Pentagon bombed...

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Our Attorney General John Ashcroft did recently confirm that there have been "acts of violence" made towards muslims and other groups that people have considered distinctly foriegn. He also stressed how this was wrong and would not be tolerated. It is indeed true.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by ed_silvergun:

<STRONG>StormHammer, I posted reports from The Guardian confirming rumours of anti-Muslim events across the world in my last post. I couldn't find any info on it on the BBC website.</STRONG>

 

Weird. I know I saw it reported on the BBC news. But they have been having problems with their website, it seems, so I'm not surprised all the information isn't on there.

 

That's a very disturbing (and more detailed) article on the Guardian site, though.

 

As I said above, I think the UK is going to see some pretty brutal race riots before too much longer. This persecution is going to go on in many other countries - and it can only damage further our relations with those countries where the Islamic faith is in a majority.

 

We must all remember that part of the Islamic faith is for them to defend their faith. If these attacks persist, I believe other countries may be moved to respond...and there may be a consolidation against nations where these persecutions are unfolding.

 

This is yet another remarkably sad day in human history.

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: StormHammer ]

[Wilhuf]

The apparently trivial 'scrap of history' that the War with Japan was ended in 1945 by two nuclear weapons is lost here...

 

So far the scientific fact is that nuclear weapons have in fact been used to end war. No nuclear weapon ever started a war, much less prolonged a war.

 

It is totally irrational and lopsided to rule out nuclear weapons because of non-factual and completely exaggerated fear of their effects. Nuclear devices are just another weapon in the arsenal of democracy.

[Guest Kurgan]

Just reading some articles on http://www.fark.com , and one possible theory (along with an article claiming there is a chance the footage shown of Palestinians celebrating is actually archival footage from 1991.. though the reports of celebration are likely still true as Arafat condemned them, which you'd think he wouldn't do if it was fake).

 

One of the articles made me think that perhaps this is a tangled plot and not as simple as I thought.

 

It seems the prime suspects are Bin Laden, who's hiding in Afgahninstan.

 

Now here's some interesting details:

 

1) A rumor claims that the gov't there put Bin Laden, who was basically given political assylum as a "guest" there, under house arrest. Now the Taliban denies that Bin Laden could have done anything. Were they lying? Or did he slip past them?

 

If this is true, then perhaps they are reconsidering his guilt, or perhaps they are anticipating his capture. Whatever it is.. if there's any truth to it, it's definately interesting.

 

2) The footage showing children and women celebrating, with plastic flags and candy, might, according to another rumor be archival footage from 1991. Why show archival footage? Some theories are that it is to sway public opinion in favor of blaming the Palestinians? Why do that? Conspiracy theoriests will probably guess that it's so we can have somebody to blame, somebody we "don't like" anyway, to get this over with and get somebody. But the trouble is, if that were true, we'd be in trouble, if the real killers got away. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's just another doubt.

 

Of course it's possible the reports came in of celebrations and the news media (innocently ignorant, or perhaps willfully ignorant due to yellow journalism) used the archival footage as a visual aide, even though it was not of the actual events.

 

Though it's also probable that the footage is genuine, and really does show what went on. If Arafat apologized for what people were doing, then either he was fooled by the video, or else it really was happening, even if the video shown on CNN wasn't accurate.

 

Also interesting...

 

3)Another article gave me another idea, in which they were talking about Afgahnistan blaming Palestine (did they do it? or are they trying to defend Bin Laden?)...

 

What if, somebody, whether it's true or not, is trying to place the blame on Afgahnistan, perhaps a rebel group. Why do this? So that they can have the US get mad, overthrow the current Afgahn gov't and they can "help" the US fight them, and have their faction win out. After all, the country has been full of struggling factions for years. The Taliban just happen to control the most territory right now, and they're very unpopular in the West obviously. Another conspiracy theory.

 

As for what I think.. I don't know. Maybe it is Bin Laden... I doubt that his agents (which are all over the world if we believe the reports) acted without his authorization or counsel. But even if he gave the direct order, he's still not the only one there.

 

Were there other terrorists waiting in airports to take more planes and got stopped or didn't act? Did they flee the scene? Or did all of those who acted die in the explosions with their victims?

 

If Bin Laden is the leader, capturing him could lead to the exposure of the others.

