Al-Qaida nukes are here.

Sometimes he acks like a turtle and sometimes he goes way out of his way to be noticed. Its strange. I thought I could control him but I can't. He did mention the other day that he thought it was unfair that the teabags were getting longer and he asked me if we could exercise more. I told him I would have to speak to the mrs. about that.
icon12.gif
 
Here is a good, albeit long read from an Iranian. He has the right idea though. Is the left listening?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



TIME TO HIT THE SUICIDE FACTORIES
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
July 8, 2005




July 8, 2005 -- 'WE have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid." This was how an Islamist group, using the al Qaeda brandname, announced its responsibility for the terror attacks that claimed nearly 40 lives in London yesterday.

Although the exact circumstances of the raid on London remain murky, one thing is certain: This was a suicide operation aimed at killing as many civilians as possible. That the raid came as the G-8 summit opened in Scotland is certainly significant, as is the fact that it was the first day of the Arabic lunar month of Jamadul al-Akhir, Prophet Muhammad's favorite season for organizing raids against the "infidel."

What do we do about people who are prepared to court certain death in exchange for killing others? The question has been asked by the Israelis for years and by the Americans since 9/11. It is now the turn of the British to ponder it.

The first thing to do is not to get impressed by the fact that an individual who has been brainwashed out of his or her humanity is ready to die in order to kill others. The only reasonable way to treat such individuals is as a new form of weaponry. And, like all other weapons that impress when first introduced, these suicide-killers will continue to terrorize and fascinate until we find an antidote.

Cyrus the Great used camels as a weapon when he conquered Babylon. Hannibal used elephants for his raid on Rome. The Islamist terror leaders who wish to conquer the world and convert entire mankind to their brand of "true Islam" have gone one better by using the human body as a weapon.

But like all others, this weapon is designed by some people, financed by investors, manufactured somewhere and deployed by leaders who can be identified and destroyed. These human weapons are designed and shaped by a constant flow of anti-Western propaganda from Arab satellite TV, the so-called Islamic associations and countless madarassahs (Islamic schools) -RD>and mosques throughout the world, including in London itself.

Go to any mosque in the West (let alone in the Islamic countries) on any Friday and you are sure to hear a litany of woes about how the "cross-worshippers" have allied themselves with the "plotting Jews" in order to destroy Islam, which, as God's final message, is the only true faith.

You will hear how the West is mired in corruption, its womenfolk exposing their midriff in public and its governments sanctioning gay and lesbian marriages. You will also hear how "the Crusaders" have invaded Muslim lands and are trying to impose their democratic system on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Such a discourse might leave most Muslims indifferent or even annoyed. But it is enough for it to seduce even 1 percent of the world's Muslims — that is to say a cool 13 million people — for everyone to be in trouble.

The deadly propaganda is reinforced by other means. The future terrorist is comforted by the fact that his or her fellow Muslims in the West use their bodies as an advertising space for their beliefs. In many Western cities, this comes in the form of al Qaeda-style beards and long shirts (qamis) for men and jet-black hijab (headgear) for women. (Not long ago, I saw a baby girl in a carriage wearing that prop of visual terrorism.)

The would-be suicide terrorist is also likely to be impressed by the self-styled Islamic theologians coolly debating the issue of whom to kill and how. Any viewer of Al-Jazeera, the satellite channel owned by the emir of Qatar, has seen its chief Islamist guru Yussuf al-Qaradawi insist that Islam allows the murder of unborn Israeli babies because they may grow up and join the army. In a recent visit to Mecca, I witnessed another self-styled guru, Sheik Safar al-Hawali, informing visitors to his home that it was "licit" to kill innocent Muslim women and children in Iraq if that led to "the defeat of the Crusaders and their apostate Muslim allies."

The would-be suicide-killer is also comforted by the sense of guilt manifested by many in the West. He has seen do-gooders from the United States in the streets of Arab Jerusalem apologizing to astounded Muslim passersby for "the Crusades" — which happened long before the United States came into being.

He may also note that he is treated with something bordering on deference by much of the Western media, which has banned the use of the word "terrorist" altogether, using, instead, such terms as "militants" or " resistance fighters."

And then there was the successful ghazva (raid) on Madrid last year, when the Islamists succeeded in changing the government of a major Western democracy with a single attack.

If the suicide-terrorists were weapons made of metal, the victims would certainly try to bomb places where they were made. But because these weapons are of human flesh, the assumption is that they can't be traced back to any specific locality. It is as if we were dealing with ethereal beings existing beyond the limits of reality.

The London attack was not the work only of the few individuals who carried it out. It was the bitter fruit of a faith that has been hijacked by a minority of extremists while the majority of its adepts watch with a mixture of awe and ill-concealed pride. The real fight against this enemy of humanity will start only when the so-called "silent majority" in Islam speaks out against these murderers and those who brainwash, train, finance and deploy them. Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, is a member of Benador Associates.

