| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/27 |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34657 Activity:insanely high |
11/04 So I posed this question to a liberal friend of mine. Say, you are
elected POTUS in 2004, instead of W. Say a few days after your
inauguration, NYC is nuked by a terrorist attack. As in, a crater is
left where NYC used to be. What do you do?
Feel free to modify the past however you wish to make your job
easier (by disappearing the Iraq war, for instance). I am just
curious what the ideal liberal (or conservative, or libertarian)
response would be to something like that. -- ilyas
\_ You can win wars, fight crime, insurgencies and terrorism and make
friends internationally without ruining your moral authority, your
currency, your economy, and your rule of law, and you can do it
right. -John
\_ Ok, what do you do?
\_ I hate to say this, but the answer is "it depends." I'd
certainly try to hit back in a measured, well-considered way,
like W. did in Afghanistan, before FUCKING IT ALL UP. I
would also have better prerequisites for doing all these
great things because I would not have appointed a bunch
of opportunists and nutjobs as my deputies. I'd not just
bask in the tremendous outpouring of international sympathy,
but actually actively use that to try and build support for
countermeasures, instead of cowboying it alone and pissing
off everyone in sight, and I'd focus on good, useful
protective measures instead of appointing a meathead in
charge of announcing a new color every day and blowing my
civil defense budget on distributing gas maskes in Dubuque.
Anything more detailed than that is just mental masturbation.
\_ Dude, John. 'It depends' on what? NY fucking C is gone.
This is an oddly general answer to a fairly specific
question. You honestly have no general policy in mind?
You probably shouldn't be president. (I don't mean this
in an insulting way, nor am I implying I would do better).
-- ilyas
\_ I immediately figure out how to shift the tax burden
from the idle rich to the working poor!
\_ That's easy. You find out who did it, and nuke them back. I don't
think anyone is going to argue for something less than total
commitment with an attack like that. --liberal
\_ Say Al Qaeda posted a video on Al Jazeera claiming responsibility,
and spouting. The issue is not whether you would commit, but
what exactly you would do with the committment. -- ilyas
\_ I think I already told you - nuke them back. With an
essentially stateless organization like Al Qaeda, you
can't just nuke any old major city - you'd probably have
to go after whoever you think they got their bomb from.
A nuclear weapon capable of actually turning NYC into a crater
is just not something AQ could create on their own. I'm not
sure what you mean to gain by asking this question with such
an extreme example, unless I'm being led into some sort of
false dichotomy trap. Given that this is ilyas, that might
be a good assumption to make.
\_ Ok, say Al Qaeda managed to steal a nuke from Pakistan or
bought one from Ukraine. -- ilyas
\_ Pakistan's nukes are probably far too clunky for AQ
to realistically deliver to an NYC target, so let's
say they bought it from Ukraine. Let's further assume
that they bought it from a rogue agent acting alone,
and that Ukraine itself is not responsible. Is that
okay?
\_ Sure.
\_ Okay. So you don't actually have a state that you
can nuke, at least not just yet. You've got to
hunt down and exterminate every last AQ member,
and nuke any country that gets in your way.
Again, I'm not sure why you're using such an
extreme example. The answers get much murkier
with more realistic scenarios.
\_ So basically what you are saying is, you
will not do anything different from what we
are trying to do now: hunting down Al Qaeda
(how?). This is after America's largest
city is turned to dust. I think this is
an alarming state of affairs. -- ilyas
\_ What else are you supposed to do? Start
nuking random countries? I knew you were
going to turn this into some kind of logical
trap.
\_ I don't know what we are supposed to do.
If this is a trap, it's not really my
trap. I am just pointing out that it's
not really as far fetched as people say
for the US to take a very proactive, and
possibly intrusive, stance in the world,
over and above vaguely 'trying to hunt
down Al Qaeda.' Btw, if NYC is in
fact dusted, there is no way you will
be able to politically justify
essentially doing nothing, as you are
proposing. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not sure what it is that you're
trying to discover with this line
of questioning. Personally, I'd have
no problem invading a country that's
harboring terrorists who nuked NYC.
