Did Anyone Else Hear About The Cell Phone Call

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

It was on CNN this morning, about a man originally from Lebanon, who understood Arabic, and picked up a conversation on his cell that went on in Arabic, something to the effect of "we are in the city of excess, the city of gambling, the city of prostitution, and we are going to hit it hard."

 

Freaky stuff. Did someone not learn a lesson?

[Guest DrTom]

Supposedly, the attack is going to take place on "Freedom Day," which is believed to be July 4th. This is being diligently investigated. I heard about it on the radio this morning. Apparently, there are some people out there who have not learned their lesson. Should they remain stubborn, I think changing their learning environment to radioactive glass would be a good remedy.

[Guest EricMM]

Turn who's home country into radioactive glass? Thats whats so upsetting about this whole situation, we can never be sure who to blame for any one incident.

 

Sometimes it feels like a lot of the world really doesn't like us! But I would feel depressed if I learned that the US nuked a city, country, or area filled with women, children and men who didn't like us but didn't ACTUALLY do anything to us. Hating us is not a crime.

 

I just wish terrorists would be more willing to come into the open. Why do they live in our country until they can kill us? So two faced. Even the nazis declared war. Of course they burned people. But even if the terrorists are poor and weak, wouldn' t it be better to build up their country, become a super power, and declare war on us!? Better than blowing themselves up.......

 

-Eric

 

PS I hope nothing happens on independance day!

[Guest franchise632]

Fuck it, bomb em all.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I just wish terrorists would be more willing to come into the open. Why do they live in our country until they can kill us? So two faced. Even the nazis declared war. Of course they burned people. But even if the terrorists are poor and weak, wouldn' t it be better to build up their country, become a super power, and declare war on us!? Better than blowing themselves up.......

 

I would hardly call the terrorists poor. Not the one's attacking us at least. Bin Laden is loaded, and most if not all of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 came from well to do families.

[Guest DrTom]

"Turn who's home country into radioactive glass?"

 

The countries that have been primarily involved in the terrorist actions so far: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. That would deter anyone else from trying to do the same things in the future.

[Guest DragonflyKid]

The guy who "overheard" terror threats failed a lie detector.

 

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/062102_nw...reat_vegas.html

[Guest EricMM]

You can't say that EVERYONE in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan deserve to be nuked or whatever, can you? There are a LOT of innocents in that country. And since when did violence against a group stop violence in return? If we nuke countries, we'll look like the bad guys! We'll just have more people trying to destroy their (percieved) evil empire, America!

[Guest DrTom]

"There are a LOT of innocents in that country."

 

There were a lot of innocents in America, too. That didnt stop them from flying planes into buildings and killing over 3000 of those innocents, though.

 

"And since when did violence against a group stop violence in return?"

 

When everyone in that group is dead, I think you've stopped any violence in return.

 

"If we nuke countries, we'll look like the bad guys!"

 

Wee-wah. They already hate us. The rest of the world has done things like support Arafat and Palestine, so it's obvious their colective opinions are pretty worthless.

 

"We'll just have more people trying to destroy their (percieved) evil empire, America!"

 

Before they would attempt it, I think they'd look at the ruins of what used to be Afghanistan, Iraq, and Arabia.

 

I'm not saying we should do this now. But if there's another terrorist attack like 9/11 against us, then yes, we should simply atomize whoever has been attacking us. I'm tired of countries who retaliate against terrorism being made into the bad guys, and I'm way past the point of being tired of terrorists in general.

[Guest John Dub]

You can't possibly be suggesting blowing up the entire regions of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's crazy. Because terrorists are operating out of thise area doesn't mean everyone there is guilty of anything. And no, they didn't care about the innocents they killed in America, but there is a very distinct difference. If innocents are killed in America, it hits everyone hard, and it affects everyone, especially the government, which was who they were targeting. But we're not after a form of government, we're after a terrorist group who don't care whether or not their people die.

 

Nothing good could come out of nuking those places. We'd be destroying vital parts of world history, killing millions of innocents to get at maybe a thousand bad guys, and the entire world would look at us as monsters. Not just the Middle East, but Russia, Europe...It'd make us modern day Nazi's in a way, attempting to get rid of one group of people. And although I'm sure the Al-Queda wouln't care about losing their countrymen, it would sure be a great event to help rally more people and get sympathy from all the other countries that hate America, intensyfing their attacks, because I'm sure Osama and his goons would already be out of their before the first bomb hit.

