White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Doomsday for Islam?
- Thread starter White Shogun
- Start date
White Shogun said:
From article: A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.
White Shogun, this is a real possibiity. But why would Arabs attack us with nukes or other weapons of mass destruction knowing full well an enraged America would wipe them off the face of the planet. It doesn't make sense. Who would benefit from such a situation? Certainly not the Muslims!!I don't believe for a moment they would be foolish enough to think we would sit idly by. I've read many reports of a similar nature, and the sources are invariably Jewish or Christian Zionist sympathisers like Joe Farah. Could it be we are being prepared to react accordingly if such an event transpires?
Farah is a Christian of Arab descent who is as fanatically pro-Israel as any of the Christian Zionist propagandists. His site has often featured scare stories claiming that "Al Qaeda" was about to set off nukes in U.S. cities.
I agree with Bart's analysis. And really, is "wiping Islam off the map" an appropriate response to the terrorism of a small number of Muslim crazies? Would all of the other nuclear powers merely observe as a billion Arabs were killed because of the reputed actions of a stateless few? For example, Russia's nuclear arsenal is about the same size as Washington's. Who knows how they would react to such a scenario.
The real tragedy of all of this is that if America had maintained a European-centered immigration policy and stayed out of affairs that don't concern us none of this would be a threat. But that supposeshavinga government that was concerned with America First rather than being run by oil industry gangsters and Zionist extremists.
I agree with Bart's analysis. And really, is "wiping Islam off the map" an appropriate response to the terrorism of a small number of Muslim crazies? Would all of the other nuclear powers merely observe as a billion Arabs were killed because of the reputed actions of a stateless few? For example, Russia's nuclear arsenal is about the same size as Washington's. Who knows how they would react to such a scenario.
The real tragedy of all of this is that if America had maintained a European-centered immigration policy and stayed out of affairs that don't concern us none of this would be a threat. But that supposeshavinga government that was concerned with America First rather than being run by oil industry gangsters and Zionist extremists.
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
I don't know guys..
Bart, it could very well be a conspiracy. I'm also aware of Farah's political leanings, so I take what I find on his site with a, um.. liberal dose of salt.
But there are plenty of idiot madmen out there who would love to detonate a nuke in the USA. And there are enough idiot madmen in our government to react just the way that is described in this article.
Wiping Islam off the map may not be an appropriate response - but was it an appropriate response to invade Iraq for non-existent WMD's? Or to prepare to invade Iran to 'prevent' the creation of a WMD? Common sense would dictate otherwise, but since when is our government dictated by common sense?
Bart, it could very well be a conspiracy. I'm also aware of Farah's political leanings, so I take what I find on his site with a, um.. liberal dose of salt.
But there are plenty of idiot madmen out there who would love to detonate a nuke in the USA. And there are enough idiot madmen in our government to react just the way that is described in this article.
Wiping Islam off the map may not be an appropriate response - but was it an appropriate response to invade Iraq for non-existent WMD's? Or to prepare to invade Iran to 'prevent' the creation of a WMD? Common sense would dictate otherwise, but since when is our government dictated by common sense?
Another dubious assertion in the article is that the U.S. may destroy China as an afterthought. China has been purchasing advanced nuclear and weapons technology from Washington and U.S.-based corporations for a number of years now. We still have the upper hand militarily to be sure, but China can cause plenty of damage to the U.S. if we go to war against it, both on the mainland and to many of our innumerable overseas military bases, such as the ones in Japan, and the 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops basedin South Korea.
I can't see the US launching a nuclear attack against Islam. The media raises hell when a soldier kills an innocent bystander, how the hell could they kill millions of "bystanders"?
What about the effects of radiation from a large scale nuclear attack, it would effect the whole world. Geez people are scared of CO2 a harmless naturally occuring gas, just imagine radiation!
You start throwing nukes around and anything could happen. Every piss-ant nuclear power in the world has a nuclear capable sub sitting offshore of Washington DC, someone would launch one at the capital just for the hell of it (I know I would).
What about the effects of radiation from a large scale nuclear attack, it would effect the whole world. Geez people are scared of CO2 a harmless naturally occuring gas, just imagine radiation!
You start throwing nukes around and anything could happen. Every piss-ant nuclear power in the world has a nuclear capable sub sitting offshore of Washington DC, someone would launch one at the capital just for the hell of it (I know I would).
White Shogun
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,285
Guys, do you really think if someone detonates a nuke within the borders of the United States, that our government wouldn't trash half the world, fallout be damned?
We rant on this site all the time about the illegal war in Iraq, the pending war in Iran, and all the other acts our government commits in the war on terror, yet you find it hard to believe that the United States wouldn't nuke someone in retaliation?
I understand your arguments, and obviously dropping a bunch of nukes all over the world isn't the right answer. I'm not arguing that it is correct from a moral or logical point of view. I'm asserting that I do not believe a retaliatory strike is not an option the Pentagon has considered. I'm certain it has been considered, and I do not believe that logic and common sense will necessarily prevail in just such a scenario.
As I said before, since when have we seen common sense and logic in use within the United States government in recent memory?
We rant on this site all the time about the illegal war in Iraq, the pending war in Iran, and all the other acts our government commits in the war on terror, yet you find it hard to believe that the United States wouldn't nuke someone in retaliation?
I understand your arguments, and obviously dropping a bunch of nukes all over the world isn't the right answer. I'm not arguing that it is correct from a moral or logical point of view. I'm asserting that I do not believe a retaliatory strike is not an option the Pentagon has considered. I'm certain it has been considered, and I do not believe that logic and common sense will necessarily prevail in just such a scenario.
As I said before, since when have we seen common sense and logic in use within the United States government in recent memory?
It could depend on where a nuke or nukes detonates, and how much damage it causes. If a substantial part of New York or Washington is destroyed, then the retaliation would likely be on a much larger scale than if it was, for example, a medium-sized port city that is not a financial or governmental or media hub.
Trashing "half the world" would only bring down the entire post-WWII world order that Washington has dominated for over 60 years, so why do that. Washington often acts irrationally, but also has a keen sense when it comes to preserving its own power and prerogatives.
The one thing that would occur for sure is the complete militarization of U.S. society. Whether or not that can besuccessfully accomplishedin a balkanized, decadent land such as this is another question altogether. More likely, it would work some places but not others. The non-white cities would move closer to "warlord" status, while white rural areas would become more independent from Washington's dictates.
Trashing "half the world" would only bring down the entire post-WWII world order that Washington has dominated for over 60 years, so why do that. Washington often acts irrationally, but also has a keen sense when it comes to preserving its own power and prerogatives.
The one thing that would occur for sure is the complete militarization of U.S. society. Whether or not that can besuccessfully accomplishedin a balkanized, decadent land such as this is another question altogether. More likely, it would work some places but not others. The non-white cities would move closer to "warlord" status, while white rural areas would become more independent from Washington's dictates.
Jofreidr_1488
Newbie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 70
This could actually be a GOOD thing, a military dictatorship wouldn't have any use for Political Correctness which is already hated by the rank and file White military men.
An 'American Pinochet' working to establish Order and who worked to 'Disappear' liberals would be welcomed by me and probably by a very large percentage of the Population.
Society is already close to martial law, and I don't see the Washington/New York/Hollywood axis moving away from PC in the least. If we're going to have a strongman at least let it be someone who is pro-American, not a tool of Israel and the oil industry; that's the worst possible scenario.