Nuclear Response to 9/11?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    It is established fact that the U.S. helped instigate the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We then funded the resistance fighters, and used them to fight a proxy war with the Soviets.

    That war reduced the nation to rubble. And life under the Taliban was far more repressive than it would have been had the Soviet backed government continued. They had roads, schools, hospitals, equal rights for women - much better than what followed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    For christs sake, they were not AlQueda then. Some morons here say there is no AlQueda wehen AlQueda's leaders are all over the media talking about AlQueda.

    I didnt say anything about using Nukes, and are you so nieve to think terrorism is not state sponsored?

    yeah it was all for the oil, just like in those mad max movies....you right...Horay for you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, writing for the Guardian, spoke of al-Qaeda as an unintentional product of Western interests:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organization would turn its attention to the west.


    LOOK I don't even blame the U.S for what they did all the way to 2001, I understand the motives(do not agree with the motives). But to THINK, FUCKING THINK OF NUKING Afganistan is FUCKing SICK. They way Mad Anthony just says it so matter of factly, just boils my blood more.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    "Helped instigate" how?
     
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
     
  9. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    Thank you. I would have PMed you, but it seems I need twenty posts to do so.

    madanthonywayne: I think this is the closest we'll ever be to coming to an agreement in the World Events section of the forums. "right-wing nut"? Can't see us getting along, my friend, unless it's arguing gay marriage or abortion.
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Had he done so, and done it well and thoroughly, any future terrorists would have thought damned hard and damned long about doing something that would cause the horrendous death of their families, friends and supporters.

    If we'd nuked Afghanistan immediately, how many of the remaining nations of the world would have supported Muslim terrorists? How many of those nations would have permitted the terrorists to live and work within their borders? How many of the family, neighbors and friends would support the terrorists?

    How would things have been afterwards? Oh, a lot of hot-air bullshit and doo-gooder condemnation for a while, but it would have soon been forgotten just like all of the other problems of the world.

    People seem to think nukes are such horrid things, but in reality, they're just a bigger, more powerful bomb. I'm sure that people thought the first arrows were horrid weapons ...death from a long distance ...but it was quickly adopted by everyone. The first bomb dropped from an airplane might have seemed horrendous, but soon everyone was dropping bombs.

    With nukes, look at how it is now ....the USA dropped two of 'em ...and now everyone is trying to get the nuke bombs, ain't they. See? Not much different to the first arrows or the first bombs.

    Baron Max
     
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    We'll see. One of my best friends on this site is a gay, communist janitor (the infamous Genji). I enjoy discussions with those I don't agree with. Otherwise it's boring.
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    That's what I wonder. An immediate, devastating response might just deter these wacko's, or at least those around them who tacitly support their actions.

    There's a story, I can't recall the title but it's a true story, of an Indian tribe that started making raids on an adjacent white settlement. They killed a few whites, stold some stuff, and expected a tit for tat response which is what they always got when they fought neighbooring Indian tribes.

    Instead, the white settlers attacked the Indian village enmass and killed every man, women, and child they could find.

    Massive retaliation. Was it just? Is war ever? Might it not be better to hit the enemy with everything you've got and get the damned fight over with rather than drag it out trying to avoid collateral damage? Might not this approach actually save lives in the long run, like nuking Japan?
     
  13. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,170
    You obviously have learnt nothing since 9/11.

    There are cases of people leaving their families, homes, jobs - everything, to go and die in Iraq. These are people with very little military training, some leave not knowing how to fire a gun. These people go up against the most powerful military in the history of Mankind, they don’t expect or want to come back alive. They desire martyrdom. You think they fear the US?

    In order to deter those ‘wackos’, the US would have to wipe every single Muslim country off this planet, not just one. Or they could just calm the hell down and stop their war of terror.
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sounds like a pretty good plan. Would you like to be in command, or do you want me to do it?

    Baron Max
     
  15. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    And no one from that tribe ever killed another white settler, did they!

    One of the things we're doing is putting ridiculous constraints on our military ...mamby-pamby, doo-gooder constraints that no one could possibly live with and still fight a war. Using those constraints, the enemy simply kills who they want, when they want, without much fear of retaliation.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over in less than a year had I been in control of the military.

    Baron Max
     
  16. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,170
    Who is American fighting?

    Why?
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    It doesn't matter! The deterrent factor of a massive retaliation would be enough to scare people into not giving support to terrorists.

    Just like the Native Americans ...we kept killing them until the "terrorism" finally stopped. If one tribesmen killed a white man, the cavalry swooped down and killed the entire fuckin' tribe, men, women and children. And we kept killing them until they quit killing white men. You can't get no better than that!!

    Baron Max
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The basic premise, that no negotiation was possible with any Afghanis simply isn't true. In fact we did negotiate both with representatives of the Taliban as well as the Northern Alliance, who eventually helped the US fight the Taliban. We ended up using some of the most powerful conventional weapons that we have against suspected hideouts in the mountains, but it didn't work.
     
  19. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Well spidergoat, I guess the premise is that nuke just kill EVERYTHING so no chance of survival...wait no

    "People seem to think nukes are such horrid things, but in reality, they're just a bigger, more powerful bomb. I'm sure that people thought the first arrows were horrid weapons ...death from a long distance ...but it was quickly adopted by everyone. The first bomb dropped from an airplane might have seemed horrendous, but soon everyone was dropping bombs." - Baron psycho

    NOPE they are just another bomb so, yeah probably OBL and buddies live and move to pakistan. Ok when the fallout hits pakistan...ok THEN maybe they die. But if they don't and now manage to nuke U.S.A(because Pakis are fucking pissed) with a briefcase nuke. Then U.S nukes Pakistan, well the world is pretty fed up at this point, people are getting sick in western china etc and the china decide to go for first strike.

    Waitaminute - there is not quite enough fuckheads in the pentagon and white house, willing to go to nuclear war to kill hundreds of terrorists backed by who knows how many secret agencies and governments all over the world. They stoped and thought about it, before doing it or worse posting the dumbass idea on an internet forum.
     
  20. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    That's right. Discusing something on an internet forum is worse than nuclear war. Good one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Funny you can only comment on my stupid joke.
     
  22. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,557
    This is not true. The US did not negotiate with the Taliban, they only sent them threats. The US supported the NA because they were willing to help get rid of the Taliban and other tribal groups supporting them. The Norther Alliance include narcotic traffickers, gangsters, mercenaries, former communists, and secularists. Basically, the US bought their support with billions of dollars.
     
  23. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Gee maybe the U.S will get to fight them in 15 or 20 years...Do I sense a pattern here?
     

Share This Page