But the US has limited resources, and
it's stupid to overextend into
countries that are not directly
responsible or accountable (ie Iraq).
I don't think this is a Liberal or
Conservative issue, it's a common
sense perspective. Violence should
be cold and reasonably applied, not
randomly meted out according to the
whimsy of someone's murky, conflicted
agenda (ideally, anyhow). -mice
\_ Who will you invade? The nuke was
bought from a ukranian rogue!
\_ I'm assuming that the point of
of the exercise is to probe the
'liberal' stance of motd'ers,
and show their hypocrisy or
their naivete, using Iraq as
the point of contention. This
is an interesting question,
though I don't like ilyas'
socratic RP-scenario approach
to ascertaining this. -mice
\_ I think you are attributing
more malice to my line of
questioning than there is.
I don't really know what
we should do. I think it's
more curiosity than anything
else. If I am pointing out
anything 'malicious' it's that
the typical liberal response
might not necessarily be
politically tenable if
something truly bad
happens. -- ilyas
\_ Eh, it's not malice; the
presupposition that
there's a 'typical
liberal response' seems to
give some measure of
validation to my
opinion that there's a
measure of socraticalness
in the conversation. I
apologize if I it seemed
I was accusing you of
malicious intent; you
just very seldom ask
unloaded questions.
So what, in your view, IS
the 'typical liberal
response'? -mice
\_ Well, I gathered it's
'don't do anything
other than gather intel
and try to catch
terrorists, just as
we are trying to now.'
-- ilyas
\_ Honestly ilyas, if NYC
really gets nuked, all
bets are off and
traditional politics
probably goes out
the window as the
apocalypse begins.
\_ Get into that underground nuke-proof bunker with Rice and Elaine.
Lock everyone else out. What follows are left for your imagination.
-- troll
\_ Blame Bush.
\_ Maybe it would be better if you asked a hypothetical question
that had a non-zero chance of obtaining.
\_ You think the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack on
NYC is 0? -- ilyas
\_ I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Your question
is too vague to give any particular answer.
\_ You can attack this question on a lot of grounds, but not on
vagueness. I gave a particular situation. NYC is a crater.
You are the president. What is your policy? -- ilyas
\_ Just for fun, here was the ilyas policy from an older motd
post: "nuke the arab world". And in ilyas fantasy land,
while the US is launching its nukes to wipe out all those
muslim countries, no other country does anything. Iran
doesn't nuke Isreal, India and Pakistan don't nuke each other,
North Korea doesn't nuke either Japan or China, etc. The
rest of the world happily sits on their hands and lets the
US do all the nuking. -meyers
\_ Meyers, I believe I made the _prediction_ that the US
will mobilize and do a long term invasion of the Middle
East as a response to a nuking of NYC.
(http://csua.com/?entry=32820
This prediction was NOT my policy suggestion.
Furthermore, I never either predicted a nuking, nor
advocated a nuking myself, unless something like a GTNW
was already in progress.
You are pulling this out of your ass.
(Certainly if US will have nukes going off everywhere,
i.e. a 'free-for-all', then US will retaliate, but that's
a rational response.) -- ilyas
\_ Okay smart guy, what is *your* response?
\_ Did you read this thread at all?
\_ Yes, I read the entire thread. Ilyas has no answers,
only criticisms.
\_ I go on TV and make a rousing, determined, patriotic speech
mobilizing the entire country to blindly support my
domestic political agenda. I blame Bush for fucking up
on the Bin Laden situation and overextending our troops,
and having bad priorities w.r.t. Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
Pakistan etc. We have to consider how a terrorist could
actually acquire and detonate a city-destroying nuke in
NYC, seems highly unlikely to me. I think it would be
more likely that if they acquire one it would be in the
Eurasian continent and they would perhaps target Israel.
