Al-Queda: We Now Have One Nuke, and We are Going to Blow Up the Midwest!

[Mercator]

But isn't detonating a nuke enough of a symbol already, no matter where in the US they do it, no matter how many casualties?

[Shi Huangdi]

There is perhaps a greater terror effect by setting off a nuke in a place like St.Louis. If set off in NYC or DC, it won't scare other people as much who don't live in obvious terrorist targets. But a nuke detonated in the midwest would set forth that no matter where you live, you could be a target.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But a nuke detonated in the midwest would set forth that no matter where you live, you could be a target.

I thought people already thought that. Especially after Oklahoma City and whatnot.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
It would make people feel far less secure and powerless than a bomb that went off completely by surprise.

This does not explain why this is only published on a small, obscure website. Much better to do it in front of a TV camera to have it broadcast to the whole world.

[Tattila the Hun]

Mayhap, if they do have one nuke, they may detonate it in some lightly populated area, and then say. "We have another one in NY, "

How destructive that would be, to the psyche of the nation, not to mention the panic such announcement might cause in New Yorkers?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, because that had so much to do wiith NATO why? I would suspect all you Europeans would become security Nazis if you were nuked as well.

Though because of NATO, you would be bound to help us

Thanks, but I think you'll find that 'European' Great Britain had a security problem called Republican Irish terrorism, Spain had ETA, West Germany had the Baader Meinhof and the Rote Armee Fraktion, the Netherlands had South Moluccans, France had several left wing and right wing splinter groups, as well as Corsican and Breton nationalists, Italy had the Red Brigades and the Neo Fascists and the Mafia, and most of them had anti-Semitic terror groups and assorted Middle Eastern nationalist terrorist groups spreading the love too.

It was the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties and Nineties- terrorism for most Europeans didn't begin in 2001.

[Winston]

People are getting all worked up because some random website posts a "threat" of nuclear Armageddon. It's precisely the kind of reaction they want, they're publicity whores and most likely not much more.

I say the US media, who apparently haven't reported on this, are on the right track. Let the proper authorities worry about it and take action if needed. But the general public should not get worked into a state of frenzy because of some camel herding loser soiling himself in sheer joy over having been able to post his nonsense to the Web.

[Patroklos]

Thanks, but I think you'll find that 'European' Great Britain had a security problem called Republican Irish terrorism, Spain had ETA, West Germany had the Baader Meinhof and the Rote Armee Fraktion, the Netherlands had South Moluccans, France had several left wing and right wing splinter groups, as well as Corsican and Breton nationalists, Italy had the Red Brigades and the Neo Fascists and the Mafia, and most of them had anti-Semitic terror groups and assorted Middle Eastern nationalist terrorist groups spreading the love too.

And all of those combined, plus 9/11, plus Madrid equal .001 percent of the destruction a nuke attack anywhere would produce. If Sydney evaporated into a ball of fire tommarrow, you would be 1984 by the next day.

We already are helping you in Afghanistan. Just like France is. But since it is people with your mindset ("obey or we can get REALLY NASTY") ruling your country now, it's getting increasingly harder for people like me to support this.

And? Where did I say you weren't? You brought up the other tread about disbanding NATO, showing your side of that issue, and I made the logical comment that you would still be NATO members if this happend hence obligated to help us for this future attack. Of course you helped us after 9/11, NATO was in force then.

Not that NATO has anything to do with this topic, why exactly did you introduce it again?

Madrid, though horrible, was nowhere near as destuctive as 9/11 (in casualties, property damage, symbolic importance, complexity of planning, etc.) so it does not suprise me that the reaction was more muted. Of course many of the European nations you mention, example France, already have many patriot act type provisions as a matter of course in their legal system and have for some time. Apples and Oranges comparison.

But since it is people with your mindset ("obey or we can get REALLY NASTY") ruling your country now

What type of person would that be? From the two statements I made in this thread

1) That the US is currently percieved by you (individually)as an imperial dictatorship, which is false.

2) That after the security reaction brought on by a nuke we would indeed become the imperial dictatorship you currently see in your deluded mind.

You sure assume alot. So where did "obey" or unilateralism or any of your other liberal/foreigner sky is falling crap come from besides your own ingrained preconceptions?

