World War III

Demiurge

BIZILL wrote:

maybe it's a plot to take our attention off of another type of attack. why keep beating a dead horse via plane?

Well, they were going to blow a lot of those planes up over densely populated areas in the United States and the UK.

I haven't heard what the liquid explosive was (i.e. did it have a bilogical weapon component to it?)

I'm not sure what kind of destruction it would have caused if they weren't bio-warfare liquids. It would have been terrible either way, but I can't imagine it with chemical weapons.

PhantomOG

BIZILL wrote:

maybe it's a plot to take our attention off of another type of attack. why keep beating a dead horse via plane?

Watching CNN this morning and some guy responded to this type of question. He said, its like the asking why do so many people rob banks? Because that's where all the money is!

Huge airplanes full of people and capable of massive destruction, which terrorists can get access to with only the cost of a plane ticket. Sounds like the bank/plane analogy makes sense to me.

BIZILL

if anything, bringing down the economy again by way of aviation industry and travel...

and if biological chemicals exist, would it not be more so consumed by the fireball before it's allowed to spread. or do bio/chemical weapons like that seen on 'the rock' exist and readily available to these arabs?

unc2701

Liquid explosives? Maybe it was this:

http://eepybird.com/dcm1.html#featured-video

brettw22

If I get taken out, I don't want it to be by a big glass ball of green goo.......

BIZILL

you know, these monkey-fuccs terrorist muslims remind of the the part in the movie 'independence day', the part where the captured alien uses Data from 'star trek' to answer the president's question of "what is it that you want?" and then the **** alien says, "die, die."

you see, we cannot change their stupid-**** minds. they hate us and want to annihilate us.

ND13

IT'S TIME TO QUIT BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT AND JUST SAY ****'EM ALL AND GIVE THEM A SWIFT KICK IN THE **** AND NOW, DAMNIT!!!!

We can't be worrying about what pussified Frenchy or the Russians think anymore. We need to nip this **** in the bud, before they succeed in killing multi-thousands of innocent American, Canadian, British citizens.

BIZILL

but EXACTLY whom do we wipe out.......and without breeding more hatred. viscious cycle....

aaharvel

ND13 wrote:

IT'S TIME TO QUIT BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT AND JUST SAY ****'EM ALL AND GIVE THEM A SWIFT KICK IN THE **** AND NOW, DAMNIT!!!!

We can't be worrying about what pussified Frenchy or the Russians think anymore. We need to nip this **** in the bud, before they succeed in killing multi-thousands of innocent American, Canadian, British citizens.

Now that I think about it, I say we just nuke the entire Mid-East region. :rolleyes: :cool:

ND13

BIZILL wrote:

but EXACTLY whom do we wipe out.......and without breeding more hatred. viscious cycle....

Who, besides the Canadians, Brits, Aussies, and a few insignificant(military-wise) nations, don't already hate and or are jealous of us anyways???

ND13

aaharvel wrote:

Now that I think about it, I say we just nuke the entire Mid-East region. :rolleyes: :cool:

Did I say or mention a nuke anywhere in my post?? We can do what it takes with conventional warheads and mainly from off-shore and the air.

BIZILL

but you cannot just kill a whole civilization when a select minority are the ones carrying out the terrorist plots. otherwise the world would frown upon us, more so. lose/lose situation.

ND13

BIZILL wrote:

but you cannot just kill a whole civilization when a select minority are the ones carrying out the terrorist plots. otherwise the world would frown upon us, more so. lose/lose situation.

They would do it to us if they had the capability and without even a second thought.

Okay, we give them 1 week to get the hell out of dodge, if they want to live, then rain on their parade.

Do you not remember the massive mobs that were dancing and chanting anti-American slogans after 9/11?? Those mobs were in several Middle-Eastern nations, too. These are the people you want to protect.

BIZILL

i remember the mobs. and it made me sick. but do we just bomb civilians? due to terrorist attacks? the faster terrorism becomes synonymous with military actions against us, the faster we can be 'in the right' if it comes to having to bomb 'em all. i hope that day never has to come. i wish they would just stop, cold turkey, hating us. but that is a dream.