 

But if he isn't and he doesn't know who's involved, then who? Are we just going to attack people until they talk? So the investigation continues...

 

Maybe Afgahnistan and Palestine are in it together.. maybe it's just convenient to blame each other. After all, if the US goes to war with the country it thinks is responsible, that country is going to be in bad shape, as we can all imagine. So there's a lot at stake. But who did it, really? Who knows?

 

I think the thing to realize about nukes here is not just their destructive impact, which is obvious and much like conventional weapons (just stronger in most cases), is the long term effects.

 

Are we going to irradiate a huge area of land, possibly spanning several countries (which may even be our allies) to take out a few terrorists when conventional weapons could be used to accomplish the same task?

 

If the terrorists are dead, does it matter what we used on them, nukes or regular tnt? (speaking generally of course)

 

There is also the thing to keep in mind that the US is not the only nation who has access to nuclear weapons. And who knows if this country that supported or originated the terrorists has some, or if their allies have them? Then we're in for trouble if they can launch nukes at us, or close allies.

 

That's what I think we'd need to worry about, not just that the use of nuclear weapons is taboo because of the cold war fears of nuclear holocausts.

 

Besides, we'd kill so many people with them, a smaller strike would take out fewer civilians, which I think is better than just killing a ton of people indiscriminately. We don't need to be butchers.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Wilhuf]

They want us to be scared... but more than that they want an excuse to escalate this even further. I don't think nukes are the answer. We need a precise, surgical strike aimed to take out those responsible.

Yes I agree 100% that we need precise surgical attacks, ed. I guess we all are just not on the same page about tactical nuclear weapons and what they do. Depending on yield, tactical nukes are very precise weapons. They level buildings and city blocks. They aren't the city-levelling doomsday weapons of Terminator 2.

[Guest Kurgan]

It depends on the country of course, but I think sending in an elite fire team or something would be better, if possible.

 

Have other countries help out, get the most crack op troops we can find, give them the best gear and support. Bring back the terrorists in chains. That way we'd avoid a full scale war, right?

 

Kurgan

[StormHammer]

Kurgan...as far as I know, the Taliban are very unpopular in Afghanistan as well. They have a strangehold on the capital, using their own terrorist tactics to subdue their own population.

 

Many people in Afghanistan would definitely prefer not to be under the control of the Taliban.

 

As you said, this is a far more complicated issue.

 

However, if we are all saying that all terrorism should be eradicated - then there is a solid argument for dealing with the Taliban regardless of whether or not they commited this strike against the USA.

 

It goes back to what I said before. This incident cannot be taken in isolation. A terrorist cannot just hold up it's hands and say they were not responsible for this attack - because they have commited many atrocities in the past, and must pay for those as well.

 

If you are going to declare war on terrorism - then it has to be against all terrorists, not simply those responsible for this bloodshed on US soil.

[Darth Simpson]

Yes, sending in the SWAT teams and their equals would be preferable to a full-scale bombing, be it with tactical nukes or 'regular' missiles.

 

In any case, I believe civilian casualties is unavoidable. No matter how you progress through this, more innocents will lose their lives. That's something we will have to accept, no matter how hard it is.

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Darth Simpson ]

[Guest Kurgan]

Yes, but the only way to eliminate terrorism completely would be to start World War III. Turn every country of the world into a warzone, there will be millions of deaths.

 

And once you'd killed all the terrorists living today, there are always the possibility of new terrorists rising up to replace them in the future, so it's futile, really.

 

Our battle is with the terrorists who attacked us. We get that done, then we can worry about blowing up the world... prioritize.

 

IF the elite ops team could be sent in, I would prefer that to nuking the country (so to speak). You'd still have civilian deaths likely and some deaths on our side, but at least it would be far smaller than a full scale assault/invasion or nuking. We'd accomplish our objective.

 

Send in the Seals, send in the Marines, send in the JEDI, whatever, just figure it out and plan it well, and support it. Get it done. Once we know where to go...

 

Kurgan

[Wilhuf]

Now I'm hearing the confirmed reports of mob attacks and threats on Mosques here in the US. This is pathetic. These attacks are by a bunch of idiot thugs, and not representative of the real American ideal. Deplorable. I would have thought we had learned our lessons from WW II. Attorney General Ashcroft has said that any such attack will be actively prosecuted.

[Guest Kurgan]

As they should...

 

I don't like this whole "fight fire with fire" approach.

