The Elimination Of An Arab City

[Jedi Knight]

We hear about the terrorism of 911...the images of the aircraft striking the World Trade Center Towers I & II and the Pentagon where thousands of Americans died in 3,000 degree infernos and explosions. We hear about that often.

What if the tables turned, however? What if an arab city came under terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction? What if, for example, the annual Mecca gathering in Saudi Arabia was attacked with Anthrax sprayed from crop-dusting aircraft?

Or what would happen if a nuclear device detonated inside Tehran?

These Arab countries can't possibly believe that they are immune to the very venom they send to America and Israel, do they? If America is attacked again by terrorists in the scale of 911, do you think that there will be an attack on an Arab city in response?

Arab cities are the most undefended population centers on earth. Wouldn't it be easy for a highly motivated group to penetrate them and destroy them?

This is a "what if" poll. Thank you for your participation.

JK

[The Fool]

The poll responses don't match the question(s) you pose. All in all the whole post does not make sense. Have you been drinking turpentine again? If you want to continue being our pet troll you must try harder .

[Loon]

An interesting thought.

As we all know, human waste (elimination) has been used as fertilizer since the dawn of agriculture. So, in theory, all of the elimination from an arab city could be converted to agricultural use.

However, there are problems. For one, elimination is only urine, which is not as good for plants (maybe even bad for them?) as feces. Plus, the use of human excrement (or elimination) for fertilizer is fraught with the peril of disease. So, depite the appearance of an economic and sanitary windfall, this may not help that much. Not sure why you would focus on Arab urine though.

But a good thought.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
The poll responses don't match the question(s) you pose. All in all the whole post does not make sense. Have you been drinking turpentine again? If you want to continue being our pet troll you must try harder .

This is a very serious, very, very serious question. We know that the United States is very, very busy protecting our country from attack.

Now, isn't the US very, very busy protecting arab states from attack? We have to be. Leftist CNN won't say we are, but we have to be. The reason we have to be protecting them is because arab states are very easy to infiltrate, even easier than the United States. A nuclear weapon could be carried in Bahgdad or Tehran very easily and no one would know about it until it went off.

So we have to protect those areas--it is the nature of the American that has us do it. We have to protect the cities of our common enemy because of the ease that they can destroyed.

That is a pretty interesting observation, isn't it?

JK

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Now, isn't the US very, very busy protecting arab states from attack? We have to be. Leftist CNN won't say we are, but we have to be. The reason we have to be protecting them is because arab states are very easy to infiltrate, even easier than the United States. A nuclear weapon could be carried in Bahgdad or Tehran very easily and no one would know about it until it went off.

So we have to protect those areas--it is the nature of the American that has us do it. We have to protect the cities of our common enemy because of the ease that they can destroyed.

That is a pretty interesting observation, isn't it?

JK

Protect Bahgdad or Tehran???

Thats a bit rich comming from Mr "Nuke em till they glow!"

Is the word protect here used as in "If you want your shop to stay protected, pay us $300 a month or somethimg may happen to it".

You are confuzzin me!

[Advocate]

Actually I think we have to protect Arab cities, especially Mecca. If Mecca was attacked, the US would be blamed regardless of the circumstances. Then ALL the Arab nations would be against us (not just MOST of them as right now.) Plus Mecca is in no sense a military or command target, so it wouldn't do a lot of good to attack Mecca except maybe as a symbol of raw power. I don't think a symbol is worth creating more enemies who already KNOW we are powerful, so I can't vote for any of your choices. Plus we don't need to hide behind terrorists. If we want to bomb an Arab city, who is going to stop us? When the time comes we will probably soon bomb Baghdad. We could do the same to any other Arab capital if need be, but unless they force our hand, why bother? There are always consequences. We could handle those consequences if we had to, but why face them uneccesarily? I am sure I am going to take some heat for saying it this way, but even if you accept that we would be justified in doing so, you have to consider the cost vs the benefit. In other words, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Reginald


Protect Bahgdad or Tehran???

Thats a bit rich comming from Mr "Nuke em till they glow!"

Is the word protect here used as in "If you want your shop to stay protected, pay us $300 a month or somethimg may happen to it".

You are confuzzin me!

No, you misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that the US has to secretly protect these countries from external attack from the thousands of angry westerners that want to destroy them.

