why not NUKES?

[Diesel Freak]

Originally posted by NVR FNSH







Not much of an Islamic scholar - can you please cite the passage(s) in the Koran that direct Muslims to kill non-Muslims?



Brian

Go read The Satanic Verses by Salmon Rushde.

Any book about Islam that would prompt the Iatollah Quomene (sp) to put a $10000000 bounty on your head just because you wrote it should give some very good insight.

 

[RobMitch]

I think we can acheive the same effect, of cleaning out the mountains, by pounding the mountains with conventional explosives until they are level. If there are no mountains, where can they hide?



$40 billion should buy enough conventional explosives to do the job, don't you think?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

I'm afraid not. With bombing we couldn't even effectively take out the Ho Chi Min Trail, and that was on top of the ground.

 

[Riflesmith]

The "proton" bomb is actually a neutron bomb. The military refers to them as ER devices. The ER stands for enhanced radiation. These very specialized hydrogen bombs are detonated 1,000 to 2000 feet above ground and have a yield of approximately 2 kilotons. There is a relatively small area of destruction directly under the detonation. As I recall, they have a five mile kill radius.

Those close to the center of the kill radius would be killed instanly by the tremendous burst of neutron radiation. Those unlucky enough to be at the edge of the kill radius would take up to a month to die, but death is certain. Hiding in caves, behind armor, etc. would do the enemy no good. Neutrons penetrate dense material very easily and are the most damaging type of external radiation hazard. They produce very little radioactive fallout and a very strong EMP(electrmagnetic pulse). They would be the ideal weapon for use against terrorists, deadly and terrifying.

I understand the sentiments of those who say nuclear weapons should not be used even though I can't agree with them. Our present adversary would use them on us without hesitation. Their ruthlessness in not in question in our country at this moment. The only way to defeat this type of enemy is with equal ruthlessness.

Will innocent women and children be killed as a result? Yes. The question must be asked: would you rather it was our American women and our children? If we don't respond ruthlessly to this enemy, it will be.

 

[Champane Flight]

Nukes?

Subject: America the Beautiful (an alternate perspective)





I



Here is another, unheard, perspective of this whole mess.

This is written by an Afghani man in response to what he sees on TV.



----- Original Message -----



I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the

Stone Age. " Ron Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would

mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this

atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What

else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing

whether we "have the belly to do what must be done. " And I thought

about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from

Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never

lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will

listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.



I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My

hatred comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind

that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree

that something must be done about those monsters.



But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the

government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant

psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political

criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you

think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of

Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps. "



It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this

atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would

exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out

the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.



Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The

answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering.

A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000

disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.

There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these

widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the

farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the

reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.



We come now to the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone

Age". Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it

already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level

their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done.

Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut

them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did

all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs.

Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's

Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move

around. They'd slip away and hide.



Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't

move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul

and dropping bombs would not really be a strike against the criminals

who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common

cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been

raping all this time.



So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with

true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in

there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do

what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly

to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral

qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the

sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just

because some Americans would die fighting their way through

Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks.

Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through

Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan

would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You

see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and

the West.



And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he

wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's

all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It

might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world

into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west

wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with

nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of

view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever

that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would

die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?



Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?



In Peace,



Tamim Ansary

 

[jwgary]

Make your own decision

From the Qur'an 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day,

Nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His

apostle,

Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the people

of the Book,

Until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves

subdued.

 

[fest3er]

Re: Make your own decision

Today, Rush (that sometimes large bag of hot air) suggested that we target a few nukes at Mecca, and inform the Arab world that the next time Muslim terrorists strike anywhere in the world, we will nuke Mecca.



I disagree. If we were do to anything, we should inform the world that if Muslim terrorists strike anywhere in the world, we will invade and conquer Mecca, plus a 200 mile safe zone around it, and clear it of all non-US-military personnel and seal it until Muslim terrorists have been eliminated from the planet.



Come to think of it, it seems to me we should do that with Jerusalem now.



We shouldn't use nukes, because they are the final political answer to intractable political problems. And we don't yet have an intractable political problem to deal with.



Fest3er

 

[Doc Tinker]

How about a couple of suicide planes crashing into Mecca. They'd understand that, I think.



Doc