 

These people being attacked are likely Americans themselves, and just because they are the same ethnicity or religion as those SUSPECTED of being the masterminds of these crimes, these idiots attack them.

 

They're no better in principle than the WTC terrorists, who attacked innocents to get at the US government or military or whatever.

 

Kurgan

[matt--]

I don't like racism.

 

I can't get away from this news.

 

While I was playing ut yesterday, just to get away from it all, i spotted a player named 'FanaticMuslimKiller'. He wasn't even good.

[TornSoul]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>The apparently trivial 'scrap of history' that the War with Japan was ended in 1945 by two nuclear weapons is lost here...

 

So far the scientific fact is that nuclear weapons have in fact been used to end war. No nuclear weapon ever started a war, much less prolonged a war.

 

It is totally irrational and lopsided to rule out nuclear weapons because of non-factual and completely exaggerated fear of their effects. Nuclear devices are just another weapon in the arsenal of democracy.</STRONG>

 

In WW2 the US were the only ones with nuclear weapons. Now, almost every country has a couple (although most don't admit it). If the US is going to use neclear weapons, other countries will too. That will mean a nuclear war and most likely the end of the world as we know it.

[Wilhuf]

That's simply not true. The majority of countries today do not have nuclear weapons.

 

Which country would launch a nuclear attack as a retaliation against US action in, say, Afghanistan ?

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Before I have to listen to some outrageous claims about how off the mark we are about the effect of using nukes and how much inifinitely safer it is than am I imagining, I ask everyone this:

 

What is more dangerous to the welfare of the world: overestimating the global ramifications of the use of nuclear weapons or underestimating them?

 

I hope the choice is clear and that people do not think that the non-use of nuclear weapons in and of itself is considered above the safety of the our global community itself.

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[access_flux]

Stormhammer - Has the IRA killed over 6,000 people in one go?

[Guest Kurgan]

Yes, but it only takes a few nukes to do a hell of a lot of damage and human suffering.

 

The good ones we've got make the two dropped on Japan look like cherry bombs.

 

I'd say spread out among the nations, China, India, Pakistan, Russia and former Soviet Union countries, and to say nothing of the NATO countries, there's probably enough death and radiation to go around..

 

Will the principal of MAD still hold up?

 

Don't forget about the other stuff like the neutron bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc.

 

There's definately enough to go around, that's the trouble.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

It was said that God, in order to test mankind which had become swelled with pride as in the time of Noah, had commanded the wise men of that age, among them the Blessed Leibowitz, to devise great engines of war such as had never been before upon the Earth, weapons of such might that they contained the very fires of Hell, and that God had suffered these magi to place the weapons in the hands of the princes, and to say to each prince:

"Only because the enemies have such a thing have we devised this for thee, in order that they may know that thou hast it also, and fear to strike. See to it m'Lord, that thou fearest them as much as they shall now fear thee, that none may unleash this dread thing which we have wrought."

But the Princes, putting the words of their wise men to naught, thought each to himself: If I but strike quickly enough, and in secret, I shall destroy those others in their sleep, and there will be none to fight back; the earth shall be mine.

Such was the folly of princes, and there followed the Flame Deluge.

 

- A Canticle for Leibowitz

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Access_fluX:

<STRONG>Stormhammer - Has the IRA killed over 6,000 people in one go?</STRONG>

 

No - and I am not trying to diminish the scale of the human tragedy that has occured in any way. I am simply trying to point out that your previous comment does diminish the pain and suffering experienced by families who were victims of the IRA - and any other terrorist group around the world. The scale may be different - but the results are exactly the same.

 

As I said before, this atrocity has raised the stakes - and it may inspire other terrorist groups across the world to use similar methods in the future. Many more people will lose their lives in coming decades.

 

And in case you are interested - I am personally grieving for all of the lost lives and the pain and suffering of the families who have lost loved ones. I wept during the three minute silence held across the UK this morning.

[Wilhuf]

What is more dangerous to the welfare of the world: overestimating the global ramifications of the use of nuclear weapons or underestimating them?

 

A very difficult question to answer. An axiom to this question is, what is more danagerous? Demonstrating limited resolve against terrorism? Or demonstrating serious resolve?

 

Tactical nuclear devices can have yields as low as mere fractions of kilotons of TNT. The scale of physical risk associated with the use of these devices is far from 'global.' The affects are localized. They can be used as artillery ammo.