I would not nuke another country since it seems unlikely
that a state will have any direct responsibility, and
it would piss off the world with nuclear contamination
and deaths of poor dumb peons somewhere in a symbolic
act of rage. I suppose nuking Mecca and engaging Islam
in a full-on apocalyptic shitfest would be what some
rightists would call for. I would not do that. I would
concentrate on Pakistan and Iran with intensity. I
don't know much about Musharraf, but I would claim that
an international security force is needed in Pakistan
since it seems Al Qaeda is operating out of there.
I would lobby other nations hard for military support
in Iraq and other places, and use the threat of
economic consequences if they fail to help... this must
be done right after the attack while the moral mandate
is on our side (but we wouldn't be publically hostile
until after an ally publically shit in our face).
until after an ally publically shit in our face). -moderate
\_ You are not ilyas.
\_ too much posting, too lazy to arrange properly.
\_ If the US is nuked by AQ, then I think the solution would be
marshall law in the US. We probably would round up every
\_ Wataaaaa!
vaguely Muslim or Middle-Eastern person and close the borders.
Meanwhile, I would not be surprised if many allies did the same
thing. Israel and the US would go on the offensive against
the Muslim states (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) but I do think
most of the changes would be here at home. |
| 7/27 |
|
| csua.com/?entry=32820 If I was bin Laden, the last person in the world I'd want as President of the US would be a war hero who promised to fight a more 'sensitive war on terror'. Hey, this sounds familiar: "The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the US economy and to undermine the US election," the official said. There's no doubt Al Qaeda is smart enough to organize 911, etc. Nevertheless, something about the way they are going about their business that strikes me as fundamentally dumb. America already isn't very happy with the Arab world, and even Arab Americans. We will most likely: institute the draft (probably won't be necessary with the volume of volunteers) convert to war footing a la WWII absolutely SQUISH the entire Middle East, and possibly institute a long term occupation. Because that's what it's going to get -- a really pissed off US in their backyard for 20, 30, 50 years. The US has an itchy trigger finger kind of frontier culture, to this day. The US also has the industrial and scientific resources to basically impose their will on most of the world, and if the US perceives itself to be in genuine danger, woe be to everyone else. There (probably) would not be any link to any national entity. America is very cozy with the Saudis and will not just "go and squish" them based on an Al Qaeda attack. We already took out Afghanistan, and are making sure Iran doesn't get nukes. You do understand that they understand that the US has a superior military capability, and will win in any conventional conflict between nations? If it truly becomes a free-for-all between US and Arabs, US nukes the Arabs. Al Qaeda is trying to provoke the power that can take on all of the rest of the world put together, most likely. Just how does the US decide "the Arab world" is the culprit, and then justify: "SQUISH the entire Middle East". As for the US, a blow up of two buildings resulting in the US invading 2 countries. The 'Arab World' is a hotbed of religious fundamentalism which results in things like Al Qaeda. The US can reasonably conclude that one way to fight fundamentalism is take over the Middle East and institute reforms that way, rather than wait for history. I notice you were using vi a second ago, but I have a suspicion you were using something else earlier today. I mean, c'mon, I was editing this thread, posted a comment, and 30 seconds later it's gone and in its place is your post. I think your post got overwritten because you simply were editing during a busy time. Blaming the guy you are immediately talking to is stupid -- lots of conversations are happening at the same time. htm FBIS is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service of the CIA. Bin Ladin's Former 'Bodyguard' Interviewed on Al-Qa'ida Strategies London Al-Quds a l-Arabi in Arabic 03 Aug 04 p4 AL-QUDS AL-'ARABI Tuesday, August 3, 2004 Journal Code: 1430 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT Document Typ e: Daily Report; News Word Count: 6,115 Al-Quds Al-Arabi headline: "Abu- Jandal, Former Personal Bodyguard of Usama Bin Ladin and Leading Al-Qa'i da Element in Yemen Reveals to Al-Quds Al-Arabi his Intercession in Bin Ladin's Marriage to a Yemeni Girl. He Used to Meet With Al-Zarqawi, but Says he is not a Leader. Saudi Bombings Are the Natural Outcome of the R egim's Policy and They Will Continue" (FBIS Translated Text) After a lon g period of refusal to talk with any of