It is a paradox. It is basically having to protect your enemies from destruction that attacked your country. I just thought it was an interesting observation. It has nothing to do with the US or some other western country blackmailing Iraq or Iran.

JK

[Reginald]

Thousands of angry westeners carrying pitchforks and flaming torches?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Reginald
Thousands of angry westeners carrying pitchforks and flaming torches?

No, I was thinking more along the lines of chem/bio, perhaps even a nuclear weapon. Those are weapons that have been developed historically by westerners, althought in the 15th century pitchforks worked rather well for some disgruntled populations. When the Russians faced Nazi tanks with pitchforks, they were not very effective, as the 28 million Russians killed testifies to.

JK

[Rose]

Sort of an odd speculation. I imagine if our intellegence services come up with evidence of a potential attack on an Arab city, that they would take measures to prevent it, or to at least notify authorities of the country involved.

As for what the US would do, given the current attitude of aggresive prevention, I would expect US resources to be used in going after these people. After all, even if the US isn't the target initially, people using such weapons pose a threat to the country anyways.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rose
Sort of an odd speculation. I imagine if our intellegence services come up with evidence of a potential attack on an Arab city, that they would take measures to prevent it, or to at least notify authorities of the country involved.

As for what the US would do, given the current attitude of aggresive prevention, I would expect US resources to be used in going after these people. After all, even if the US isn't the target initially, people using such weapons pose a threat to the country anyways.

This is exactly the answer that I was looking for. Imagine if you will, a group of Americans who possess a nuclear weapon and they see the terrorists attack the WTC. These Americans then decide they are going to take that nuclear weapon into Tehran and give them a taste of their own medicine.

My point was, and one that you accurately hit on 100%, is that the United States now has two spheres of responsibility--protecting America and protecting hostile states. That security arrangement would naturally be done in secret because the US wouldn't want the leftist media to know it was protecting Iran and Iraq from its own. What would happen is that US intelligence personnel would have to be stationed all over the world ready to go at a moment's notice, monitor every form of transportation into those countries, etc. It would be a daunting task. And if a weapon got through, well, naturally America would be forced to face a few million more Muslims on the battlefield than it probably wanted to.

It would make an interesting movie.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rose
Sort of an odd speculation. I imagine if our intellegence services come up with evidence of a potential attack on an Arab city, that they would take measures to prevent it, or to at least notify authorities of the country involved.

As for what the US would do, given the current attitude of aggresive prevention, I would expect US resources to be used in going after these people. After all, even if the US isn't the target initially, people using such weapons pose a threat to the country anyways.

Hey Rose, you are pretty smart. I don't give that compliment away.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Advocate
Actually I think we have to protect Arab cities, especially Mecca. If Mecca was attacked, the US would be blamed regardless of the circumstances. Then ALL the Arab nations would be against us (not just MOST of them as right now.) Plus Mecca is in no sense a military or command target, so it wouldn't do a lot of good to attack Mecca except maybe as a symbol of raw power. I don't think a symbol is worth creating more enemies who already KNOW we are powerful, so I can't vote for any of your choices. Plus we don't need to hide behind terrorists. If we want to bomb an Arab city, who is going to stop us? When the time comes we will probably soon bomb Baghdad. We could do the same to any other Arab capital if need be, but unless they force our hand, why bother? There are always consequences. We could handle those consequences if we had to, but why face them uneccesarily? I am sure I am going to take some heat for saying it this way, but even if you accept that we would be justified in doing so, you have to consider the cost vs the benefit. In other words, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

all the arabs? theres a lot more muslims in the world than just arabs. and even the most moderate of them would never tolerate a gratuituous nuke on mecca.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by The Fool
The poll responses don't match the question(s) you pose. All in all the whole post does not make sense. Have you been drinking turpentine again? If you want to continue being our pet troll you must try harder .

I think our little pet has been drinking Brighto!!!!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Rose, you are pretty smart. I don't give that compliment away.

JK

Of course compared to you, a block of salt is intelligent. So Rose, I wouldn't feel too flattered.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


all the arabs? theres a lot more muslims in the world than just arabs. and even the most moderate of them would never tolerate a gratuituous nuke on mecca.

Oops! I stand corrected. I should have said all the Muslim nations. Especially since the most populous Muslim nation isn't Arab. But the premise stands. Actually that makes it even more contrary to our interests to do such a thing. (As if the Arab nations wouldn't be trouble enough.)