 

Here's another 'scrap of history' for you: the US dropped many tactical nuclear weapons on its own soil throughout the cold war. There were no catastrophic affects throughout the US, much less throughout the world. There were localized impacts however, on the GIs and other observers of these tests.

 

These aren't 'outrageous claims.' These are facts. Embrace them, ignore them. No matter. DoD and the White House are taking a realistic look at these options.

 

I do agree that the non-use of these weapons won't automatically rule out any chances we have for prosecuting a war on terrorism. I haven't suggested that nuclear weapons should be our first or only weapon of resort.

 

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[GonkH8er]

Well i was out at sea on an island when i heard about all this so ive been patchy on info up until today when i sat down and watched bbc, cnn and fox news simultaniously.

 

Now, if i get anything wrong, point it out to me in a calm fassion, not in an ubrupt finger pointing way. The day I left, this happened.

 

Not long ago, my time, they found the flight boxes from the pentagon plane. they found the pennsylvania one easily i heard, but anyway, theyre all in fbi hands now.

 

Now........ with the attacks. The way i see it, (assuming it is the talibans) theres a high chance they have large scale weapons of some sort, even nukes. nukes arent exactly the hardest thing to aquire these days. If they were to say, use one of these 'nukes' on a given target, and i'm assuming these given tagets would be washington, NY, LA or chicago, possibly in that order of preference, someones going to be might irate.

 

and i so frequently do, i have an inkling. my inkling is that we've not yet seen the worst of this. i usually fare better in these discussions when i keep my mouth shut, but i dont feel like it.

 

what i was personally expecting was for these terrorists to launch a secondary bioterrorist attack while NY was in one of its darkest moments. With the hospitals the way they are and the sheer size and population of the city, i'd imagine an attack of that sort would be rather effective, not that an effectice attack is something that i want, but it just seems like this isnt just a one off attack. to me it seems like the beginning of something bigger, like we should be expecting more attacks, possibly on an expanding destructive scale. i mean, there was going to be a second wave of attacks, but they were caught at the airport. one rally has to wonder where those planes were to be headed....

 

the white house again perhaps? fort knox? i think they learned from the plane that didnt hit, that everyday citizens are capable of great heroic acts of bravery and that some people just wont bow down to condign power. people have morals, and people have guts, and people are willing to sacrifice their lives to stop potential disasters.

 

although, they may not be as well prepared as some think. with the recent blunders with a few being caught at the airport in their seats ready to take off, one really has to wonder how 'stealth' they actually are.

 

all i hope is that if or when this does eventuate into something bigger, it DOESNT involve nuclear warfare. by all means use your skuds, your cruise missiles, anything you damn well like....... just dont bring nukes into it. but as nukes seem to the the quickest way to eradicate a threat these days, and certain people are just hand puppets for their war-hungry military advisors, if it does turn into WW3, i doubt there wont be nuclear warfare. im tired and i want to go to bed. ill write more tomorrow.

 

in the mean time, check out what sick people are up to already. i got sent it so i uploaded it. its sick humour, and not only that, but jokes are forming already. you may not be hearing them over there, but im hearing some from my friends in england an germany.

http://www.virtue.nu/jmmmm/ter.jpg

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>Tactical nuclear devices can have yields as low as mere fractions of kilotons of TNT. The scale of physical risk associated with the use of these devices is far from 'global.' The affects are localized. They can be used as artillery ammo.</STRONG>

 

The mention of 'global' here is an obvious reference to my previous question regarding the global ramifications of using nuclear weapons. My question however translates in no way, shape or form to mean just the physical effect of one nuke in an area as you have made it out to be. I can't see this as anything but a sidestep of the real question to which all you could answer was that it's "very difficult."

 

What is more dangerous to the welfare of the world: overestimating the global ramifications of the use of nuclear weapons or underestimating them?

 

Global ramifications include the political consequences of advocating the use of nuclear weapons, as the use of the nuclear weapons themselves is indeed the highest level of advocacy. This in turn involves future development of increasingly destructive nuclear weapons by many countries, not just these self-contained mini nukes you are so gallantly praising, add finally of course any possible consequences of increased usage of nuclear weapons by countries all over the world. That is just a surface run.

