Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 12/02/2004 5:30:23 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291783/posts

Skip to comments.

Who is going to die?
WorldNetDaily™ ^ | December 1, 2004 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 12/02/2004 1:59:45 AM PST by Moziani

Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and a man I respect immensely for his intelligence insights, says the United States faces an "inevitable" al-Qaida attack with weapons of mass destruction.

What would be the U.S. response to such an attack?

Now is the time to think about the unthinkable.

Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans, at least some of them, need to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack.

For more than 40 years, the idea of mutually assured destruction was enough to prevent the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the United States. It wasn't an ideal deterrent, but it worked.

It's not so easy to deter an attack from an enemy that doesn't have an address.

This is, in essence, on a smaller scale, the same problem Israel has faced with conventional terrorist attacks over the last 40 years.

How would the United States respond if terrorists were able to detonate a nuclear device in the United States? How should the United States respond if the terrorist enemy we face were to attack us with weapons of mass destruction?

This is not a question that can wait for an answer. We need to have the public debate now. And a policy of quick response needs to be established. The world needs to know what it will mean if the United States is attacked with unconventional weaponry.

Right now, there is no deterrent for the terrorists. There is no downside to such an attack. If we don't know where to find those responsible, like Osama bin Laden, there would be no cost to them.

But, as Bodansky makes clear, bin Laden will not be acting alone if such an attack is launched.

Bin Laden sought the "blessing" of key Islamist clerics for such an attack. Those clerics and the countries that harbor them need to be identified û now.

Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush made clear the world would be divided into two camps throughout the war we are now waging. It would be divided, he said, into those who support the terrorists and those who support us.

Since that dramatic speech, however, the lines dividing the world have been permitted to become blurred. We have made it too easy for much of the world to sit on the sidelines and claim neutrality. We have made it too easy for our "friends" to do nothing to aid us. We have made it too easy for our adversaries to oppose us with no cost.

It's time to redraw those lines.

It's time for a clear-cut plan of retribution to protect the people of the United States from such a horrific attack.

We don't like to think about the necessity of inflicting innocent deaths. Ever since the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, many in the United States have been wringing their hands over whether it was the right thing to do. We've been second-guessing our parents and grandparents for that life-and-death decision.

Now our generation has a more wrenching decision to make.

What will we do if we're attacked again û this time with weapons of mass destruction?

We cannot afford to put off this discussion until it happens. It will be too late. At that point, it will be pure vengeance. But making the plans now and making them known to the world û as uncomfortable and unpopular as those plans might be û may be the only way to deter the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.

Here are my ideas:

To those who say such a response is immoral, we need only point to the balance of terror with which we lived throughout the Cold War. That balance of terror helped us survive. It helped us prevent the need to destroy the lives of millions, including many innocents.

But not preparing for such a possibility is the real immorality. By suggesting tacitly the United States will simply absorb such an attack or respond to it as we have responded to previous attacks is the real immorality. By having this national debate now and putting the world on notice, we can give the terrorists something to think about.

Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?

It's time for our intelligence networks to get busy on identifying the targets of retaliation. They should be numerous. They should be chosen wisely to ensure that as many as possible of the Islamist ideologues and the false prophets of death are killed. They should be chosen to ensure that, if the unthinkable happens, at least it will mean an end to this war. The targets should be chosen to inflict so much death and destruction that this evil ideology we face can never recover.

That is the only moral course for us to follow.




TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: DETERRENCE; ELQAIDA; RETRIBUTION; WMD; YOSSEFBODANSKY
Mecca and Medina will be vaporized like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Expert opinion has it that an El Qaida WMD attack on the USA is considered likely soon. It's time for a clear-cut plan of retribution to protect the people of the United States from such a horrific attack. It's time for our intelligence networks to get busy on identifying the targets of retaliation.

1 posted on 12/02/2004 1:59:45 AM PST by Moziani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: Moziani

Nuke Mecca. Rinse, repeat.


2 posted on 12/02/2004 2:02:55 AM PST by Shellback Chuck (Hey John, whose your daddy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani

Third time is a charm.


3 posted on 12/02/2004 2:05:09 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani

The mullahs of Iran should be near the top of the list for any retaliation. The worse they harm us, the more we should be allowed to literally torture the mullahs for information, and then perhaps use them for medical experiments. It sounds barbaric today, but our thinking could turn on a dime, within minutes, if one of our cities loses even a fourth of its population [or less], barbaric thinking would be the norm. It will be mainstream thinking on the streets, that and simply nuking all of Islam. I would rather see torture of mullahs than nuking the nation that has been suffering from their tyranny and forming protest marches against them. Most Iranians share the same enemy-- Islamofacism.


