Apocalypse When? Our enemies are contemplating attacks worse than 9/11. - Page 2

Apocalypse When? Our enemies are contemplating attacks worse than 9/11.

This is a discussion on Apocalypse When? Our enemies are contemplating attacks worse than 9/11. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mcp1810 I find it amusing that we are so concerned over Iran getting the bomb but don't seem to have a problem ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: Apocalypse When? Our enemies are contemplating attacks worse than 9/11.

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I find it amusing that we are so concerned over Iran getting the bomb but don't seem to have a problem with Israel having it. Israel says they need it for self defense. I have no problem with that. But are they the only ones that have that Right to nuclear self defense? We say that Iran can't be trusted because they sponsor terrorism. North Korea can't be trusted because of their history of hostility toward their neighbors.
    The Soviets and the Afghan government could have claimed we sponsored terrorism during our support of the mujahedin. Should we have had to give up our nukes? How many countries have Iran or North Korea invaded in the last forty years? How many have we?
    If we want to be taken seriously we need to get off our moral high horse and simply acknowledge that the reason we don't want them to have nukes is that their national interests are different than ours and we don't want them to be able to achieve their goals. That's not so hard is it?
    The difference between Iran or North Korea and Israel is that the first two are run by borderline psychotics and the third is a Western style democracy. Huge difference. The old USSR and the USA found a way to avoid WWIII by waging proxy wars and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) because the leaders of both sides were rational.

    We don't want them to have nukes because their national goals are the annihilation of an entire people, the subjugation of millions of others and turning back the clock to the 7th century by vaporizing cities full of innocents and terrorizing the entire non-Muslim world. Or in the case of North Korea, blackmailing the rest of the world by holding the free countries around them hostage to nuclear ICBMs. Your right, that wasn't hard. For me. How hard do you think it will be for the Administration?


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    I was batting this around with some buddies some time ago and we sort of came to the conclusion that there could be three or four levels of terror operative looking to commence hostilities on our home soil sometime soon.

    FIRST, there might be the organized cells with specific targets. The cell will have trigger pullers, support personnel to establish safe houses, documents etc and probably recon and security types. These are the folks who will have the WMD assets and be looking to score multiple 911's but oh so much worse than the original.

    SECOND there would be trained terrorists with knowledge of field craft but here as sleepers. They may have been here for years. They may have been assigned specific targets or they may have been given an array of potential targets to strike under a given codeword ("GO" CODE).

    THIRD would be the random trigger pullers smuggled across the Mexican border since 911. They will be dedicated Jihadis but probably limited in education and salable civilian skills. They may settle into areas with high latino populations since the two at least superficially bear a resemblance to each other in physical features. They will secure typical illegal immigrant jobs and wait to strike. These would be the ones most likely to snap and go into sudden Jihadi syndrome as may have been demonstrated in the past perhaps in this most recent recruiter murder. However, there is no telling how many of these will remain dedicated to their original objectives and how many might succumb to the allure of the American lifestyle and simply move from the mission to the dream. OTOH, there is also no telling how many of the dedicated moles will stay on task and may even recruit new members to the cause, especially if arrested for other offenses and forced to move into the correctional system.

    That very correctional system would provide the last and FOURTH wave of a much larger and coordinated plan. The converted are still criminals and now it's like they have a license to kill in the name of their pagan god (lower case deliberate) which they will embrace.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,813
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So it is sort of payback for the crusades "our" guys waged against them waaaaay back when. They are just sort of late to the party.
    I call BS!

    There was no "our guys waging a crusade" until they conquered many millions upon millions including significant portions of Europe. It's called Islamic Imperialism.

    Somebody should learn some real history, as opposed to the politically correct crap out there which blames it ALL on Christians.

    Now, did Christians do some heinous things? Yes. They were wrong.
    But, the start of the Crusades began with Muslim invasion for the purpose of filling their coffers. That's a fact.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan View Post
    The difference between Iran or North Korea and Israel is that the first two are run by borderline psychotics and the third is a Western style democracy. Huge difference. The old USSR and the USA found a way to avoid WWIII by waging proxy wars and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) because the leaders of both sides were rational.
    Joe Stalin was rational? Not by any of the profiles I read on him. The guy was a paranoid whack job. And MAD still worked. right now they don't have MAD in that region. That strategic imbalance is one of the main reasons other countries in the region are trying to develop nuclear weapons. And Israel being a western style democracy doesn't mean squat. How long did it take Chavez to turn Venezuela? And, IIRC Hitler came to power in a western style democracy too. We have a western style democracy and it hasn't stopped us from attacking those that are in conflict with our national interests.
    We don't want them to have nukes because their national goals are the annihilation of an entire people, the subjugation of millions of others and turning back the clock to the 7th century by vaporizing cities full of innocents and terrorizing the entire non-Muslim world.
    No disagreement there.
    Or in the case of North Korea, blackmailing the rest of the world by holding the free countries around them hostage to nuclear ICBMs.
    Right, they want to be able to do what Israel can do. They just want equality. South Korea didn't have to develop nukes. They had ours there. Our allies in both regions have had the backing of American nukes for decades. They no longer have Soviet nukes to back them up. Now they can be perceived as being weak. You think keeping these "borderline psychotics" as you described them feeling inferior and threatened is the safest thing to do?
    Your right, that wasn't hard. For me. How hard do you think it will be for the Administration?
    This administration? I wouldn't even hazard a guess.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by miklcolt45 View Post
    I call BS!

