Posted on 10/05/2004 9:43:48 PM PDT by FearGodNotMen
I say every time they strike us, we take down a new terrorist nation. No nation-building, no improving public works, etc. We just take out the terrorist government, destroy their military, steal all their inelligence, appoint the best people we can to form a new government, and split. If they hit us again, a new terrorist-supporting government is selected and taken down, and so on down the line.
It's just like Kerry and Nam. The left is giving them hope, so they fight on.
There is ample evidence from impeccable sources that the Islamist-Jihadist forces are adamant on striking out before the U.S. elections. Some of the warnings specify a commitment to inflicting mass casualties on an unprecedented scale – perhaps through the use of a nuclear suitcase-bomb (which they definitely have).
This is total BS. If they had a "suitcase nuke", they would have used it by now, either against our troops, or in a large city.
You got it.
The fight really is America vs. America
Bodansky: Terrorists Seek ‘Mass Casualties on an Unprecedented Scale’ (says were losing)
Newsmax ^ | Oct. 5, 2004 | Dave Eberhar
Of course he does. Do you think he would get any attention in the "news media" if he came out and said "We are kicking butt in the war". Of course he has to be hyperhyseric and negative. No one would pay any attention to him otherwise.
You got it.
The fight really is America vs. America
I disagree. Do you really think these terrorists are "on their own." They have a command and control structure, and answer ultimately to terrorist-supporting nations, who give them their money, weapons, training and techology. The terrorists who deliver the bombs are following orders. They are carrying out a plan. They don't just go around blowing Nukes. This requires extensive planning to minimize/avoid the massive blowback the US and its allies are capable of generating.
If 9/11 wasn't enough to smarten these crazy SOB's up, maybe threat of imprisonment will.
Problem is, in the case of Japan, we were attacked by a specific country. I say if they set off a small nuke in one of our cities, we pick a known terror-state, and take it out. Period. That's how you defeat the terrorists. You damage/destroy/shrink the number of states they can operate in. Then they will start to feel our pain, big time.
I agree.
Bin Laden's definition of victory is at minimum the establishment of an Islamic caliphate incorporating most or all Muslims, and at maximum the conquest and conversion of the West.
I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical scenario by which either, but especially the second, could come about.
Ain't gonna happen.
The only question is how much damage the terrorists are allowed to do before we decide to squash them.
It might be a lot, and those preaching defeatism in America will be responsible.
Do we attempt to find out which government was behind each attack, and take that one out?
Or do we just start with Mecca and Medina?
Or do we put slow pressure on them by starting at the extreme east and west ends of the Islamic empire, blowing up two major/capital cities each time we're attacked, moving closer and closer to Mecca and Medina each time?
Mr. Bodansky, with all due respect, will not find much need for his opinions once we get rid of all the terrorists. Is it any wonder he says we are losing?
I'm surprised so many Americans have no clue how much planning goes into an operation like 911. For instance, it seems perfectly obvious to me that OBL and Co. packed those planes with Saudis for a reason. They were attempting to make sure that the blowback of the 911 operation was directed back at OBL's sworn enemy: SAUDI ARABIA. Yet, I have never heard any US official (or Saudi for that matter) make the connection. In short, the terrorists we face are super-sophisticated...very different from the average American's view of the "Arab Street."
To answer your question...yes! If we are hit again, we take out Iran, and with the Israelis help, possibly Syria (and their Lebanese puppets) at the same time. Etc, etc.
"I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical scenario by which either, but especially the second, could come about."
Well as a group they (Muslims) are having some success. Look at France and many of the other European countries. Were they gain a legal or illegal immigration foothold they are doing it the same way as the Mexicans.
Combining immigration (legal or illegal) and a high birth rate they are having success. If not at converting then by infesting.
I was talking about them winning this war, not about what might happen over the next hundred years.
Yeah, Europe is going down the tubes in the next 50 years unless something changes. However, a France or Europe run by Muslims is unlikely to be much more of a threat to the US militarily or economically than Egypt or Libya is today.
We just have to get out missile defenses working before they get control of the French nukes. :)
These people are incapable of running a single modern economy and all of a sudden we're afraid they will "defeat" us?
Give me a break!
My idea was even a bit more widespread and indiscriminate.
Start by nuking Morocco's largest or capital city as well as Islamabad first, and keep moving in towards a big heyday on the Saudi Arabian peninsula. Just make it all a massive parking lot, or use some neutron bombs around the oil-rich regions so we can go in later and get the oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.