4 posted on 12/02/2004 2:06:52 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (The UN wants to regulate the farts of livestock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Despite a long held aversion to brutality, I must agree with you. These butchers fear nothing, least of all, our sissy response to their abhorrent acts.

Punish the leaders and maybe the rest will follow.

It's time the innocents (who are always the victims of war) are spared as much as possible!

5 posted on 12/02/2004 2:13:37 AM PST by FixitGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
The plan is simple: Renewed Expressions of Regret and Resolve.
6 posted on 12/02/2004 2:17:15 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
Who is going to die?

Sorry about that, guys. I'll never eat a whole package of those store-brand frozen burritos for supper again.

7 posted on 12/02/2004 2:18:37 AM PST by asgardshill (November 2004 - The Month That Just Kept On Giving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
We are facing a crisis with God's commandments toward the treatment of His chosen people. If we do not adhere to His Word, then THIS nation will fail no matter what our government does to protect us.

Mike Evans petition Please sign this petition and forward it to your friends to sign…thanks!

8 posted on 12/02/2004 2:45:24 AM PST by Made in USA (Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayers and giving GWB 4 more years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
Who is going to die? democrats - problem solved!
9 posted on 12/02/2004 2:48:04 AM PST by Free_at_last_-2001 (is clinton in jail yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani

While I agree with the general aim of the OP, I think we should be a little more 'granular' in our approach here.

Cities targeted should be targeted based on the degree to which prominent people within those cities have aided and abbetted the terrorists.

So my list would include:

1) Cities like Qum and Makkah where the cleracy have been hostile to the USA and encouraged attacks on us like the various suicide/roadside bombers in Iraq and teh boat bombers in Aden, Yemen.

2) Cities that have aided the insurgency in Iraq, like Damascas and Tehran. The Baathist cousins of Hussein and the Iranian Shi'ite mullahs have indirectly caused almost all the casualties we have taken in Iraq and no doubt have given technology and training to al Qaeda for such a WMD attack.

3) North Korea, who has aided and abbetted the acquisition of these technologies by Iran in an egregious way.

4) Nations like Yemen where al Qaeda has been openly tolerated and allowed to recruit.


We should further stipulate that we appologize for any down-stream fallout to neighboring nations, but, hey, dems de breaks. Sleep near dogs, wake up with fleas, they say.

Secondly, that the cities in question can be removed from the list should the specified criteria no longer be met in the near future.

But I think this can be a very effective deterent in that these are the primary sources of al Qaedas resources, and it is time to make them clear that they are not outside the range of suitable retaliation targets.

The big question for all of this is:

1) How would the Democrats in Congress respond to this, and would they swing enough moderates to their probable hysterical knee-jerk to derail the President in every other way imaginable.

2) How would our key allies like Japan, Britain, Poland (and other East Euro nations), and I guess in theory France, Russia and Germany respond as well.

3) How would this affect the percieved legitimacy of the Iraqi government and impact its success, which is the key to our success in winning this WoT.

In view of this, I think that the city list of likely targets should be relatively short (maybe ten cities) and publicly named and listed by priority. Off the top of my head, I think it should go:
Makkah,
Medina,
Damascas,
Qum,
Pyongyang,
Tehran,
Aden,
Khartoum,
Alepo and
Cairo.

Then emphasize that a new city will be added to the list for each one struck out at the top.

The number of tagets struck should be paired up by the first and immediate reprisal target coming from the top of the priority list and the second being based on the likely source of the terrorists that carried out the attack on us (Saudis, bend over and kiss something good bye, in all likelihood).

But, yes, this could work to evaporate support for al Qaeda, but it would also cost us much influence diplomatically and encourage many to view us as irrational and not much better than the terrorist.

But as it would increase the safety of American citizens (net) then I think it should be at least considered and that consideration should be made public as well from the start.

Hell, in Congressional tradition, how about setting up a joint Congressional commitee to prioritize the targets?


10 posted on 12/02/2004 2:53:54 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
All new weaponry has eventually been deployed in great numbers.

Nukes will be no exception. Nuclear technology is no longer high science, it is just the next RPG.

I predict that within 25 years they will be lobbed about like footballs, and that civilization will evolve defenses to deal with it.

Including the vaporization of many 'axes of evil' and their apologists.


BUMP.