 
MonsterMark said:

The London attack was not the work only of the few individuals who carried it out. It was the bitter fruit of a faith that has been hijacked by a minority of extremists while the majority of its adepts watch with a mixture of awe and ill-concealed pride.

From someone who'd know firsthand. Sounds familiar.
 
The world would be much better off if we would just nuke everything from the mediterranian sea to India. Hate to say it but it's true. These "people" (I use that term loosley) have caused nothing but trouble for thousands of years, and it's not going to change, ever.
 
crash said:
The world would be much better off if we would just nuke everything from the mediterranian sea to India. Hate to say it but it's true. These "people" (I use that term loosley) have caused nothing but trouble for thousands of years, and it's not going to change, ever.

Geez, I hope your not serious....
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crash
The world would be much better off if we would just nuke everything from the mediterranian sea to India. Hate to say it but it's true. These "people" (I use that term loosley) have caused nothing but trouble for thousands of years, and it's not going to change, ever.


:slam You really believe that?
 
MonsterMark said:
Here is a good, albeit long read from an Iranian. He has the right idea though. Is the left listening?


We need to study the ways of the "Mujahideen" Understand Muhamad and what they term "Infidel". Really the best way to "Counter" Terrorist using this label are to understand these rights of way. I honestly believe we need to bring some "Sane" Mujahideen on board within the national security.

I was watching CSI - Las Vegas... Not a favorite, but this was an intriguing episode that featured a group of college wiz kids that figured a scheme to rip off a casino by playing roulette... Anyway, when the casino owner figured out who was beating him, he hired the guy to learn from him about the operation and how it was planned and executed so he could better build his defenses against such attacks and recognize these activities in the future.

We NEED to be doing the same... I realize it is unconventional, but we're not playing with conventional wisdom here. We need innovative means to beat these radicals. Don't get me wrong... I believe these folks need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law... But instead of putting them in prison and letting them sit there while out tax dollars feed them. We should develop an undercover ring. Create a bogus escape plan for these individuals and create an Al-Queda or Mujahideen like organization led by "Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani Americans" (Yes people, there are such a thing) that work with our National Security undercover. Its much like what we do on the war on drugs... Infiltrate the organization. With the right team in place we can begin to break some of these events. This is the only way to work this type of war... Events like what happened in London, Madrid, NY and DC are well coordinated events that take time, money and serious planning. To have "Operatives" in these organizations can at least help mitigate some of the damage. Tip offs, alerts, something that may help evacuation or anything to save lives. That is the only way to dig into this problem...


What was written below is despicable Crash... Your ignorance is abundant!
The world would be much better off if we would just nuke everything from the mediterranian sea to India. Hate to say it but it's true. These "people" (I use that term loosley) have caused nothing but trouble for thousands of years, and it's not going to change, ever.
 
barry2952 said:
Only because there are about a million holes in it just like the security of the borders of this nation.

I DO agree with you about border security. NO argument there, bud.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:I Thank you Barry. Took the words right off my keyboard.

I find it interesting that my sarcastic "opposite" reaction went right over fossten's head. Even IF the sky is really falling, BuSh still let this country down.

UM, nice try, but your post wasn't sarcastic, or you would have gone out of your way to make it obvious. Everybody knows that the typed word is ambiguous and needs clarity. So you are one of two things: A liar or a poor communicator.
 
Fossten,

You need to stop your personal attacks. They don't help you make your point and they are against the rules of the forum.
 
barry2952 said:
Fossten,

You need to stop your personal attacks. They don't help you make your point and they are against the rules of the forum.

You need to grow a skin.
 
How many would agree that since fossen joined his board the level of personal attacks and hatred have increased significantly?

How many would agree that his spewing adds nothing to the conversation?

MonsterMark. How about doing your job? If I have to play by the rules fossen should too.
 
barry2952 said:
How many would agree that since fossen joined his board the level of personal attacks and hatred have increased significantly?

How many would agree that his spewing adds nothing to the conversation?

MonsterMark. How about doing your job? If I have to play by the rules fossen should too.
me sheds a tear
 
fossten said:
UM, nice try, but your post wasn't sarcastic, or you would have gone out of your way to make it obvious. Everybody knows that the typed word is ambiguous and needs clarity. So you are one of two things: A liar or a poor communicator.

OK, you're new(ish), I'll cut you some slack bud. Maybe "sarcastic" was a poor choice of words, "back-handedly oppertunistic" is probably more accurate. Whatever.

Now that Kbob is back ( :W ), maybe he'll give us are more accurate term to use for what I did. Regardless, I think you got my point. And DO take barry's advice, save the attacks, it makes you look weak-minded.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Now that Kbob is back ( :W ), maybe he'll give us are more accurate term to use for what I did. Regardless, I think you got my point. And DO take barry's advice, save the attacks, it makes you look weak-minded.
I like you, Johnny. You can dish and receive. And I'll vouch for you that you are NOT a liar. You've owned up to your fair share of mistakes. And we've all communicated poorly from time to time (some more than others). Sooner or later things get out of hand for everyone here. That's part of the fun.