    There was no "our guys waging a crusade" until they conquered many millions upon millions including significant portions of Europe. It's called Islamic Imperialism.

    Somebody should learn some real history, as opposed to the politically correct crap out there which blames it ALL on Christians.

    Now, did Christians do some heinous things? Yes. They were wrong.
    But, the start of the Crusades began with Muslim invasion for the purpose of filling their coffers. That's a fact.
    Ok, so let's say the first crusade was in response to Islamic Imperialism. And the other eight? Over the next 170 years?So if we want to extend that logic the British would be justified in invading the eastern U.S. to take back their colonies that we stole from them.
    Where do you draw the line?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array usmc3169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    866
    I still fail to see how you can compare N Korea and Iran to the US and Israel. And by the way, Stalin WAS stable in one way that Kim Jong Il and Ahmedinijad aren't - He was able to work with democracies and keep treaties that he signed, or that were signed on his behalf. Neither of the other two even make an attempt to appear to work with everyone else.

    The Israeli's have nukes because they are surrounded on 3 sides by mortal enemies, and the fourth is ocean. They are an elected democracy that favors the ideals of personal and -GASP- religious freedom. NO Muslim country surrounding them can claim either of those traits (Lebanon comes the closest) So yes I think that it is OK for Israel to have a type of weapon that I would happily send myself to war (again) to keep those others mentioned from having.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  7. #22
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Ok, so let's say the first crusade was in response to Islamic Imperialism. And the other eight? Over the next 170 years?
    I'm pretty sure that efforts at Islamic Imperialism weren't concluded overnight.

    At any rate, no one is describing this as a tit-for-tat issue. Miklcolt45 was rebutting the idea that politically correct "historians" keep putting forth; this notion that "we started it" which is, indeed, a soft and steamy pile of highly refined bovine poo.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    They just don't want to deal with us.
    Iran's major trading partners are: China, India, Germany, South Korea, Japan, France, Russia and Italy.
    Gee... that list includes five of the U.S. top ten trading partners.
    North Korea does the vast majority of it's foreign trade with China and South Korea. Again, two of our biggest trading partners.
    Trade is regulated by treaties. If they can't keep them why would our friends be trading with them? Heck France and West Germany were doing billions of dollars a year with Iran (and Iraq) even when we had U.N. trade sanctions imposed. The limited foreign trade by North Korea is self imposed. Seems like the rest of world has a lot less trouble dealing with them than we do.

    Israel has been at peace with Egypt since 1977 and with Jordan since 1994. Lebanon goes back and forth. Some people want a treaty others are still upset over lives lost during various Israeli invasions of Lebanon. The real hold out is Syria. They have repeatedly said that they would sign a peace treaty if Israel returns to their June 4 1967 borders. As Lebanese politics are heavily influenced by Syria they would very likely follow suit. But as Israel has already shown, they either can't or wont control the settlements in the territories so that isn't very likely to happen.
    But hypothetically, lets say Israel returns to those borders and peace treaties are signed with Lebanon and Syria. Would we then demand Israel give up their nukes?

    USMC3169 You may be willing to put the uniform back on and march off to the sound of the guns over this. Those are your beliefs and I respect that. There are some things I would put my old uniform on for (if I could ever fit into it again) but this isn't one of them.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Jumpwing you are right. Really there is no way to go all the way back into prehistory and really know who "started it". We humans have been attacking each other for various reasons since the dawn of time, and will continue to until armageddon. The "us" and "them" definitions can change at any time.