11 posted on 12/02/2004 2:55:45 AM PST by tm22721 (In fac they)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JFK_Lib

Forgt to add that maybe instead of specifically stating that these are the cities we will nuke in response to an WMD attack, we could be more diplomatic in our statement to allow for some wiggle room.

Maybe we could phrase it along the lines of "These are the top cities that we consider to be the chief supporters for any terrorist WMD attack on the US. These are the targets that will be given highest priority inconsideration for retaliation. This retaliation could include a nuclear response...etc"

Or maybe instead of the last sentence we could be more clear with something like "We will nuke these places into eternal radiation."

Heh.


12 posted on 12/02/2004 2:59:52 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Shellback Chuck

A good place to start.

13 posted on 12/02/2004 3:02:23 AM PST by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: JFK_Lib
As I recall, congress and the public didn't have a problem with MAD when the USSR was the "Evil Empire". We told them that if they EVER attacked us with nukes, we would throw everything we had at them and annihilate them. Why can't we do the same for ALL countries who are harboring and assisting terrorist? The message would be the same and the response from congress and the public should not be any different.

MAD for terrorists.

14 posted on 12/02/2004 3:12:28 AM PST by Made in USA (Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayers and giving GWB 4 more years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani

This article is a rationalization of revenge. It will make the author and people like him feel good, but otherwise it will accomplish nothing.


15 posted on 12/02/2004 3:13:31 AM PST by palmer ("Oh you heartless gloaters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tm22721
Not just nuclear tech, but bioweapons and nanoweapons as well. Technology advances exponentially, so your prediction is probable.
16 posted on 12/02/2004 3:24:59 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: JFK_Lib
In international relations it's not necessarily you enemies you focus on but your "friends."

In all seriousness, in such a scenario as an unknown attacker, Paris should not be overlooked.
17 posted on 12/02/2004 3:30:24 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: palmer
This article is a rationalization of revenge. It will make the author and people like him feel good, but otherwise it will accomplish nothing.

If I recall, it did work with Japan during WWII.

18 posted on 12/02/2004 4:00:13 AM PST by marvlus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Made in USA
We are facing a crisis with God's commandments toward the treatment of His chosen people. If we do not adhere to His Word, then THIS nation will fail no matter what our government does to protect us.>>

God's "chosen people" has as much to do with the atheists occupying a strip of land in the Middle East as the mineral Pyrite has to do with 24 carat gold. God's "chosen people" are the people who choose him, end of story.

Please, for a change, put down Tim Lahaye and pick up the Bible. It states CLEARLY in both Galatians and Romans that the "irrevocable covenant" was made NOT with Abraham and his physical progeny but with Abraham and his spiritual seed.., ie, those who follow the faith of Abraham. According to Paul (again in Romans 9-11 and in Galatians) this includes Jew and Gentile Christians and EXCLUDES unbelieving Jews (and Gentiles). To go back and impose a wooden literalism that says "Israel means Israel" in such an unthinking manner says that Paul simply doesn't know how to interpret the promises of the covenant as well as Darby, Scofield, and some Irvingite charismatic milkmaid from the 1800s. Not only Paul, but Jesus himself was mistaken, as he stated that the political Hebrews of the day were not sons of Abraham at all, but rather sons of Satan. Children of faith are children of Abraham. The geopolitical ethnically exclusive OT was like the scaffolding used to construct the worldwide, many peopled true Israel. The scaffolding is simply removed when the building is finished. You don't long for the day when the building will be mystically removed so that you can gold plate the scaffolding because that was the "original" plan.

I raise this obscure theological argument (which really belongs in another thread) because I see well meaning but poorly informed Christians shrieking "ISRAEL, ISRAEL" as though we were failing to make the yearly pilgramage to Jerusalem and offer sacrifice and Amos was standing on the grassy knoll in DC rebuking us for our national covenant failure.

America will likely be judged because of the rampant selfishness, shallowness, prayerlessness and incredible biblical ignorance of its believing "remnant," as well as the general godlessness of a godless culture. In that mix will be included the way we treat other nations, including both Israel AND the Palestinians. I am confident that the divine calculus will NOT include dredging up a promise to "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" and apply it to an entity not even recognized by old or new testaments. To make that the centerpiece of our national policy is unbiblical and silly.
19 posted on 12/02/2004 4:10:30 AM PST by chronic_loser (Yeah? so what do I know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
I don't see 'nuking cities', particularly Mecca as a likely response.