I've been reading these threads the last couple of weeks or so. And they've been very entertaining. Keep up the good work all on the right (Bryan, eL eS, fossten, etc.) and all on the left (Johnny, Phil, Barry, etc.). How boring this place would be without you.

Hopefully my next post will actually add to the conversation. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
 
Man, I guess those of us in the middle don't get any recognition... :waving:

Actually I can see Johnny, Phil and Barry going "MIDDLE MY A$$!" :N
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
OK, you're new(ish), I'll cut you some slack bud. Maybe "sarcastic" was a poor choice of words, "back-handedly oppertunistic" is probably more accurate. Whatever.

Now that Kbob is back ( :W ), maybe he'll give us are more accurate term to use for what I did. Regardless, I think you got my point. And DO take barry's advice, save the attacks, it makes you look weak-minded.




I don't want to hear it. All you liberals ever do is attack people when you can't win an argument. Case in point, from the Hillary for President thread:

Johnny says,

"Jeezzzus Bryan, you should see a shrink. How you've twisted an bi-partisan initiative (that just so happens to be initiated by some Dems, who you've long bitched about being "part of the problem and not the solution"......... now they come with a proposal and you are still not happy) into some sick, twisted re-election campaign on the backs of "poor black kids" is disgusting.

Really, seriously. Get some help. "

That's a heck of a lot more personal than what I said.

Oh, and there are dozens more where that came from. What a band of hypocrites and thin-skins! You guys dish it out all day but cry when you have to take it.


Here's another one:

97silverlsc says:
"Bryan, I think you need an intervention!!! "

Sounds personal.

How bout this one, BARRY?
You said this:


"Bryan. Will you send your boys to die in Iraq?
Bryan,

Will you send your boys to die in Iraq? I know that they are still a little young to think about it but the Administration tells us we will be there for another 12 years. That ought to be about right to set them up to be killed by a road side bomb or beheaded by some fanatic. Are you willing to risk their lives in Iran or Korea? We'll see how supportive you are then.

I was under the impression that you were grooming your sons to be businessmen, not soldiers. Have you read that recruitment in all branches has missed their mark. How will you feel when the program that you supported reinstates the draft and your pre-law or med-student son is grabbed away from you to fight a battle in a land that we can't get out of because of GWB's mistakes.

Please, we've all heard enough about GWB's perfect record. It's not true and you know it. When your son (or sons) dies I think you'll change your tune. I don't think, in this case, that war was in order.

You've already admitted that this war was about oil. If we've commited to being there for another 12 years how will that work to our advantage? It won't. It only works to the advantage of GWB's biggest supporters and richest men and companies in the world. His butt-buddies are reaping (raping) huge profits while a large component of companies profits is going right to the Saudis and the other puppeteers.

Please take a look in the mirror for your sons' sake."

If that doesn't warrant getting booted off this board I don't have a thing to worry about.

I could go on and on.

Stop wasting everybody's time by manufacturing complaints. It makes you look thin-skinned and petulant (see dictionary).

:bsflag:

Oh, I found another one, BARRY:

Barry said to me:

"Mind your own business. Your opinion matters little in this discussion. In fact, from your frequent posts you opinion has no weight as you are the worst hater on this site."

Ooo! Personal!
 
According to Barry, this would be more chicken little sky-is-falling talk coming from the Monster.
icon10.gif
Will people finally understand that the #1 threat to the United States is our own sovereignty and that we must have the strongest military in the world to keep the peace! I hate to keep doing it but is so very important that we keep our eye on the ball and not lose focus, now more than ever.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03
c.gif

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.
//
c.gif
c.gif
c.gif

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
 
MonsterMark said:
According to Barry, this would be more chicken little sky-is-falling talk coming from the Monster.
icon10.gif
Will people finally understand that the #1 threat to the United States is our own sovereignty and that we must have the strongest military in the world to keep the peace! I hate to keep doing it but is so very important that we keep our eye on the ball and not lose focus, now more than ever.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03
c.gif

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.
//
c.gif
c.gif
c.gif

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

If someone told you straight up into your face that the 9/11 attack was on the way, nobody would have listened. Now that we know that it can happen, the weak people ignore it happening again.
 
Vitas said:
If someone told you straight up into your face that the 9/11 attack was on the way, nobody would have listened. Now that we know that it can happen, the weak people ignore it happening again.
:I
 
Try and stay focused Bryan. The subject was not the potential threat of China using nuclear weapons. If you'd like to start a new thread on the subject I'm sure you'd get some comments.
 
barry2952 said:
Try and stay focused Bryan. The subject was not the potential threat of China using nuclear weapons. If you'd like to start a new thread on the subject I'm sure you'd get some comments.

I think he just got bored waiting for you, standing there with your mouth open, trying to think of something to say.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top