ND13

There's just not any simple solution, just like Vietnam. We have no clue who is and who isn't the enemy. Therefore, we have little choice but to be cold-hearted in this situation. Like I suggested, give the people that don't support the terrorist a given amount of time to clear out, then start the action, whatever it might be. If we don't do something soon, it WILL turn into another Nam, and I for one don't want to see that ever happen again.

If the people of the Middle-East continue to allow the terrorist to hide behind them and/or provide shelter for them, then they made that bed and I can't feel too sorry for them.

One other thing...the terrorist's war against us isn't just against our government or military, it's against ALL OF US, and just not Americans, though we are taking the brunt of the ****, but all "INFIDELS".

PhantomOG

ND13 wrote:

TLike I suggested, give the people that don't support the terrorist a given amount of time to clear out, then start the action, whatever it might be. If we don't do something soon, it WILL turn into another Nam, and I for one don't want to see that ever happen again.

I don't know how serious you are about your suggestion but I hope you do realize how futile such an act would be. The only people left behind would be those completely incapable of leaving, regardless of their personal beliefs. Pre-announcing attack locations only reduces the chance of hitting people we intend since they would be smart enough to move.

I agree there is no easy solution. Unfortunately, because of the nature of terrorism, brute force by itself as a response is inadequate and only fuels the fire more.

ND13

Okay...**** it...let em just keep doing whatever the hell they feel like doing and we'll just sit back with our heads in the sand, "hoping" they have a change of heart and feel sorry for us and leave us be.:rolleyes:

It's hard for me to fathom how many people have had a change of heart since the rage they had in the months following 9/11.

And who said to announce when or where the attacks would take place, only that attacks will occur after a certain date and will be widespread. We've given warnings before that saved thousands of Muslim lives, and the bad guys stayed.(First Pres. Bush)

BIZILL

PhantomOG wrote:

I don't know how serious you are about your suggestion but I hope you do realize how futile such an act would be. The only people left behind would be those completely incapable of leaving, regardless of their personal beliefs. Pre-announcing attack locations only reduces the chance of hitting people we intend since they would be smart enough to move.

I agree there is no easy solution. Unfortunately, because of the nature of terrorism, brute force by itself as a response is inadequate and only fuels the fire more.

damn those roaches! they are bugs, troublesome bugs. and they never seem to go away. at least in vietnam, the ill-will is not any type of threat. it has passed into history. but these muslim terrorists will be here for the long run, free to plague the free nations.

PhantomOG

ND13 wrote:

Okay...**** it...let em just keep doing whatever the hell they feel like doing and we'll just sit back with our heads in the sand, "hoping" they have a change of heart and feel sorry for us and leave us be.:rolleyes:

It's hard for me to fathom how many people have had a change of heart since the rage they had in the months following 9/11.

I never said anything about giving up on fixing the situation. I merely pointed out that your "solution" of a weeks notice before bombing is ridiculous. Sure, nuking the middle east would probably cut down on terrorism. But if you tell the whole world a week beforehand that you are going to do it, do you honestly think all the terrorists in the world are going to just stay over there and wait for their deaths? :rolleyes:

The inability to think with a clear head and getting all pissed off when someone presents an idea counter to yours doesn't help the situation.

ND13

PhantomOG wrote:

I never said anything about giving up on fixing the situation. I merely pointed out that your "solution" of a weeks notice before bombing is ridiculous. Sure, nuking the middle east would probably cut down on terrorism. But if you tell the whole world a week beforehand that you are going to do it, do you honestly think all the terrorists in the world are going to just stay over there and wait for their deaths? :rolleyes:

The inability to think with a clear head and getting all pissed off when someone presents an idea counter to yours doesn't help the situation.

JHC, you take everything so literally. A week, a month, or a quarter... What ever the time frame.

And I never said nuke em.

Oh and I am thinking with a clear head and am sick of these pansies hiding behind their women and children. I want this crap to be over and done with before my two boys are old enough to have to go to war. I've already served my country and was lucky enough to have gotten out just months before Desert Storm.

And you've yet to give any alternative other than to dispute mine. What do you suggest? What do you think will get through to these cowardly punks? The only thing they understand is violence, period. They WILL NOT listen to reason, it has been tried for thousands of years.

