's ungentlemanly.

Also, the idea that nukes are an appropriate response to chemical weapons is completely and utterly insane.

without getting into the complete debate on Gas as WMD, its principally effective delivered in large quantities by artillery or air, as the Iraqis did to the Kurds. AQ is clearly not capable of that.


As a terrorist weapon gas is only really useful against a very crowded enclosed place. Like a subway or metro system. It could be quite devastating against a principle station in DC, New York, London, Paris, etc. Especially in conjunction with conventional bombs as well, multiplying the panic and reducing the effectiveness of rescue. Which is why here in DC we have chemical detectors at key metro stations. I presume the same are used in New York, London etc.

As of now Tel Aviv does not have a metro (funding still under dispute?) The "carmelit" in Haifa is not that heavily used, IIUC, and in any case its few stations are I assume watched most carefully by Israeli security.

I would rate a chemical attack by AQ on Israel as one of the less likely prospects in the WOT.

[Whoha]

"Advertisement
"Alla knows, if we could get chemical weapons, we would use them against Israeli cities like Eilat and Tel Aviv", said a high ranking al Qaeda member in a video cassette broadcast on an Arab television station and uploaded on Moslem websites on the Internet. "

Advertisement, how inappropriate :P

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
[troll]Bear in mind: If we "nuke the Arabs off of the map" we won't be able to access our ...erm... their oil as their land will be irradiated for centuries. Better to invade, occupy, and brutally supress them while cynically claiming moral superiority and bringing the gift of Democracy, American Puppet Government style. [/troll]

The capitals aren't the oil wells.

[Whoha]

the Arabs won't have the atleast 20 minutes early warning like the US has, the Israeli launchers are much closer. The 1962 figures for what the soviets had are around 550 total deliverable weapons, 75 ICBMs(no mirvs yet),39 short range SLBMs, 42 Forward Based MRBMs, and about 190 long range bombers.

[:) Smiley]

150 million is a lot when you consider the 1960 population was 180 million. That's MAD alright.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
WMD is a meaningless category, a politically motivated invention with no basis in reality. The killing power of chemical weapons is pathetic compared to conventional weapons.

As mentioned in the other thread, WMD has been used to refer to NBC weapons pretty much since they were invented. It's not like we just made it up recently.

If they manage to kill, say, a dozen people with chemical weapons, are you seriously suggesting that it is appropriate to respond with nuclear weapons? Kill thousands of innocent people in retaliation for a dozen deaths?

And your point is?

I just remarked that Israel would almost definately retaliate with nukes. Where did I make any moral judgements?

Aside from that, though, of course it's a good policy - ever heard of deterrant?

[Pax]

It's not good policy to attack countries that have no control over AQ. It's good policy to stop making the same mistakes that caused WW1.

[Sandman]

As a terrorist weapon gas is only really useful against a very crowded enclosed place. Like a subway or metro system. It could be quite devastating against a principle station in DC, New York, London, Paris, etc.

Yes, or Tokyo. How about if they used six operatives in a coordinated strike on the heart of the subway system, using sarin. They could kill all of 12 people.

Meanwhile, a single mentally ill man managed to kill 200+ people in the Seoul subway with a milk carton filled with lighter fuel.

As mentioned in the other thread, WMD has been used to refer to NBC weapons pretty much since they were invented. It's not like we just made it up recently.

It remains as meaningless now as when it was arms control jargon, or when it was appeasement jargon.

I just remarked that Israel would almost definately retaliate with nukes. Where did I make any moral judgements?

"Not really. All are WMD."

By using the term WMD, you made the moral judgement that gas is morally equivalent to nuclear weapons, and that thus the 'Israeli' position is justified.

Aside from that, though, of course it's a good policy - ever heard of deterrant?

Ever heard of justice? The idea that a piece of jargon should weigh more than the lives of thousands suggests that you haven't.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Aside from that, though, of course it's a good policy - ever heard of deterrant?

It's sad to read history and see the same things happening again. The soldiers of WW1 realized within a year that wars should be avoided. We have guys like Kucinich that openly advocate going around starting with countries whose policies we don't like. You need to look behind the facts of history and find the causes and effect. Read about the patriotic fervor that countries have been whipped into sending young men off to die for foolish reasons. It seems like only a short period of time goes by and thw horrors of war are forgotten.
Old soldiers have a saying "Pray for peace but prepare for war"
It seems like people could give a **** about peace these days.
My last suggestion for people so eager for blood is to join the military so they can get their asses shot off and come home and say it was no problem.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It could be quite devastating against a principle station in DC, New York, London, Paris, etc.

Yes, hypothetically. The Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by members of AUM Shinrikyo in 1995 shows that it's a lot more difficult in real life.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It's not good policy to attack countries that have no control over AQ. It's good policy to stop making the same mistakes that caused WW1.

Huh? Where are they making those?

I find it difficult to imagine Israel forming secret alliances with neighboring countries...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
"Not really. All are WMD."

By using the term WMD, you made the moral judgement that gas is morally equivalent to nuclear weapons, and that thus the 'Israeli' position is justified.

A bit of a stretch, isn't it? WMD = NBC. NBC = WMD. It's not even a moral judgement! The terms mean the same thing. I couldn't care less about your opinion of the terminology. You remind me of my little brother - he's a stubborn idiot who says stuff like this. "When I use this word, I actually use it to mean something that no one else in the entire world uses it to mean."

Ever heard of justice? The idea that a piece of jargon should weigh more than the lives of thousands suggests that you haven't.

What does justice have to do with sensible foreign policy?