Al Qaeda threatens chemical attack on Tel Aviv

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
WMD = NBC. NBC = WMD.

Try again. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to put chemical and biological weapons in the same class as nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Kucinich
The terms mean the same thing. I couldn't care less about your opinion of the terminology.

They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak.

Originally posted by Kucinich
What does justice have to do with sensible foreign policy?

Without justice, your foreign policy will not be sensible. Say, Iraq?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Try again. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to put chemical and biological weapons in the same class as nuclear weapons.

Except that they are, in fact, in the same class as nucelar weapons?

They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak.

How is it political "doublespeak"? The terms have never been used to mean anything other than each other.

Without justice, your foreign policy will not be sensible.

Where'd you get that idea?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

Difficult, yes. But they also didn't utilize it as well as they could have:

How deadly was the sarin used in Aum Shinrikyo’s 1995 attack?
Not very. Just prior to the attack, Aum hurriedly produced a low-lethality batch of sarin. Moreover, the sarin was disseminated poorly; the perpetrators left punctured packages of liquid sarin in subway cars and stations, which gave officials time to seal off the affected areas. If purer sarin had been released, particularly as an aerosol, the attack might have been much worse.

http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html

[Edan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

Presumably, AQ would operate the same way they were trying to do so in Amman (which AFAIU, didn't involve any subway, if there is any there), though I'm, not completely clear of their plan - has it even been released what type of chemical was to be used in that attack?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Huh? Where are they making those?

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

You'll never understand until it's too late.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich

They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak.

How is it political "doublespeak"? The terms have never been used to mean anything other than each other.

Again, it is not. There is no basis for chemical and biological weapons to be put in the same class as nuclear weapons, a point you have yet to address.

Originally posted by Kucinich
Where'd you get that idea?

What, did I not point Iraq out to you?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
Difficult, yes. But they also didn't utilize it as well as they could have:

Certainly. The fact that even a terrorist group as well funded as the Aum Shinrikyo, which had good research and production facilities, could not pull of such an attack successfully indicates the difficulties involved.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Whoha


The capitals aren't the oil wells.

*Cough*

al fukaida better rethinks before they act , .... the whole arab world might be nuked to hell , .....

Yea, I hope they do nuke the Arabs off of the map.

"Capitals" hadn't been mentioned yet at this point of the thread. Next time, try reading what I'm responding too.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Again, it is not. There is no basis for chemical and biological weapons to be put in the same class as nuclear weapons, a point you have yet to address.

I don't care - the fact is, they ARE in the same class. They always have been. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to what Israel's response will be, if they actually "shouldn't" be in the same category.

What, did I not point Iraq out to you?

Yes, but I don't see how it illustrates justice being some necessary component of sensible foreign policy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
You'll never understand until it's too late.

Ah, you've convinced me now.

Do you even understand the causes of WWI? Let me tell you, the situation in the Mideast isn't comparable at all. It's a completely random connection.

[Dis]

I support a pre-emptive strike against the middle east.

We know eventually they will nuke the U.S. and Israel.

I say we get a jump on them and nuke every single city in the middle east.

[Tattila the Hun]

si vis pacem, para bellum

"Casualties:

Nation Non fatal Injuries Deaths Totals
British Empire 180597 8109 188706
France 182000 8000 190000
United States 71345 1462 72807
Italy 55373 4627 60000
Russia 419340 56000 475340
Germany 191000 9000 200000
Austria-Hungary 97000 3000 100000
Others 9000 1000 10000
Total: 1205655 91198 1296853"

Hum, that's not very clear, here's an adress:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww1gas.htm

Total of 91198 dead. And "Apart from the American figures, these figures are only approximate, and do in many cases differ from the official published figures witch, since they do not include men who died of the gas on the battlefield, tend to be far too low."

Define "mass"....

BTW, would a toxin spread by digestion, ie. with water supply or similar, be effective? (Just narrowing down my possibilities... )

[Sandman]

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."

Kudos to UR to keeping up the pressure.

I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics.

The term as you use it is contradictory, since "WMD" are not actually WMD; just look at the chequered history of chemical and biological weapons. Firstly, their ability to cause mass destruction is rather limited, and secondly, there are plenty of non-WMD options for causing mass destruction.

I don't care what other people think; my arguments stand up for themselves, since they're based on worldly facts, rather than dictionary definitions.

If there was a category: "persons of exceptional height" that included one giant and two short people, would you call that a sensible definition?

What does justice have to do with sensible foreign policy?

If you are unjust, people will hate you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich

I don't care - the fact is, they ARE in the same class. They always have been. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to what Israel's response will be, if they actually "shouldn't" be in the same category.

No they haven't. That should be plainly obvious. The term comes from the Cold War-the conventions and legal treaties regulating their uses are not conjoined-one legal framework for BC and a totally different for nukes. And of course, what does that category mean. They are grouped for a reason. The argument being presented here, which is fully valid, is that the political reasons for making such a categorization are faulty.

You seem to be the kind of person who in 1915 would have defended calling someone who was 1/8 black a Negro-why he should be classified as such does not matter-it just IS

Yes, but I don't see how it illustrates justice being some necessary component of sensible foreign policy.

Thinking that nuclear retaliation is sensible for any level of chemical attack is, well, NOT sensible.

[Sirotnikov]

Who at all said Israel would use nukes?


This is a most idiotic arguement ever.

Who would Israel have reason to attack?

Al-Qaeda is a widespread network of not-connected agents.

True, they have been funded by some muslim govts but mostly their money comes from muslim charities and moguls who donate to Islam.

No government really controls them.

It is uncertain whether they even have a central command these days.

So why for the love of god would Israel attack anyone?