ND13 wrote:

And who said to announce when or where the attacks would take place, only that attacks will occur after a certain date and will be widespread. We've given warnings before that saved thousands of Muslim lives, and the bad guys stayed.(First Pres. Bush)

I guess it's gonna take more than just an attempt to start killing us again to get us all on the same page again. That's sad. We are becoming a nation of passivist and that's exactly what the terrorist want, free roam. That and for us to be fighting amongst ourselves, they love that ****, it makes it easier for them to go about their business of terrorising us and the rest of our allies. They are unified under one cause and we can't even agree on whether we should do anything about it or not.

Demiurge

ND has them pegged to a T. That's exactly what they want. They love nothing more than arguments like this. "Who is the real bad guy in all of this?" "What if they hate us more?" "We can't attack them if we hit any civilians." ....and on and on.

This country is becoming a bunch of pussies, and no -- I don't think you need to be in the military to say that.

I agree you don't give them a time frame, but you definitely give out ultimatums, and then you make damn sure you follow up on them.

ND13

I usually don't get this passionate online, but I'm sick of living like this. Not knowing when or where the next 9/11 WILL, not might, occur. I have two boys, 6 and 8, that I don't want to have to live in fear or for this crap to be prolonged, like Nam, until they're of age. My wife and I do our best to keep them away from this, but it's getting to the point where we won't be able to do so much longer, with school about to start and their curiosity.

Don't forget, either, that we don't negotiate with terrorist.

PhantomOG

I just don't see where anything I've said could piss you off so god damn much. I didn't say I was against military action. I didn't argue about "who is the real bad guy". I didn't suggest negotiating with terrorists. The only person I see creating divisions here is you. If my opinions piss you off so much, I'll gladly leave the thread to you. Have fun.

brettw22

I agree with a pre-emptive attack, but as long as innocent civilians are minimized as much as possible. That's not a pussified outlook......it's an outlook with a conscience.

ND13

brettw22 wrote:

I agree with a pre-emptive attack, but as long as innocent civilians are minimized as much as possible. That's not a pussified outlook......it's an outlook with a conscience.

That's, imo, obviously what I've been saying the whole time.

OG,

I never said I was pissed off at anyone except the terrorist. Maybe it was just the tone of your response that got me riled up. I just don't believe my opinion is ridiculous is all. we're cool, okay??

If we don't do something and soon, we WILL lose hundreds or thousands of our civilians. So all I'm getting at is.....it's either us or them and I'm all for it being them.

I'm in no way a warmonger, but I'm in no way a passivist, either. But we have got to get a handle on this situation before it deteriorates any further.

unc2701

On 9/11, America lost 1/100,000 of its civilians. Iraq's been hitting that once every three days, lately. Granted they're killing each other, but guess who's gonna get blamed?

I don't think our current approach is really doing much good. Maybe time to rethink the strategy.

Demiurge

ND13 wrote:

That's, imo, obviously what I've been saying the whole time.

Ditto.

Besides, pretty much all of our munitions (rockets, missles) are precision now.

ND13

Demiurge wrote:

Ditto.

Besides, pretty much all of our munitions (rockets, missles) are precision now.

We can take a picture of a license plate from outerspace, so I know we can precisely hit any target we choose to hit. Very rarely do we miss, unless it's serves some other purpose. I got out of the Air Force in 1990, and the technology we had then was beyond most people's belief, so I'd dare to say we have advanced light years since then. And yes I was a weapons controller, so I do have a knowledge of what our capabilities were then and have a good reference point to start from on what our capabilities should be now.

PhantomOG

ND13 wrote:

OG,

I never said I was pissed off at anyone except the terrorist. Maybe it was just the tone of your response that got me riled up. I just don't believe my opinion is ridiculous is all. we're cool, okay??

I guess your initial reply of "ok f-it...." didn't sit well with me either. Anyways, I still stand by the fact that any warnings at this point only hurt the situation. We should use whatever intelligence we have and deal with threats accordingly. We've already given enough notice/warning/ultimatums. Everyone knows we're at "war with terrorism". Showing any more cards only weakens our hand.

BIZILL

ND13 wrote:

I have two boys, 6 and 8, that I don't want to have to live in fear

i got two of the exact same...