The War On Terrorism

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-10-11 03:17pm

Ok so George W Bush and Tony Blair wanna continue the war on terror this time against Iraq. Fair enough, i applaud the idea but they need to set their sights closer to home. Continuely the IRA attack innocent people in Belfast, they steal intelligence documents and generally piss on the Good Friday agreement, Why do the American congress continualy allow Sinn Fein to enter america to fund raise for "Republican Causes" even in light of the "Columbian Three" and why does Tony Blair still bend over and take it up the ass from Gerry Adams. It's a wee bit hipocritical to declare a War On Terror then travel to the other side of the world to find them when so many are at home.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-11 03:21pm

I hate to say it but as long as there is a chance of things working out and they're saying the want peace (look at Isreal and Palestinians) America will sit back and hope for the best.

Personaly I do not like the current trend of these SLOW WARS that the international community seems to like. But hey, what the hell can I do.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-11 03:32pm

There is bascily NO chance for Isreal at the moment, That contry makes Iraland look like France

But frankly Saddam does demostrate the greatest threat

What do we do when he has Atomic arms and the missles to Deliver them and kindly hands off an airborn verison of AIDS or Ebola to X Terriorst group who happy go and infect a few plane loads of people and end up with 20 Million Dead?

Do we accept Chicago, Boston, Washington and Philly as Accetable Losses in order to retaliate?

You think I'm joking? No I'm not, rather just saying what I would do in Saddam's Position

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-11 03:49pm

Mr Bean wrote: You think I'm joking? No I'm not, rather just saying what I would do in Saddam's Position

Just out of curiousity, why would you do it? Saddam is not completely crazy or fool. He knows any attack with WMD in the States (or Israel or Europe, for that matter) will result in the extermination of his regime/country.

He's the visible target, much like the taliban were. His interests do not lie in helping terrorists to launch such attacks, as he will be the first to be knocked down, while the terrorists are thinly spread and a very hard target to get.

For that reason is hard to believe that the taliban/Iraq actually led/help alqaeda in the destruction of the Twin Towers. They were the ones who knew had the most to lose. And they did.

And don't forget that alqaeda's version of government is very distant from the one Saddam has. It's not wise to help a group which despises you for the present, disregarding future threats.

If I were him I would tolerate alqaeda, yes, because they wouldn't be a threat to me and they would be harassing my enemies. But my help to them would be severelly limited, for reasons of good health.

Or maybe he's just crazy.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-11 03:53pm

He wouldn't now, but after a while when things have calmed down he might. Look, he survived the last war and turned around when no one was watching and launched a plan to kill Bush the dad. If we leave him alone sooner or later we will stop watching him and then what he will do is anyones guess. I'd rather not give him that advantage.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-11 04:11pm

Knife wrote:He wouldn't now, but after a while when things have calmed down he might. Look, he survived the last war and turned around when no one was watching and launched a plan to kill Bush the dad. If we leave him alone sooner or later we will stop watching him and then what he will do is anyones guess. I'd rather not give him that advantage.

He survived the last war because Bush the first wanted so. He wanted to maintain the balance of power between Iran/Iraq which tranquilized the other states friendly with the U.S.

He feared that a destabilization of Iraq would lead the fundies to power.

Saddam's survival was not due to his ingenuity, but to international politics.

I never heard of a plan to kill Bush, when was that discovered?

And, once again, Iraq will never be powerful enough to pose a credible threat. An attack of its part would lead to obliviation, and Saddam knows it.

However, I've said many times that I think Saddam deserves a war. But made for the proper reasons and after calling his bluff about the weapons inspectors.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-11 04:17pm

Again I say, he wouldn't use the WMD now. But if we peacenik out and leave him there sooner or later he would seek his revenge. Don't have info on he's attempt on Bush 1, I'll have to do some research on it but I know it was uncovered quite a few years ago and didn't get very far. There was never some dude with a gun walking up on him, but there was a plot that was uncovered and stopped.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-11 04:17pm

However a dictator's entertainment value fades quickly, I mean after Peron stopped putting out to the visiting diplomats, or Ida Amin stopped trying to challenge Ali to fights what value did they have.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-11 04:54pm

Just out of curiousity, why would you do it? Saddam is not completely crazy or fool. He knows any attack with WMD in the States (or Israel or Europe, for that matter) will result in the extermination of his regime/country.

Very Simple,
He's Old, He's Dieing he hates American and apprently in his old age he starting to become very religious(Typical these days) and what is the local Religioun of his country say?

Whats that Mr Iman? Nuke America? Oookeydokey!

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-10-11 04:58pm

Dying of what? I hadn't heard this, except in the tabloids.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-11 05:13pm

Dying of what? I hadn't heard this, except in the tabloids.

Nothing yet besides the fact that half is country wants to kill him and he's starting to push seventy...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-11 05:16pm

Not to mention the threat of dieng at the hands of an Italian Porn Star (Going out the same way as Atilla The Hun)

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-10-11 05:19pm

Mr Bean wrote: Nothing yet besides the fact that half is country wants to kill him and he's starting to push seventy...

weed roots have long lives. Saddam seems healthy for its age. Don't hold your breath expecting him to die by natural causes.

And he has family and must have some concern about them, like the rest of us.

He has yet to show signs of complete lunacy. A lucid person simply does not go MAD (specially when it is one sided), no matter how evil he is.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-10-11 05:46pm

The US State Department in it's 2001 report on State-Sponsored Terrorism demonstrated several links between Iraq and known terrorist groups launching attacks on Israel. Along with Syria, Iraq harbors and trains something like five or six groups that have been making suicide attacks. Sorry I don't have a link to the report. Should be somewhere on their main page, though.