 

If we kill millions upon millions of innocents in perhaps the greatest genocide of all time, does that make us any better than the terrorists, who took a fraction of that. Not justyfing what the terrorists did, but when kids in the future read history books, they're not going to read about the horrendus events following 9/11, or the nation in fear, or the horrible things Al-Queda did, they'll read statistics, and it'll be a few more zeroes. September 11 was horrible, but nuking a whole reigon out of exsistence can only make things worse.

 

As for the guy who heard the cell phone call, these things have been going on since 9/12. "Don't go to Boston this saturday" "Don't go to malls on Halloween" "Don't drink coke" I think that people are just sort of tuning out to all the threats...

[Guest RetroRob215]

"There are a LOT of innocents in that country."

 

There were a lot of innocents in America, too. That didnt stop them from flying planes into buildings and killing over 3000 of those innocents, though.

Why should we kill innocent people who didn't do anything to us? Their are more innocent people than guilty people in the Middle East. In the end, how is killing 5,000 innocent people and maybe 10 guilty people really going to benefit America? The fact of the matter is most of Al-Quida isn't even in Afghanstan anymore. Hell, for all we know they could be operating out of fucking Africa. Should we nuke the entire world and kill 5.75 billion people just so we can guarantee the death of one man?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Polygraph tests really aren't reliable. I don't care what anyone else says.

[Guest DrTom]

"You can't possibly be suggesting blowing up the entire regions of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's crazy."

 

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting we blow up Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Let Pakistan and India play their nuclear tit for tat among themselves.

 

"Because terrorists are operating out of thise area doesn't mean everyone there is guilty of anything."

 

To paraphrase our President, "we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them." At some point, he's going to have to act on those words, and another terrorist attack would be the perfect chance.

 

"But we're not after a form of government, we're after a terrorist group who don't care whether or not their people die."

 

That terrorist group is allowed to exist and flourish precisely because of the form of government used in those countries. When the country is run by a bunch of religious zealots, terrorists who are also religious zealots will be allowed to do whatever they want. Those governments are harboring terrorists willfully and knowingly, so yes, we're after them, too.

 

"Nothing good could come out of nuking those places."

 

A lot of good could come from it. We'd be eliminating a large bulk of the Middle Eastern terror networks. The Iranians would immediately come to our side, and they'd have planty of parking spaces to either side of their borders. It would also save a lot of lives. We don't need a long, protracted war on terror. We need to crush it decisively. If we spend two decades chasing bin Laden and his crowd thru every rathole in the Middle East, all the while soaking up terrorist attacks on our own shores, what have we really won? It's similar to dropping the bomb on Japan in WWII: a controversial move that killed many and caused a lot of damage, but ended up saving lives in the long run.

 

"It'd make us modern day Nazi's in a way, attempting to get rid of one group of people."

 

That must be an easy strawman to hide behind. In case you've forgotten, the Nazis were focused on eradicating a group of people who had done nothing to them and simply wanted to be left alone, just because their leader was a sociopath. It's obvious the Islamic countries want a holy war against us, so why don't we stop farting around in Afghan caves and bloody give them one? Considering that we'd only be targeting three countries, btw, we wouldn't at all be getting rid of one group of people.

 

"If we kill millions upon millions of innocents in perhaps the greatest genocide of all time, does that make us any better than the terrorists, who took a fraction of that."

 

Cripes, at least the terrorists aren't nearly as melodramatic as you. Buy some Kleenex and cry me a river.

 

"September 11 was horrible, but nuking a whole reigon out of exsistence can only make things worse."

 

How? Those countries have done *nothing* recently except engage in terrorist actions against the United States. Name something productive for the world that Iraq has done recently. Or Arabia. We could spare Afghanistan in the interests of nation-building, but Iraq and Arabia should be on the top of our list if we ever decide to take a severe action.

[Guest DrTom]

"Why should we kill innocent people who didn't do anything to us?"

 

That rationale didn't stop them, did it?

 

"Their are more innocent people than guilty people in the Middle East."

 

The same is true of America. Again, that line of thinking didn't stop them.

 

"Should we nuke the entire world and kill 5.75 billion people just so we can guarantee the death of one man?"

 

Now you're getting ridiculous, Rob. Two or three countries with known, strong ties to terrorism does not equate to the entire world. Our targets should be very specific.

[Guest DrTom]

"Polygraph tests really aren't reliable."

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. The FBI is basically scuttling the investigation, based solely on the results of a test that is almost universally inadmissable in a court of law. Maybe the guy who reported the conversation really is full of shit, but if a bunch of people die based on the results of one polygraph, the FBI will have an awful lot of explaining to do.

[Guest RetroRob215]

"Should we nuke the entire world and kill 5.75 billion people just so we can guarantee the death of one man?"

 

Now you're getting ridiculous, Rob. Two or three countries with known, strong ties to terrorism does not equate to the entire world. Our targets should be very specific.

By bombing three countries with ties to terrorism, we aren't guaranteing the death of any Al-Quaida leaders. Osama bin Laden's network has cells in A LOT of countries. He and his head officials can be hiding anywhere. If they had any brains, they would have fled the Middle East once the US began it's attacks. Realistically, Bin Laden and all his associates can be anywhere. That is why this war is very hard to fight.

[Guest EricMM]

<<<Eric: "There are a LOT of innocents in that country."

 

DT: There were a lot of innocents in America, too. That didnt stop them from flying planes into buildings and killing over 3000 of those innocents, though.>>>

 

Stop saying them! If you mean the terrorists, then if you can find a spot where you can bomb 100% terrorists, please bomb it! But I don't think you will ever find one, or even one with 50%! These people operate in cities! Did you know that apparently one of the terrorists was chilling around the College Park MD area for a while, eating at Wawas and such? He was in my city! Was I harboring him? NO! Was I supporting him? Of course not! But sometimes people are unable to stop terrorists from living in their same community. As has been said in other posts, the terrorists are the ones with the money. Your average afghani probably doesn't want to kill random people. I wouldn't want to use a definite statement, but I'm almost sure that the average human stock is better than that. I can't believe you say nuke THEM, like everyone in afghanistan is a terrorist. Thats so ... wrong! They're just people! People trying to live in a third world country! It happens to be the center of a lot of shit, but that doesn't mean 90% of the population is involved in any sort of terrorist responsability(sp?). I can't believe you would want to nuke them. That would make us worse than the terrorists, because it would kill thousands more than they could ever kill with planes. Nukes are a deterrant Tom, not a weapon!!!!! They should never ever IMO be used offensively! Not against al queda, ever. What one populated spot in the world deserves to be nuked? NOWHERE (IMO)!

 

-Eric

[Guest gthureson]

Not that I am advocating nuking Afghanistan back into the Jurassic (hell, they are already in the Stone Age), but perhaps you could explain how you use a nuclear weapon defensively?

 

A deterrant is only a deterrant if you use it when it is warranted.

 

If you never use them against a populated spot, and that is your policy, than they lose the ability to deter anybody from doing anything.

 

They merely become rather large, radioactive lawn gnomes.

 

I didn't have a problem with a nuclear use policy being leaked out of the White House. In fact, I was damn glad that they have a policy, and not just 'Well...we'll wing it and let 'em fly whenever we think its appropriate.'

 

 

But the deaths of 3000 people in NY isn't really a just cause for nuking someone. Not when other methods will suffice.

 

However, if things escalate, and it starts looking like you're going to have to bring the hammer down to drive a point home, well, then yes, nukes should be considered.

 

I'd suggest using small-yield battlefield nukes, myself. They will do the job you want them to do, and still let troops pass through the area unprotected within a few weeks. They wouldn't want to make camp, but they can pass through.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

They merely become rather large, radioactive lawn gnomes

Okay, that one really made me laugh.

[Guest EricMM]

In regards to the nukes, what i mean is this: In realistic terms, a plane is just a shitty missile (sp). I mean if they had shot an actual missile into the WTC probably more people would have died. But a nuke? You're talking radiation, fall out, etc. Its really a weapon that would make the world get pissed at us. I approve of doing a lot of things against terrorism, but if no more nukes go off, ever, i'd be glad.

