reveals that nearly one in four Americans support using nuclear weapons "to attack terrorist facilities”. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the assassination of "known terrorists” and 39% agreed that torturing known terrorists was legitimate "if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.”
1
Hey Rusty let's do a poll here??? Anyone?
Posted by: Laura at March 02, 2005 12:35 PM (ptOpl)
Posted by: Anyone at March 02, 2005 12:40 PM (tkj+t)
3
Damn...I didn't know 27% of Americans were so stupid and willing to admit defeat so quickly.
Posted by: Venom at March 02, 2005 12:47 PM (dbxVM)
4
As comical, childish, and entertaining as the thought might be that terorrists have not used a WMD device(s) against targets within the United States (or other targets for that matter) would have nothing to do with the fact that some suppossed back door comunique to would be terrorist handlers, but more to do with the fact that live isnt too easy on them lately. The fact is that if there was a way to pass messages its a trail that can be followed, well correction the bag has to be open and the light on for the feds and the intel boys to find the way out but still they might be able to track it.
On a more realistic note I would be worried about some ultra-nationalist puke here like the anthrax doctor than some outside group. Hell there are more deaths caused by the drug and illegal human/goods trafficing than ever will be killed by terrorism. More so for those of you not living in state whose national border is the biggest joke you really dont have crap to worry about.
Posted by: Salamander at March 02, 2005 01:19 PM (V40IZ)
5
"We at the Jawa Report have long speculated that the threatened use of nuclear weapons against Mecca could serve as a rational deterrent to Islamic jihadis using weapons of mass destruction against the US."
I can't think of a better recruiting tool.
Posted by: actus at March 02, 2005 02:09 PM (Eg4/w)
6
We at the Jawa Report have long speculated that the threatened use of nuclear weapons against Mecca could serve as a rational deterrent to Islamic jihadis using weapons of mass destruction against the US.
That would suppose that the jihadis actually care for Mecca or fellow Muslims. I subscribe to the theory that jihadis might shed a tear, but then would just use the martyrdom of Mecca to recruit more jihadis. See, while the jihadis purport to be religious, I believe that to be as thin a veneer as christianity is for the KKK.
No, the jihadis would not respond to a threat against Mecca, but they might silently be wishing for it.
Posted by: kbiel at March 02, 2005 06:31 PM (KSCkS)
7
I quess Laura isn't that much a minority after all.
Venom, cool it. No ones really behind it. Even Laura. Just frustration talking.
Only a stinking muslim would really do it. Hmmmm? Now you got me thinking about my grandson's future.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 02, 2005 07:56 PM (CBNGy)
8
Salamander: Ah, what the hell. Forget it.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 02, 2005 08:00 PM (CBNGy)
9
We've been through this here before. There's a huge problem with nuking anyone - and that is the after affect will affect the rest of the world and of course, our environment and weather patterns. We will win this war and the Iraqi's will live a free life;hell, they're turning in terrorists and stepping up to the plate, so there is no need for this question to be asked at all anymore.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 02, 2005 09:18 PM (PEKrh)
10
Affect the rest of the world? Environment, weather patterns. Like happened in Japan. Lord, help, please.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 03, 2005 07:53 AM (CBNGy)
11
Operation Glassy Plain...nuff said.
Posted by: Moriarti at March 03, 2005 08:37 AM (dLFsa)
12
The threat of nuking Mecca is not to influence the terrorists themselves. The threat is to influence the King of Saud, the rulers of Egypt, Iran, Syria, etc. and so forth, that if they continue to let terror cells run free, they'll suffer. Of course the terrorists themselves don't care, but they cannot operate effectively without state-sanctioned support. The threat to Mecca effective removes a lot of that support.
Posted by: dodge at March 03, 2005 09:45 AM (fRt6P)
13
"Venom, cool it. No ones really behind it. Even Laura. Just frustration talking."
Wow rooster you actually sounded sane for a moment there.
Cindy - couldn't agree with you more.
kbiel - EXCELLENT point. I have been saying the same thing for a while. The jihadis murdering innocents (and other muslims) are about as muslim as greyrooster is.
Posted by: Jim at March 03, 2005 12:30 PM (Hm7re)
14
I resent the insinuations that Greyrooster is a crazy cluck!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 03, 2005 01:09 PM (x+5JB)
15
(But I know you were kidding, Cindy.)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 03, 2005 01:11 PM (x+5JB)
16
Jim,
Glad that you agreed, but dodge makes a good point that the influence would be indirect through those that do care about Mecca, Muslims, et al and support terrorists.
As far as a nuclear explosion "after affect will affect the rest of the world and of course, our environment and weather patterns", that's just provably untrue. Um, we dropped two of the most primative nukes on Japan, we've had several above ground tests inside the US and yet Gaia doesn't seem to be sending death winds and fall-out all over the world.
I would rather not use nukes for any reason, but nuclear deterence does work. It kept the USSR in check for decades. It keeps China and N. Korea in check. It makes everyone except the craziest of the crazies think twice about attacking us directly.
Remember, the President doesn't have to push the big red button. For some reason, just the perception of a cowboy President who might be crazy enough to push it keeps the peace, such as it is.
Posted by: kbiel at March 03, 2005 05:30 PM (KSCkS)
17
In fact, there are radical Islamist terrorists who would welcome the destruction of Mecca because all the shrines commit the sin of idolatry. So... using the kind of logic employed so often among your comrades, that that would make you objectively pro-terrorist if you advocate nuking Mecca.
As for bluffing with nukes...Sooner or later, y'gotta use them or everyone knows you're faking.
Now you may be fooling yourselves with this kind of yakking, but you're fooling no one else: you are advocating the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Short version: You're not pretending to be crazy. You're the real thing.
Posted by: tristero at March 04, 2005 11:03 AM (eCSS7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