This would buck recent trends in our military actions which:

1. Are focused on pragmatic, rather than symbolic targets.
2. Tend more toward defusing, rather than provoking outraged responses, all other things being equal.
3. Rationally manipulate the media-theatrical nature of war, which feeds directly back into the politics. Using a big nuke would have practical drawbacks in this area.
4. Enjoy technical advances which make pinpoint attacks more feasible.
5. Realize that the citizenry (such as in a place like Iran, as we saw in Falluja) may be one of our most useful and best-placed allies in such a circumstance.

And perhaps most relevant, I don't think Dubya's the kind of guy to use gratuitous violence when focused violence will accomplish the goal.

20 posted on 12/02/2004 4:14:51 AM PST by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marvlus

Japan surrendered, the terrorists will not. In any case I think the author is suggesting that nuking cities will deter future terrorists. That might or might not work, but Japan is not an example of that.


21 posted on 12/02/2004 4:15:51 AM PST by palmer ("Oh you heartless gloaters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Popman
I VOTE to NUKE this "black box" of EVIL if we are hit with WMD. Since it is radical Islam we fight; this is its epicenter!!!

LLS
22 posted on 12/02/2004 4:24:59 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Happy Holidays!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: marvlus

Ditto!

LLS


23 posted on 12/02/2004 4:26:13 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Happy Holidays!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: marvlus
If I recall, it did work with Japan during WWII.

Amen! We were facing one-million casualties in a Japan invasion and Japan was playing for a stalemate. Dropping the bombs made the Japanese reconsider their efforts within days. It not only worked, it worked like a charm.

24 posted on 12/02/2004 4:34:29 AM PST by Types_with_Fist (I'm on FReep so often that when I read an article at another site I scroll down for the comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Types_with_Fist
Dropping the bombs made the Japanese reconsider their efforts within days. It not only worked, it worked like a charm.

I don't think Bin Laden, if he's still around, is going to reconsider anything unless the bomb is dropped on his own head. Alternatively we could drop the bomb on all of his associates, but dropping the bomb on someone else so that (for example) Saudi Arabia surrenders, is not going to affect Bin Laden.

25 posted on 12/02/2004 4:40:59 AM PST by palmer ("Oh you heartless gloaters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
Now is the time to think about the unthinkable.

Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans, at least some of them, need to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack.

We also need to re-think our current standards for environmental radiation. These standards were formulated in the 1950s and simply make no sense in our current environment. They would allow any idiot with a few pounds of radioactive material and a brick of C4 to render the entire island of Manhattan legally uninhabitable, even though the risk to human health would be minimal.

Right now we have a "Run For Your Life" standard that assumes that any exposure will be unmitigated and untreated. In reality, we have learned a lot about dealing with radiation over the last fifty years, and it no longer makes sense to abandon large areas for relatively minor releases. We should not make ourselves vulnerable to terrorists by having such a nonsensical policy.

26 posted on 12/02/2004 4:45:02 AM PST by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: endthematrix

"In all seriousness, in such a scenario as an unknown attacker, Paris should not be overlooked."

I think the political cost of naming Paris is too high, both internationally and domestically.

Besides, the French, by trying to help the terrorists, do they not help us more? Dont you want the Terrorists to learn how to surrender more efficiently, or even pre-emptively, as do the French?

I dont mind.


27 posted on 12/02/2004 4:46:01 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: All
Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush made clear the world would be divided into two camps throughout the war we are now waging. It would be divided, he said, into those who support the terrorists and those who support us. Since that dramatic speech, however, the lines dividing the world have been permitted to become blurred. We have made it too easy for much of the world to sit on the sidelines and claim neutrality. We have made it too easy for our "friends" to do nothing to aid us. We have made it too easy for our adversaries to oppose us with no cost.

And... as Michael Moore and too many others keep saying, "There are no weapons of mass destruction..."

The logic of what Farah says is so obvious, yet so many fail to see.

January and the new senate are just around the corner. I pray we see a renewed stronger world position and attitude emerge before something of this magnitude actually occurs. The lines need to be re-drawn, this time with a Sharpie!!

28 posted on 12/02/2004 5:17:45 AM PST by Alright_on_the_LeftCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: palmer

**This article is a rationalization of revenge. It will make the author and people like him feel good, but otherwise it will accomplish nothing.**

You can't reason with fanatics. You can only defeat them. Oh . . . wait a minute . . .you're . . . you're a . . . oh, why am I reasoning?


29 posted on 12/02/2004 5:18:55 AM PST by helmetmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Moziani
What, me worry?

30 posted on 12/02/2004 5:20:53 AM PST by fo0hzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.