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I do agree that the non-use of these weapons won't automatically rule out any chances we have for prosecuting a war on terrorism. I haven't suggested that nuclear weapons should be our first or only weapon of resort.</STRONG>

 

Right. But have suggested that nuking would be our best response to this situation to show our resolve. From what I can gather from your posts you think showing our resolve is the paramount concern here to deliver a heavy message to the terrorists and any would-be terrorists and you would not stop short of using nukes. So aren't you therefore saying that nuking would be our best response? Would you care to clarfy your stance at which point I can check it with some back quotes?

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>These aren't 'outrageous claims.' These are facts. Embrace them, ignore them. No matter. DoD and the White House are taking a realistic look at these options.</STRONG>

 

Facts they certainly are. Facts supporting an argument twisted out of context, as I have shown. This is exactly why scraps are bad when mixed with too much personal opinion. History is undeniably important in the analyzation of these situations, and undeniably usesless when used inappropriately. I trust similar methods are not at work in the Nation's investigation of these terrorist acts and for that I am thankful.

[Wilhuf]

Yes it's possible that if the application of nuclear weapons was indeed effective, it could promote proliferation.

 

On the other hand the use of nuclear weapons may actually reduce proliferation. A few tactical nukes against 'suspected facilities' would help in anti-proliferation efforts.

 

It does sound rather gallant doesn't it?

 

Krayt, you find my reading of history opinionated, uneven, inappropriate, and twisted. Care to add any other constructive comments as a moderator?

 

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Kurgan]

Gonk and any others coming in late, it has NOT yet been proven positively who did this.

 

The "prime suspect" is Osma Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian millionare, who is now hiding out in Afgahnistan (90% of which is controlled by the Taliban government that has been at odds with the US in the past). Bin Laden has been found to be responsible (beyond reasonable doubt I believe, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) of orgainizing the bombings of two embassies in the past. He has a history of threatening the United States. The Taliban have placed him under house arrest recently, so perhaps while they claimed he had nothing to do with it, they were in fact wrong. Maybe they are getting the message that if he is responsible, they could be the targets of attacks themselves.

 

I have read articles in which Afgahnistan officials have blamed Pakistan. I have heard people blame the Palestinians (although recent events would indicate it's just a faction.. as Yasser Arafat strongly condemned the Palestinians who celebrated, the attacks, and donated blood himself to help the victims and wept for the dead).

 

It is possible it could be somebody else besides Pakistani extremists, Osma Bin Laden's gang, or Palestinian extremists.

 

Note that I did not say the COUNTRY was responsible, only terrorists in it. Unless it is proven that the government of that country actually supported them and financed them, then they should not be attacked, but the terrorist themselves, I would think.

 

The leaders should be the ones held responsible first and foremost, since many of those countries are not even democratic and so the people really have little control over what the government does there.

 

But let us be careful who we accuse until it's been proven who did it. Osma Bin Laden is an easy target. Almost TOO easy....

 

Also I reported some time earlier that 8 planes were involved in this. According to later reports, these initial reports were false. In fact all of our remaining planes have landed safely.

 

Two planes crashed into the WTC. One crashed into the Pentagon. One was headed for the white house or camp david but was forced down (by the passengers/crew, quite heroically) in Penn. There was another plane that was suspected of being hijacked, but turned out to be a false alarm.

 

Many countries are worried that there may be other attacks planed.

 

There was a bomb reported outside the state department. Then it was said this was a rumor. Then it was said not to be a rumor. Anybody know the status? There's still a few rumors out there, but more data is coming in and things are starting to settle finally.

 

The main thing of course after the rescue efforts continue and the cleaning up of the mess (I've heard that many, if not all of the rescue teams have begun to cease "rescue" and move onto "recovery" as most of those trapped in the rubble are likely dead by now, which is horrible to think about) is to find out who is responsible, and where they are.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

This just in.. in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/america.under.attack/">this article</a> evidence suggests that the hijackers may have been part of an Egyptian extremist group. Of course it is not yet proven, but this is an interesting development nonetheless.

 

According to the article the head of the Egyptian group reports to Osama Bin Laden, as Bin Laden's followers are in several countries. Did they act on their own, or did they have orders from Bin Laden?

 

The article goes on to say that the names alone may not prove it. They could be posing as other terrorists, using stolen identities. Perhaps there are some rival terrorist faction wanting to place blame, etc. Very interesting.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]