_BiB_ Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Who knows what is the truth. I certainly dont. But if OBL does detonate a weapon like a nuclear weapon or biological or chemical weapons killing millions of Americans, do we then have the moral high ground to level Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or any country in the region that is deemed to be OBL territory? IMHO I say YES ! Assuming everyone agrees yes. Why doesn't President Bush issue a statement to OBL over Aj Jazeer TV stating that any such action would be met with the complete and utter destruction of the land and people he professes to love. Evolution is beautiful thing. Imagine a world without Muslims. IMHO it is a happier place. 114777[/snapback] I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I almost bought Imperial Hubris when I was in the bookstore the other day.Anybody read it and should I snag it next time I'm there? 115185[/snapback] Yes, it's a good read. But keep it in context. Folks that are "in the weeds" with any situation tend to default to their focus. Not their fault, they aren't looking at what is outside their box. Some are pretty good at their box, and I recommend the read. Did that make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but get a grip. 115252[/snapback] It's a question based on a theoritcal scenerio raised earlier in the thread. That OBL has religious permission to nuk/germ/chemical bomb the USA killing millions of Americans. Since we know OBL has no qualms about about killing Americans it isn't all that crazy of a question since Iran is trying to get a nuclear reactor built for 'energy reasons' So I was asking to see if other posters would feel the same way I would if such a scenerio ever played out. So whats your problem with my asking this question? If you dont like the question, dont respond. A smart remark such as 'get a grip' is only condenscending, arrogant, rude and unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 It's a question based on a theoritcal scenerio raised earlier in the thread. That OBL has religious permission to nuk/germ/chemical bomb the USA killing millions of Americans. Since we know OBL has no qualms about about killing Americans it isn't all that crazy of a question since Iran is trying to get a nuclear reactor built for 'energy reasons' So I was asking to see if other posters would feel the same way I would if such a scenerio ever played out. So whats your problem with my asking this question? If you dont like the question, dont respond. A smart remark such as 'get a grip' is only condenscending, arrogant, rude and unnecessary. 115330[/snapback] Read your post. Nuke them all? Kill all Muslims? As UBL asked permission. Hence my "get a grip". I can be much more rude than that. If you have a point to make, make it in the clear so dumb people like me can understand what's serious and what isn't supposed to be. As for an opinion to your subject, I don't put much stock into it. I can probably search around until I find a Catholic priest who condones me having a harem of 16 year old cheerleaders. That doesn't give me permissions, in my view. If I were a devout Catholic, it might allow me to feel better about myself while I kept them. Bin Laden announced straight up several years ago that he was pursuing WMD and had no qualms about using them. He's single handidly created one of the largest job growth markets in this country because of it. He's already taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 I can probably search around until I find a Catholic priest who condones me having a harem of 16 year old cheerleaders. That doesn't give me permissions, in my view. 115344[/snapback] It's tougher than you think. And since you won't take that as permission anyway, could you just give me that priest's email address when you do find him so I can have permission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 13, 2004 Share Posted November 13, 2004 Yeah, me too. I could go for a harem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 [i'll wait until the 60 Minutes episode airs. 114809[/snapback] That's a joke, Right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 [i'll wait until the 60 Minutes episode airs. 114809[/snapback] That's a joke, Right?? 115783[/snapback] That's a joke, wrong. As I said, Drudge is a pimple. He's only reporting that someone else has a story that he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Read your post. Nuke them all? Kill all Muslims? As UBL asked permission. Hence my "get a grip". I can be much more rude than that. If you have a point to make, make it in the clear so dumb people like me can understand what's serious and what isn't supposed to be. As for an opinion to your subject, I don't put much stock into it. I can probably search around until I find a Catholic priest who condones me having a harem of 16 year old cheerleaders. That doesn't give me permissions, in my view. If I were a devout Catholic, it might allow me to feel better about myself while I kept them. Bin Laden announced straight up several years ago that he was pursuing WMD and had no qualms about using them. He's single handidly created one of the largest job growth markets in this country because of it. He's already taken seriously. 115344[/snapback] This is a theoretical discussion. Assuming OBL launches a WMD and kills millions of Americans, what is the American response? You can be sure, it wont be lets not offend the Muslims now, there not all bad. It will be a swift severe response. So I am asking what the consensus is. Can I assume you would want to wait and take a measured response and basically do nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 This is a theoretical discussion. Assuming OBL launches a WMD and kills millions of Americans, what is the American response?You can be sure, it wont be lets not offend the Muslims now, there not all bad. It will be a swift severe response. So I am asking what the consensus is. Can I assume you would want to wait and take a measured response and basically do nothing? 115937[/snapback] You can assume whatever you want to assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 This is a theoretical discussion. Assuming OBL launches a WMD and kills millions of Americans, what is the American response?You can be sure, it wont be lets not offend the Muslims now, there not all bad. It will be a swift severe response. So I am asking what the consensus is. Can I assume you would want to wait and take a measured response and basically do nothing? 115937[/snapback] Why do you equate a "measured response" with "basically do nothing"? What is the alternative, a response beyond measure? I am no military geopolitical strategist but I am thinking that there might be something between doing nothing and destroying the world. One example might be that if Iran fires a nuclear weapon at the United States, we fire 10 times that many at Iran as opposed to Iran and anyone else with a copy of the Koran in their glove compartment. Besides, we don't have to worry about that anyway. We are safer than we were because the President and his administration says we are. In fact, the attorney general announced that we are secure from terrorism so this is really just a flight of fancy, why worry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Why do you equate a "measured response" with "basically do nothing"? What is the alternative, a response beyond measure? I am no military geopolitical strategist but I am thinking that there might be something between doing nothing and destroying the world. One example might be that if Iran fires a nuclear weapon at the United States, we fire 10 times that many at Iran as opposed to Iran and anyone else with a copy of the Koran in their glove compartment. Besides, we don't have to worry about that anyway. We are safer than we were because the President and his administration says we are. In fact, the attorney general announced that we are secure from terrorism so this is really just a flight of fancy, why worry? 116106[/snapback] For the record I have a copy of the Qu'ran and I would NOT take it kindly if some dumbass nuked my neighborhood because Osama let one fly. And is Osama was a threat we'd have pursued and caught him, don't you think? No, we are safe now that Saddam is in custody and we have brought the world to our side through our invasion of his country. Every family we kill, every child we maim, brings us more and more security. And as Mickey says, Asscroft himself fixed it so we are safe, so what, me worry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I have little doubt that Anonymous says what he is credited as saying. Whether or not he is right, well that is another kettle of popcorn (this is muddled metaphor day here at the office). 114840[/snapback] And now that I'm watching 60 minutes...I'm glad I withheld judgement, as the Drudge "story" is an extremely poor representation of the 60 Minutes story. And the 60 Minutes story itself isn't too great (though Scheuer slams Richard Clarke - "Criticism from him is sort of a badge of honor"). Lots of good information from Scheuer...but I'm unimpressed with the editing, enough so that I'm open to the possibility that 60 Minutes' portrayal of Scheuer's words may not accurately represent Scheuer's thoughts themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts