Discussion on Terrorism, September 11th and what could have happened

Thanks, Dr. What. Appreciate it. I wanted to use 'Doctor Why' but I figured you'd sue me.:)

My apologies on not catching all of his post (reading IS a skill). I would agree with what you said, but if we knew exactly where his training camps were, I don't think we'd waste a nuke on it.

Nope, not a sockpuppet, but have been lurking for a while and just signed up today. Everyone has to start somewhere, and it appears 'Sealion' related stuff is a big no-no here!
 
Nope, not a sockpuppet, but have been lurking for a while and just signed up today. Everyone has to start somewhere, and it appears 'Sealion' related stuff is a big no-no here!
If you're truly not a sockpuppet then I apologise, although you do have to admit that it's kind of suspicious.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Aldroud's posts are shocking, but I think that certain members of the board are blowing it even more out of proportion so they can condemn him...
It strikes me that they are intentionally so - he's looking to get an extreme response out of those of us who disagree with him, and some people are giving it to him. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I find this whole tarantella (trolling for extreme responses, and then condemning those who fall for it) rather tiresome.

Of course, some of his claims are just plain wrong. An airliner is not a "WMD" by any conventional understanding of the term, nor is it true that the US always responds in kind to an attack (what about the marine barracks bombing in 1983, or the first WTC bombing a decade later, or the embassy bombings in the second half of that decade?). In any case, if the US were going to respond "in kind" to 9/11, it would have to train a few pilots to hijack and airliner and drive it into the tallest skyscraper in Riyadh, wouldn't it?

EDIT: Banned already? The both of them?
 
This thread really did hit the shitcan, didn't it?

Aldroud, nuclear weapons were designed in the days of nation versus nation warfare. Such weapons nowadays are useless. What exactly is the point of nuking somebody? You kill many, many innocents as well as maybe a few terrorists. I mean this no respect at all, but that sounds like nutcase messups like Jean-Marie Le Pen, Robert Mugabe and Nick Griffin. Not good people to be compared to.
 
Thanks, Dr. What. Appreciate it. I wanted to use 'Doctor Why' but I figured you'd sue me.:)

Wouldn't sue for that--now if you signed up as the 'crazy canadian bureaucrat' THEN I'll sue you....

Nope, not a sockpuppet, but have been lurking for a while and just signed up today. Everyone has to start somewhere, and it appears 'Sealion' related stuff is a big no-no here!

Only if you think it will work....;)
 
Maybe for you non-military, non-Americans on the board here you just don't understand U.S. policy. For the last 50-some years, the American policy has been 'hit us with a WMD, we hit you back'. The 9/11 attack was the first such instance since the end of WW2. The fact we didn't respond in kind - ACCORDING TO POLICY - leads me to believe future terrorists/ enemy states will think the US won't respond.
Er, the policy with nukes was "if a foreign government targets one of our cities with one, then we'll hit one of their cities with one". Not "if a terrorist network made up of people of a certain ethnicity/religion attacks us, we'll attack a bunch of unconnected people of the same ethnicity/religion." Somehow I'm guessing that after the Oklahoma City bombing, you weren't advocating nuking survivalist camps in Montana or wherever.

Also, the policy was always one of proportional response--if the soviets had attacked the WTC with non-nuclear cruise missiles launched from a sub or something, our response would not have been to nuke Moscow.
 
Translated, a bit late...

The world is a true pigsty
Humans act like pigs
Industrial raising
At thousands tons of deads
We are at the fanatics's hour
Madness, scientifical oppression
We are in a state of jungle's laws
And everywhere it's the guns rule
Organised prostitution
Putrefaction, vomit and nausea
The Third world die, the pigs devorate
The tension rises, the GIs claw
Butchered in the slaughterhouses
Burned in the laboratories
Parked into the suburbia
Prisoners behind the parloir
And in Chile the suspects cook
In the governement's ovens
In Europe, the rebels rot
In the bunkers of isolation
A man who blow up in pieces
Dynamited by executionors
Monkeys lead... demancia
Beethov' become ultraviolence
On one side the monetary system
On the other the military shadow
All end up in vendettas
In whip strikes the blood innondates

Armed cops, pigsty
Apartheid, pigsty
Dst, pigsty
And Le Pen*, pigsty

Grouene grouene gronch
Grouic grom grouic
Grouinc grouinc......


*leader of the french Front National, a relative of the BNP and their ilk.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Aldroud said:
I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care. Nothing says don't fuck with me like a mushroom cloud and if ever there was a case to use one, 9/11 was it. You hit us with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit right back. Seems we held back and thus encouraged resistance.

If the planes had hit around 11 AM or if the initial reports of 15k+ dead were accurate, I wonder if we would have vaporized a city or two.

Genocide/mass murder? You've been around long enough to know that shit is not tolerated here (and you've been a prick often enough you probably don't really care).

Banned.

Also banned Aluminumclad. Either a sock puppet, or a long-time lurker (knows about radical_neutural) who never signed up until it was time to defend an advocate of nuclear terrorism, and imply that people condemning nuclear terrorism was just a bunch of anti-Americanism. Either way, bye.
 
Me too, Tielhard.:(

Just because a guy wants to use atomic weapons for the sake of using atomic weapons without even the slightest clue as to a particular target, apparently desiring to spray mushroom clouds like a randy tomcat, and some people decide he must be a member of the 'batshit' right. How judgmental are we going to get?:eek:

:D
 
Evening All...

Perhaps I can take us on a different tack as this is an AH board and invite you to read this newspaper piece which has found its way via wormhole from an AH world...

Blair: I won't go "on and on" like Thatcher...

Prime Minister Tony Blair received a warm reception when addressing the Trades Union Congress in Bournemouth this afternoon. Approaching nearly a decade in power, Blair looked relaxed and spoke for over an hour to the audience of union delegates.

In his address, Blair re-stated that he would not go "on and on" like Margaret Thatcher but would leave Downing Street in his own time. Since the third landslide election victory in May 2005, when Labour was returned with a majoritry of 125 seats, speculation has grown as to whether Blair wanted to serve a fourth full term as leader or would hand over to Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Public service reform was the keynote of the Prime Minister's address....


There's also this opinion piece from the Guardian newspaper of September 13th 2006:

"...Blair's relationship with President Kerry has been far better than that with President Bush. It's well known that the Democrat victory in November 2004 was warmly welcomed in Britain and Europe. The Kerry Administration has progressed the Peace Process in the Middle East and did much to bring about the successful UN mission to Darfur last year which saw American, Russian and Chinese forces work together to alleviate a humanitarian crisis and bring about a peaceful transition to democracy in the Sudan.

The relationship with China remains strained despite President Kerry's visit to Beijing earlier this year. Growing Chinese economic prosperity raises serious issues for oil prices and the environment.

The latest opinion poll shows Labour still ten points ahead of the struggling Conservatives. The sacking of John Prescott in April of this year and his replacement by Alan Johnson saw a momentary dip in Labour's fortunes but the Conservatives, under David Davis, are yet to mount a serious challenge and were deeply embarrassed by the loss of the Bromley & Chislehurst seat to Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats.

I lunched last week in the sumptuous "Windows on the World" restaurant in New York with an influential American commentator. His view, echoed by many in Washington, is that Blair has been an invaluable ally, mitigating the excesses of the Bush Presidency and inspiring John Kerry to be more active on the world scene. Blair has also been an ally in rebuilding Euro-American relations, which suffered badly under Bush. Recent visits by Jose Aznar and Gerhard Schroeder show the degree to which Euro-American bridges are being rebuilt. My American companion said he was not concerned if Blair left in the next couple of years. "He'll still be in charge even if he's not PM" were my guest's words."


This, if you haven't guessed, is from a world devoid of 9/11 or even Al Qaeda in any form.
 
Top