 

I guess I meant that they're (nukes) are used to promote MAD, not actually nuke anyone. If you need to kill people use tanks. Don't poison the globe. Who knows where the fallout might land?

 

-Eric

[Guest John Dub]

You know, I didn't mean to sound like a melodramatic hippy. If someone were to nuke those reigons, I wouldn't be in a picket line, and I can unfortunately say, it would probably make me feel better. I would have a problem with it because of reasons mentioned in my last post, but I wouldn't shed a tear, and I would probably join the rest of America in celebration, but the fact remains, it's morally reprihensible, and regardless of the circumstances, it's mass genocide where women and children are involved (Granted, most children will grow to be terrorists, but it still seems wrong). I feel like whatever measures we have to take, we should to end these terrorists groups, I'm sick of all the threats, but I'm completely torn. We're already making good strives in Afghanistan, the women have power now, and it may not be the decrepit hell hole it is now in a few decades.

 

The Middle East is a sick place, and I don't think it's our place to act. I think we should let Palestine and Israel kill eachother, and India and Pakistan, because it's not our place, it's not our war. Afghanistan and Arabia are different, because it is our place to act. If I were the president, there's no way I could call for a nuke...but as a citizen,I can see where you're coming from.

 

I would love to see terrorists ripped apart and slashed and God knows what else on TV the most painful ways known to man. I would love to see them, and their dogs, and their cats killed. I have no sympathy for them, and hope they all rot in hell. But you're justyfing the killing of innocents with the killing of more innocents, because for every 1 terrorist, there'll be 50 times that for innocents, if not more. I've contradicted myself alot in this post, because of the emotions of what I'm feeling as I'm writing this, but I do have a point in mind.

 

I'm 16. I care about basketball, football, chicks, and wrestling, among other things. I'm no tree hugger, and I think protesters are wasting their time. I think alot of people would back me up, however, by saying turning an entire landmass, which played a pivotal role in the development of human history, into a radioactive golf course, is not the right way to avenge the 2,000+ that died on 9/11. I think weeding out those responsible and giving them the worst death ever would be amazingly cool, and the right thing to do. If the threats get really serious again, or, God forbid, something happens, I'll change my tune, but we don't need to be put down int he history books as the most evil nation that ever lived. We won't be remembered as killing millions of terrorists, but as killing millions of people, and I feel like I'm just another propaganda hippy who never gets laid unless by his ugly-ass never showering girlfriend, but we'd be worse off. The nations of the world would point their guns towards us, and and if we can't defend ourselves against one of the poorest nations in the world, how can we defend ourselves against superpowers? More nukes? They have them too...

 

Take this for what it's worth. I hate the terrorists, and I have a STRONG dislike for the Middle Eastern way of life, but until everyone of them commits a crime, killing them isn't the answer. You may say the people in the WTC commited no crime, and that's true, but now you think the terrorists are pieces of shit (which they are) for killing them all, so that's make us the exact same thing for doing it on a magnified level. I don't care how terrorists are treated at camp X-Ray or wherever else, we could shit on their toasts, pee in their faces, and laugh as we kicked the shit out of them or starved them, and I'd love it...but those men commited a crime, justyfing my hate.

[Guest DrTom]

"By bombing three countries with ties to terrorism, we aren't guaranteing the death of any Al-Quaida leaders."

 

That's probably true. A lot of them are likely in Pakistan, which has been falling all over itself to be friendly to us ever since 9/11. The General knows who his friends should be. Of course, their situation with India could explode (quite literally), which would solve the problem of al'Qaeda chaps hiding there.

 

"Realistically, Bin Laden and all his associates can be anywhere. That is why this war is very hard to fight."

 

I think we'd take out a lot of their support by getting rid of Arabia and Iraq. Iraq financed a portion of the 9/11 attacks, and Arabia has been funding terrorism and homicide bombers for years. Without money, it's hard to carry out terrorist operations. If bin Laden could have funded 9/11 by himself, I think he would have.

[Guest DrTom]

"Stop saying them!"

