Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by cslewis, Jan 19, 2006.
... If attacked by terrorists.
"Ouaf! Ouaf!", as French dogs say.
Wow, France has grown balls, eh? Good to see. I think it's about time soemone stood up and said this. This bull**** about attacking people jus tto terrorize them is getting on my nerves. Be a man, play by the rules of war. Dress in a uniform, carry a gun, and carry out your mission on a military, not civillians.
Then again this could be the undoing of the world. *sigh* the more things change, the more they stay the same.
i wonder if the clock will move.
this is a distressing development. what exactly constitutes, to chirac, a "terrorist attack", and by what standard is "any state that carried out a terrorist attack" measured?
had the july tube and bus bombings happened in paris with this new stance in place, would that have triggered a nuclear strike? i'd like to know if there is any historical attack which would have triggered a strike, and against whom.
Exactly. If this isn't empty posturing, what is it? Is Iran a "terrorist state" from the French point of view? If Iran struck, or was suspected of planning to strike, French interests, would Chirac really nuke Teheran? If OBL did, would he nuke the NW frontier?
This is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want. Start losing your head, invading random non related nations and the terrorists are winning.
So in retaliation for a terrorist attack, France would nuke, say, Iran or Syria...including civilians who had nothing to do with it?
What's funny is, people look at Paris and think that's what France is like. That's like looking at L.A. or Hollywood and thinking that's what the whole USA is like. They have this perception of being liberal, but most of you would be surprised at what the country is really like. Just ask those kids who were rioting awhile ago. Which is partially why, despite their lack of involvement in Iraq, they are still a terrorist target.
But, yeah, posturing. I doubt they'll go all Hiroshima on Afganistan or Iran and kill all those innocent people because a group that has no affiliation with the gov attacks them. Least maybe they would go after the right country, unlike US!
Perhaps they would if we would. Seeing as how we've taken the past half century to install and prop up nasty little dictators who will agree to be chummy with our conglomerates (etc., etc.), we're not exactly oppressing them with any sort of traditional warfare, guerilla or no.
Now I'm curious though. If the US executed one of those "kill the journalists" carpet bombings (like Bush wanted to do with Al Jazeera) on an AFP office, would we see Gallic fallout on Long Island?
Bout time we started getting back to good old fashioned decisive warfare.
This seems like a dangerous threat. Saying they will deploy nukes as a retaliation of state-sponsored terrorists could provoke someone to make an attack appear to be sponsored by an enemy state. It reminds me of WWI. WWI essentially began because of an act of terrorism that was believed to be state-sponsored... As it turned out it was in fact state-sponsored to some degree, but the retaliation came before they really knew that, they could just as easily have been wrong.
Presumably terrorists (at least those in organizations like al Qaeda feel a strong attachment to their native people. This recent bin Laden tape, asking for a truce blah blah is in part to just try to make the US look unreasonable and evil, but it hints that Sept 11 might not have happened if bin Laden knew how sever the repercussions would be. Now, of course, it's too little too late because they will keep attacking us if they have the opportunity, because we are using our full force against them anyway.
Hey did they ever confirm whether or not Zawahiri was found dead in that rubble? Maybe the Quieda's are running with their towels hanging soaked between their legs.
No - just a few more villagers.
Not likely. Why would they?
Well at least it's villagers who were helping Bin Laden to stay hidden in the region. Let that be a warning to the rest of em'.
As for the Quiedi's running....wouldn't you if you had drones with missles hunting you like the terminator?
for those lost without Christ, absolutley. He also died for em' too.
Where does it say the villagers were Al Qaeda?
Why should they run when they can't hit anyone from Al Qaeda? How many times have there been reports that Zawahiri or Bin Laden have been hit? They're still there.
I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.
So presumably you don't think September 11th 2002 was anything to have a fit over.
Destroy the village in order to save the village.
And yet many of you wonder why you are so despised...
You don't think that blowing up villages is slightly counterproductive? I'm aware that the US military has a skewed image of hearts and minds ops, but you would have thought that they would get the message after all these years.
Or that a lot of Islamists might feel the same way about Americans?
But we're way off topic now, and I'm off to Borough to get my breakfast.
Say hello to Gonzo(the whale)if you see him.
I'm not sure Applebees stand is big enough to take him
there were a lot of tributes that day, as i recall. and bush was banging the iraq war drum, but no, nothing too out of the ordinary.