A friend of mine came up with the idea that Iraq, Syria, and Iran were using palestinian terror groups against Israel to keep Arab and global attention focused on the harsh Israeli response to their attacks, and not on the repressive and brutal nature of their own regimes. Interesting point, if you ask me.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-10-12 12:22am

Of course ,USA governament could plea to Hussein good sense. "We put you there long ago. We helped you to have power there long ago. Could you please get away now. That is just fair."...

I think USA governament have no moral rights to do any way against terror, but Laden or Hussein could just surrendor in exchange of Kissinger to the international court. That would be a huge profit...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-10-12 03:37am

Bush is using the war on terror as an excuse to launch wars of aggression against other nations. He is bewing like hitler. He finds an internal and external threat and uses it to gain public support. In the process he has alienated other nations. He is turning our country into a fascist totalitarian state. Already people are being imprisoned without due process. He needs top be stoped.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-10-12 07:49am

Mr Bean wrote:There is bascily NO chance for Isreal at the moment, That contry makes Iraland look like France

But frankly Saddam does demostrate the greatest threat

What do we do when he has Atomic arms and the missles to Deliver them and kindly hands off an airborn verison of AIDS or Ebola to X Terriorst group who happy go and infect a few plane loads of people and end up with 20 Million Dead?

Do we accept Chicago, Boston, Washington and Philly as Accetable Losses in order to retaliate?

You think I'm joking? No I'm not, rather just saying what I would do in Saddam's Position

Nope, you cannot engineer a biological weapon such as you are describing in Iraq.It would be very diffcult to do even with the US level of technology.
Weaponized anthrax is the best they can get.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-12 10:07am

Nope, you cannot engineer a biological weapon such as you are describing in Iraq.

Its a worst case senario however they do have small-pox and Regular Ebola(Though thier sample can't repoduce as far as we know) and a varity of other plauges/diseses one runs into as being a nation state

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 2002-10-12 11:52am

The point i was making in starting this topic was that there is enough terrorists living within the borders of America & the UK we don't need to mobilise the army to fight terrorists, we have plenty of our own.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-10-12 12:52pm

Mr Bean wrote:
Nope, you cannot engineer a biological weapon such as you are describing in Iraq.
Its a worst case senario however they do have small-pox and Regular Ebola(Though thier sample can't repoduce as far as we know) and a varity of other plauges/diseses one runs into as being a nation state

Bah,ebola looks like the end of the world on paper but in practice is not so good.The epidemies that it generates seem all rather quite limited in extension.And virus,as far as I know,are relatively difficult to weaponize.

Darth Eris · Post by **Darth Eris** » 2002-10-12 03:34pm

As long as the virus is contageous enough (like Smallpox), weaponizing the virus is actually fairly easy. All you need is a few people willing to be carriers.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-10-12 05:27pm

Darth Eris wrote:As long as the virus is contageous enough (like Smallpox), weaponizing the virus is actually fairly easy. All you need is a few people willing to be carriers.

I cannot speak for smallpox but at least for ebola this peculiary delivery system is not even guaranteed to cause an epidemy at all.
Virus are more delicate than bacterias and this probably makes storage in munitions more complicate.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-12 11:45pm

Admiral Piett wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:There is bascily NO chance for Isreal at the moment, That contry makes Iraland look like France

But frankly Saddam does demostrate the greatest threat

What do we do when he has Atomic arms and the missles to Deliver them and kindly hands off an airborn verison of AIDS or Ebola to X Terriorst group who happy go and infect a few plane loads of people and end up with 20 Million Dead?

Do we accept Chicago, Boston, Washington and Philly as Accetable Losses in order to retaliate?

You think I'm joking? No I'm not, rather just saying what I would do in Saddam's Position
Nope, you cannot engineer a biological weapon such as you are describing in Iraq.It would be very diffcult to do even with the US level of technology.
Weaponized anthrax is the best they can get.

Pre-September 11 you could mail-order anthrax spores from the Us simply by saying that you were a university lecturer or someone needing them for experiments. Then all you needed was some agar jelly, a large air-tight aquariam, some other miscellaneous (but available in any household) bits and you could produce enough to infect a decent sized city...

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2002-10-13 06:18am

weemadando wrote: Pre-September 11 you could mail-order anthrax spores from the Us simply by saying that you were a university lecturer or someone needing them for experiments. Then all you needed was some agar jelly, a large air-tight aquariam, some other miscellaneous (but available in any household) bits and you could produce enough to infect a decent sized city...

Yes,but of poor quality.Without an adequate delivery system capable of spreading it efficiently you cannot hope to infect more than an handful of people.
The anthrax used after 9/11 was of good quality.Yet it killed only few people.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-13 09:01am

The anthrax used after 9/11 was of good quality.Yet it killed only few people.

Because it was MAILED to people not spread as was the traditonal sense, you could have gottena better inffection rate if you had sat it on your palm and blowen it towards the intened victums

Deliving Athrax can be done by

*packing it a large crate, fly over city, release Crate, boom instant infection

Mounting it to shaped bombs where only a tiny porition goes to the Athrax payload and the rest purpelse the Athrax into the Air

Adding it to ventilation systems/infecting the Airfilters people buy for homes and offices

NOT placing it in a envople and mailing it to people!