 

I'll tell you what: when a large segment of the population and governments in any of the countries I've mentioned condemns terrorism in general, and the 9/11 attacks in particular, then I'll stop saying "them." Until then, I'll maintain that everyone in those countries is in it together. We're not supposed to make a distinction, remember.

 

"Did you know that apparently one of the terrorists was chilling around the College Park MD area..."

 

And this has what to do with terrorists in the Middle East?

 

"But sometimes people are unable to stop terrorists from living in their same community."

 

And sometimes, people harbor them and support them because the terrorists are the arm of the intolerant, extremist regime that the government professes.

 

"Nukes are a deterrant Tom, not a weapon!!!!! They should never ever IMO be used offensively!"

 

Jesus Christ, will you please check into a clinic for your addiction to the exclamation mark. There has to be a program for it somewhere. Melodramatics Anonymous, or something. Anyway, please explain to me exactly what (and whom) a nuke would deter if it were never used as a weapon. It would be nice if things were resolved as easily as you'd like to believe, wouldn't it? Nuking anyone isn't my first course of action, but if we're attacked again, I think it will be the best available option.

[Guest DrTom]

"If you need to kill people use tanks. Don't poison the globe. Who knows where the fallout might land?"

 

That's a valid concern, especially in a post-Chernobyl world. But smaller nukes only have a fallout radius of a couple miles, so we could still eliminate the people we want to eliminate and keep the rest of the world safe from fallout. Smaller nukes would also allow our troops to go into those areas sooner.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

We probably don't even need to use nukes. If we have our elite troops really go after these vile scum, they'd be able to take them out.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Using the nukes would make disarmament quicker!

 

And Tactical Nuclear weapons are very effective for precision, on a fission scale that is. Tora Bora should have been evacuated(I'm sure all civilans had left anyway) and just had a few tactical nuclear weapons, or better yet, Neutron Bombs, sent in there.

[Guest EricMM]

Ok Tom, please tell me, how could the local citizenry absolve themselves in your eyes? Lynch all the terrorists? If I'm not mistaken the terrorists have a lot more support than the average person in those areas. I just don't understand why you hate all Iraqis and Afghanis(sp) just because it's leaders want to kill us. Just because it's leaders fund a minority that tries to kill us.

 

What would it take for you to see the Afghani people aren't "in it together," like you said? Because I want to see if it's possible for the average person to achieve.

 

I still think that nukes certainly aren't the best availible option. I've always seen nukes as a method of making sure other nukes weren't used. I just don't see crators as ever solving any problem.

 

!!!! j/k

 

-Eric

[Guest muzanisa]

Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA. It was the Saudi Government allowing the States to station troops near Islamic holy sites that first put the bug up Bin Laden's arse (he had never given a shit about Israel/Palestine situation until trying to drum up support after 9/11) before that he had been an ally of the US and was trained and supported by the CIA and US army to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

In case you didn't notice Afghanistan is in the middle of forming a new government which will be an ally of the USA.

Why bother bombing Iraq? If Bush senior had done the job right they could have got rid of Hussein twelve years ago. Except for Libya and Iraq didn't every country in the world condemn the events of 9/11.

Individuals in some of those countries might have been celebrating but that's always going to happen. I was in a bar in New York a couple of days after the IRA exploded a bomb in the City of London and many of the people in there seemed very happy about it and even had a collection so they could buy more weapons.

What's the difference?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Saudi Arabia is an ally of the USA

Jesus, I haven't seen anything that funny in days. And you have the gall to imply that other people are clueless?

 

Why bother bombing Iraq? If Bush senior had done the job right they could have got rid of Hussein twelve years ago

So your philosophy is that no one should ever fix any mistakes anyone else makes. How did you manage to survive puberty? (Assuming you have...)

[Guest muzanisa]

In what way is the Government of saudi Arabia an enemy of the USA? They are fucking supoported by America and it's very doubtful they'd be in power if they wern't . If you think that Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the USA you're the idiot.

 

America could destroy Iraq tomorrow by convential means what's the point of Nuking them? The USA and Britain have been bombing Iraq since the Gulf war ended and have destroyed their capability to defend itself. They'd be doing them a favour if they got rid of Saddam like they should have done twelve years ago.

Maybe if you read the posts rather than reacting to something you want to read in it.

Btw Marney you're a cunt.