    One thought though. OBL has publicly stated that one of his major motivators was the presence of U.S. troops (infidels) being based so close to Mecca and Medina and other holy sites. Since we don't need our speed bump there to keep Saddam's Republican Guard from capturing Kuwait again and Saudi Arabia, why not pull them out? The threat they were there to defend against no longer exists. Their presence aggravates folks that want to kill us. How is this serving our interests?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Ok, so let's say the first crusade was in response to Islamic Imperialism. And the other eight? Over the next 170 years?So if we want to extend that logic the British would be justified in invading the eastern U.S. to take back their colonies that we stole from them.
    Where do you draw the line?
    The muslim invasion wasn't to fill their "coffers," that was the by-product. The purpose was to spread a religion at the point of a sword. That is what we have to remember. They are STILL doing it! The World Trade Center wasn't about money it was about religion.

    Next of the eight Crusades, only the first was successful in the manner of actually pushing the muslims back and gaining territory. For the rest, the Crusaders got a royal !! A lot of it was due to internal conflicts but don't underestimate the islamic warrior. With the second attempt, the muslims regained most of the lost territory.

    They won't let me teach world history anymore because my administration KNOWS I'll speak the truth instead of the apologetics of the texts. They gingerly let me teach American Government instead. They know that in social studies, with me, THEY can't win. There is no subject I haven't taught and I'm really good so they let me teach where I love (government) and they settle for an interruption of the regularly scheduled programming.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,813
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Jumpwing you are right. Really there is no way to go all the way back into prehistory and really know who "started it". We humans have been attacking each other for various reasons since the dawn of time, and will continue to until armageddon. The "us" and "them" definitions can change at any time.

    mcp, there is quite a bit of history, which comes from Islamic texts and the resulting publications. The goals of Islam are well-known and well-published. We are so PC here that we don't dare say them out loud. And very few folks have actually read any of what is out there, unless it is a piece of propaganda on the media, written and distributed by CAIR. PC articles will try to tell you that 'jihad' only means inner submission or struggle. It means that for some Muslims. It does not mean that as used by the many who are out to destroy us. Islam, throughout its history, has very often been aggressive, and imperialistic in its aims.

    I agree that violence has been a constant in human interactions from the beginning of time as we know it. We can, however, know pretty well the history of Islam, including its violent designs to rule the world. These are not new. They are plain.


    One thought though. OBL has publicly stated that one of his major motivators was the presence of U.S. troops (infidels) being based so close to Mecca and Medina and other holy sites. Since we don't need our speed bump there to keep Saddam's Republican Guard from capturing Kuwait again and Saudi Arabia, why not pull them out? The threat they were there to defend against no longer exists. Their presence aggravates folks that want to kill us. How is this serving our interests?

    And everything that OBL says is the truth? Islamic jihadis have made it very clear over the years that they are out for total annihilation of the U.S. and Israel. They are out to make the world and Islamic state. They want nothing less and will settle for nothing less. His statements, while minimally true, are a smokescreen for the goal--total world domination by Islam.
    We are in a time when violent, Islamic imperialism is resurgent. For us to think otherwise is to have our heads in the sands.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Jumpwing you are right. Really there is no way to go all the way back into prehistory and really know who "started it". We humans have been attacking each other for various reasons since the dawn of time, and will continue to until armageddon. The "us" and "them" definitions can change at any time.

    One thought though. OBL has publicly stated that one of his major motivators was the presence of U.S. troops (infidels) being based so close to Mecca and Medina and other holy sites. Since we don't need our speed bump there to keep Saddam's Republican Guard from capturing Kuwait again and Saudi Arabia, why not pull them out? The threat they were there to defend against no longer exists. Their presence aggravates folks that want to kill us. How is this serving our interests?
    That's just an excuse. The real purpose is to cover the planet with islam and install Sharia law whether we like it or not. I tell my students who say they'll just go back to Haiti two things: #1 Don't let the door hit 'em in the on the way out and the sooner the better. #2 the muslims won't stop with the USA. They'll get to Haiti eventually.

    There is a book you MUST read: Schmoozing With Terrorists by Aaron Klein. Here is a JEW who got to sit down with some of the world's most dangerous terrorists in their own living rooms all over the middle east and get them to speak the truth of Islam. They were proud to do so and even with their most hated enemy, a jew. It is an eye opener. The first thing you learn is that Israel is 100% correct not to give up any land in a search for peace. No peace is possible. All land gained by islamic states will be used to renew attacks even deeper into their enemies territory. Temporary cease fires are welcomed as a way to re-arm and re-supply while resting for the next battle.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array Old Sarge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    612
    I agree with the OP, as well as most of the opinions expressed here. I'm retired military, so my thinking is different than many, but I feel the US needs to get out of the "knee jerk" status, whereby we are always on the defensive, and only act as a re-action, rather than being more opposing. Let's get out and put all who do not agree with us on notice, that we are here to kick butt, and make no mistake about it we will do it!!!!!!!!