And I don't want your support, thankfully there are plenty of sane Englishmen that will lend a hand

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Since most of these weaknesses we know about, and coose not to secure because it would destroy our way of life, all this would do is give us an excuse to turn into the imperial dictatorship most of you actually think we are now and lay down a world of hurt on the world. THEN you will discover how kid glove we treat you guys now.

And you will help Al Quaeda a lot if you react this way.
I really doubt that you´ll find much longerlasting support by european countries if, after the nuke evaporates one of your cities, you develope more along this road.
Especially if your government takes it as excuse to invade just another country which (unlike Afghanistan after 9/11) hasn´t anything to do with al Quaeda (which IMHO is probable with someone like Bush as leader).
America will stand isolated, which is what Al Quaeda and other groups want

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And all of those combined, plus 9/11, plus Madrid equal .001 percent of the destruction a nuke attack anywhere would produce. If Sydney evaporated into a ball of fire tommarrow, you would be 1984 by the next day.

I suspect you know little about the history of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Great Britain, the Diplock Courts, or indeed much at all about the various infringements of civil liberties occasioned in Great Britain over the past three decades by the activities of Republican and Unionist terror groups.

Activities that were in part funded by American money- the lovely people at Noraid.

I also suspect you know very little about the financial and social cost to Great Britain of this decades long war against terror, and even less about the effects the Baader Meinhof, Rote Armee Fraktion and the Red Brigades had on Italy and West Germany, but do us all a favour and do some research.

[muxec]

Seoul is much better target for terrorists as:
1. It's the largest democratic city in the world.
2. Muslims have chance of surviving after nuking Seoul
3. S. Korea sent more troops to Iraq.

In case of nuking USA the whole Pakistan will be wasted away before even understanding what happened.

[Admiral]

Let's face it, the US has been acting unilaterally since 9-11. In his last State of the Union address, Bush said that the US doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself. Translation: the US will not cater to international opinion. Regardless of whether you think that that is good or not, it is the case. The Coalition of the Willing is not a meaningful Coalition. It is entirely dominated by the US, and most of the nations, with the exception of GB, are not credible military forces. Yes, Kerry may have forgotten Poland, but Poland has no input in policy, they just have troops on the ground. Besides, we know that Bush is paying off members of the Coalition. Turkey would have recieved massive amounts of aide had it joined, other countries have recieved such (I recall our building bases for Romania). In effect, we are bribing them to aide us.
Also, Bush has said that if you are not with us then you are against us. Recall the rash of anti-French sentiment that arose when France opposed our invasion of Iraq. In the minds of many Americans, France and Iraq were almost on the same level. And all of this came about because France did not conform to our wishes.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What type of person would that be? From the two statements I made in this thread

1) That the US is currently percieved by you (individually)as an imperial dictatorship, which is false.

2) That after the security reaction brought on by a nuke we would indeed become the imperial dictatorship you currently see in your deluded mind.

What makes you think I perceive it like this? The United States are not a greedy, warmongering, imperialistic dictatorship. They are a greedy, warmongering, imperialistic democracy (or a republic, if you want to play smart-ass). And they aren't like this, because some filthy rich and bloodthirsty dictator forced them this way, but because a filthy rich and oilthirsty president lied enough, so that over 50% of your population elected him, that simple. Big difference!

You sure assume alot. So where did "obey" or unilateralism or any of your other liberal/foreigner sky is falling crap come from besides your own ingrained preconceptions?

As citizen of a disobeying country I can clearly see where the unilateralism comes from.

And I don't want your support, thankfully there are plenty of sane Englishmen that will lend a hand

Don't push it too far, just as a hint. Your "coalition of the willing" is crumbling away, and from what I see on the threads here, the Englishmen aren't as "sane" (in the sense you meant it) as you might wish.

By the way, I didn't "bring up" that other thread about disbanding NATO. I stated my opinion and that's about it.

[DinoDoc]

We've been imperialistic for quite a lot longer than the Bush II presidency, Sir Ralph.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

....and from what I see on the threads here, the Englishmen aren't as "sane" (in the sense you meant it) as you might wish.

Not English but British.

And with a knowledge of modern history.