the local and international news media, he was finally persuaded to give a chance to Al-Quds al-Arabi to conduct a detailed interview with him on Al-Qa'ida Organization activit ies in Yemen and the world. He is the former bodyguard of Al-Qa'ida lead er Usama Bin Ladin. He is known by the nickname "Abu-Jandal" but his rea l name is Nasir Ahmad Nasir al-Bahri. He said that he was born in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, in 1973. He completed his secondary school education in S audi Arabia and he then specialized in business administration. He is cu rrently engaged in import-export trade in Yemen. His brother-in-law, Sal im Hamdan, is imprisoned at the US Guantanamo Base in Cuba. The security and military sense that he trained on while in Al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan still dominates him. He had a key role in the organization and was trus ted by Usama Bin Ladin. However, he only revealed a little of the inform ation that he has in this interview, in which we tried to literally drag him to a number of issues and managed to come out with a great deal of information. The following is text of the interview with Abu-Jandal: (Al -Hammadi) When were you imprisoned in Yemen and how long did you stay in prison? I stayed in prison for one year and 10 months, of which 13 mont hs were spent in solitary confinement. And, this is a testimony I make i n favor of the Yemeni Government. It was a very calm investigation under the supervision of the Yemeni Government. But, the truth is I did not h ave any role in any of these incidents. One question said: As far as we are concerned, 80 percent of what you said is true, but does Al-Qa'ida h ave chemical plants and nuclear weapons? I recall that my answer to them was that Usama Bin Ladin has a weapon that is far superior to all the U S weapons. I told them: "Among the believers are men, who have been true to their covenant to God: of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some (still) wait: But they have never changed (their det ermination) in the least." I thank him for pardoning me and the group of youths, although there were no charges against us for participating in any activity in the country. It was a kind presidential gesture that had a very good effect on us and our families and people. Most of the youth s belonging to Al-Qa'ida and other organizations in Yemen had no activit y inside the country. Many of them did not like to operate in Yemen, bei ng their country that must be protected. After my return from Tajikistan we went on what we called the journey to the north. After our return fr om Bosnia and Somalia, we moved to Tajikistan, but we could not withstan d the conditions; I met with Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin on 27 Sha'ban 1417 ( end of 1996), and I joined Al-Qa'ida immediately after this meeting. I l eft it the second time to finalize the arrangements for Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin's marriage in Yemen. My third and last departure from Afghanistan was before the Cole operation by about two and a half months (the middl e of year 2000). The plans were for the bride to travel to Afghanistan a ccompanied by her immediate relatives. But, due to some delay in the arr angements I had to return to Afghanistan before them. He did not have an y people from Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula. Our group of 17 persons w as the first batch to come from the Arabian Peninsula; This was why they called us founders of the organization. Our duties included preaching f or the ideology and the cause, rousing the people, and getting prepared to carry out martyrdom operations. Regarding my duties in the organizati on, I had two duties. I then moved to the duty of being in charge of the guesthouse or guesthouses in Kabul and Kandahar. What do you know about the bombing of this destroyer, and how was it arranged? This operation was preceded by another one that was supposed to have taken place a year earlier but it failed due to certain natural factors. But, they succeed ed in this operation, although not completely. From what I heard, the pl an was to attack it in international waters so that no state in the regi on would assume the consequences of this operation. But, it was God's wi sh to happen this way and so it was attacked in Yemeni territorial water s The information on it was collected by committees, and the implemente rs of this operation were two persons only. As to the reports that say t hat it was carried out by the Mosad, this is a myth and a means to frust rate Muslims by saying that they are incapable of anything. Those who ca rried out the operation, may God rest their souls in peace, are well kno wn among our brother mujahidin. The second is our brother Ibrahim al-Tha wr from Sanaa who was also born at Al-Ta'if. The decision was made centr ally, but the method of attack and execution was the... |