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Gee... that list includes five of the U.S. top ten trading partners.
    North Korea does the vast majority of it's foreign trade with China and South Korea.
    And with that comment you reveal an amazing lack of familiarity with the situation in Korea. North and South are technically at war and there is no trade between them. There is a "demilitarized zone" separating the two with heavily armed troops on both sides ---each on hair trigger alert.

    Israel has been at peace with Egypt since 1977 and with Jordan since 1994. Lebanon goes back and forth. Some people want a treaty others are still upset over lives lost during various Israeli invasions of Lebanon. The real hold out is Syria.
    This is largely correct. Syria is the holdout.

    They have repeatedly said that they would sign a peace treaty if Israel returns to their June 4 1967 borders. As Lebanese politics are heavily influenced by Syria they would very likely follow suit. But as Israel has already shown, they either can't or wont control the settlements in the territories so that isn't very likely to happen.
    But hypothetically, lets say Israel returns to those borders and peace treaties are signed with Lebanon and Syria. Would we then demand Israel give up their nukes?
    Do we demand that India and Pakistan give up their nukes? Do we demand that England and France give up their nukes? Do we demand that China and Russia give up their nukes? The fact is, even if there were formal peace treaties with all of Israel's neighbors, treaties are pieces of paper, and all of those governments are too unstable to be relied upon for long term adherence to their word.

    The thread through all of the nuke proliferation stuff that needs bearing in mind is that some countries are just too unstable, or headed by nut jobs, and it is these countries--notably Iran and N. Korea which must be contained. We don't worry about The UK having nukes because they aren't in the control of certifiable nuts. Same for Israel--if it even actually has nukes; something I am not sure I believe.

    Oh, settlements aren't really a real issue. It is one cooked up to make the Israeli side look bad; while the Palestinians keep up their insistence that their goal is murder and destruction, not peace.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    And with that comment you reveal an amazing lack of familiarity with the situation in Korea. North and South are technically at war and there is no trade between them. There is a "demilitarized zone" separating the two with heavily armed troops on both sides ---each on hair trigger alert.
    From our own State Department:
    North-South Economic Ties
    Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, hit almost $1.82 billion in 2008, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total through 2007 included R.O.K. Government aid, but that assistance stopped in 2008, except for energy aid (heavy fuel oil) under the Six-Party Talks. Thus, in 2008, about 94% of the total trade consisted of commercial transactions, much of that based on processing-on-commission arrangements and the light industry operations in KIC. The R.O.K. is North Korea's second-largest trading partner, after China.
    Who is unfamiliar with the situation?
    Do we demand that India and Pakistan give up their nukes? Do we demand that England and France give up their nukes? Do we demand that China and Russia give up their nukes? The fact is, even if there were formal peace treaties with all of Israel's neighbors, treaties are pieces of paper, and all of those governments are too unstable to be relied upon for long term adherence to their word.
    Oh yeah, Pakistan is a stable regime! So does Pakistan actively support the Taliban or can they not control their own country? I mean if neither one is the case how come we have to do special ops missions and missile strikes in their territory?
    And you are right about treaties being pieces of paper. Governments all over the world ignore them when it suits their interests.
    The thread through all of the nuke proliferation stuff that needs bearing in mind is that some countries are just too unstable, or headed by nut jobs, and it is these countries--notably Iran and N. Korea which must be contained. We don't worry about The UK having nukes because they aren't in the control of certifiable nuts. Same for Israel--if it even actually has nukes; something I am not sure I believe.
    And of course regimes around the world have be stable as defined by us because our opinion is the only one that matters. As far as Israel having nukes.... Where have you been? They developed them with South Africa back during the days of apartheid while the rest of the world had an arms embargo on South Africa. IIRC we detected the signatures of two seperate tests. South Africa later abandoned the program and turned all materials over to Israel.

    Oh, settlements aren't really a real issue. It is one cooked up to make the Israeli side look bad; while the Palestinians keep up their insistence that their goal is murder and destruction, not peace.
    Which is why the Isreali supreme court has had to order the government repeatedly to evict settlers from the territories. When the courts take their own government to task for failure to abide by treaties...... Yeah a non issue.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Contemplating a G19 - Gen 3 or Gen 4?
    By MattInFla in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: February 19th, 2011, 12:39 PM
  2. Contemplating an AK
    By Adkjoe in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 5th, 2011, 01:17 PM
  3. Contemplating CWP, but have questions.
    By Arithmatech in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 4th, 2009, 02:01 PM
  4. Contemplating an AR-15...
    By Gringo in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 17th, 2006, 12:00 AM
  5. ANIMAL ATTACKS ~ 9 Pages Of Attacks
    By QKShooter in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 19th, 2005, 12:52 AM

Search tags for this page

attacks worse than 9/11

Click on a term to search for related topics.