Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, July 18, 2005

WRM: Nukes on Mecca if you nuke the United States religious shrines

Neat thing about living in a free country: You can talk about using nukes all day long.

If Islamic fanatics want to plan to use suitcase nukes in the US, the world should know the US has more than talked about using nukes on Mecca. With just a turn of a key, the nukes could easy be retargeted to land right there.

Americans do more than talk. They drop big bombs on assholes.

Just because we can, doesn't mean that we should. Which brings us back to the Downing Street Memo: Unlawful wars means the President should still be impeached for war crimes.

War planners threatened with silence. "Be careful what you say." . . .

Someone got asked a question about 'what if . . . " so the Congressman said, "We'd go after what they valued."

Sounds reasonable.

But what do we get in response, "Oh, you better be careful what you say. . . "


What on earth is going on: "It's OK to nuke the US; but it's not OK to talk about what to do in response"? That is absurd!

"Be careful," -- my ass!

But Noorzai said that people in Tancredo's position need to be careful with what they say, especially when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts.

"Hopefully, this gentleman will learn from his mistake and come to a better understanding," he said.Ref

I'm all for people speaking their mind. But I'm not for people to say, "Be careful when talking about responses."

Hay, it may get taken off the table as an option. Maybe the Geneva Convention would apply.

Right now, all I know is that the US Court of Appeals say the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the GITMO prisoners [not that I agree with that]; so if the Geneva Conventions "don't apply" then I think its appropriate to talk about attacking similar targets.

What happens if terrorists attack national monuments and cathederals in the United States; does this mean that the US cannot attack the same kind of targets in the Muslim world?

I don't have the answer. But remember why there's a big stink about the Downing Street Memo: That facts were fixed to ramrod the debate.

The last thing we need to do is "be nice" by "not talking about" what the options are.

To those who want us to kiss their ass after they bomb us, fuck off. We might nuke the things you value.

Maybe that will be enough of an incentive to get them to put this idiots under control and regulate themselves.

Then again, maybe they need to see mushroom clouds to know that we're serious.

Hell if I care. If they're not willing to listen to fair warning about, "wake up and get your idiots under control, then we can do it for them."

The reason we have nukes is to have them ready to use them.

If you want to see your oil fields glowing in a nuclear winter, continue to allow your idiot fanatics run around with suitcase bombs.

Hay, we can always walk and go back to the horse and buggy days. Besides we have hydrogen options.

Besides, the Saudis have also been rumored t have their oil fields wired with nukes in the event any of their oil fields are attacked.

if the Moslem world doesn't want to get their own people under control, and their people use nukes on the free world, then I think the least we could do in advance is talk about the issue.

Oh, wait. The debate is over. The pentagon already has the plan in place and they know what to do.

It's called Strategic Command and the Operational Plans.

Just a turn of a key and Mecca will be glowing. How's that for a nice crusade against the idiots who don't like Americans talking about 'what to do' if they get nuked?

That's kind of a conversation stopper, isn't it.

Choose your weapons. We've got ours ready to launch in Submarines, floating around the world, and also in land based silos.

If you nuke our towns, we might nuke what you value.

Pick. We have alot more of them than you do. And we have enough of them, so that even if you bust through with a single suicide bomber on a single silo, there are plenty of other options.

If you want to be an idiot, all we have to do is turn keys.

It's not that hard. You like Mecca? Then get your suicide bombers under control and don't mess around.

Enjoy Mecca while you still have it. It might not be there much longer.


Right Wing Conservative hawks [who talk about using nukes] can also call for the impeachment of Bush for an unlawful war of aggression, and are not liberals. They still will use nukes if the US is attacked.

but even if someone is "liberal," it doesn't mean that they're "anti-military force." Rather, most people after thinking about the legal issues would probably support holding the President accountable for war crimes.

You can be a right wing conservative and still require the President to be held accoutnable to the rule of law. The two positions are not inconsistent.

Those who call "those who speak out against the unlawful war of aggression" as liberals, are missing the point: The only way a right wing conservative hawk [that is prepared to use nukes] a "liberal" is if you are a fascist.

The debate over the use of military force is a different issue than whether that military force is lawful. One can liberally ask for "more debate" when the facts are not clear, especially so when the threat is not imminent.

Also, there is a difference between 9-11, AlQueda, and a US response in re Iraq/WMD, and a subsequent discussion of 'what to do' if the US is nuked.

The question will come down to: Did an unlawful act by the United States in Iraq precipitate the nuke attack?

And was the response the US took proportional; or was it excessive?

And has the the United States lost the right to protection of its national shrines and monuments?

Or would an use of nukes in the US mainland be a "new attack" and prompt a NATO response against the state-related targets, even if they were just with financing?

It will be a matter of evidence an law to link the nuke suitcase and dirty bomb to a specific target.

It is troubling that the 9-11 attacks resulted in a counter-strike against some people who may have had nothing to do with it: Who really put the explosives in the WTC; and did we hit the right target?

The time to discuss these issues is now, not after we've been hit. We've already seen how quickly things will move, especially when emotions are high, facts are thing, and there is the need to show results, legal or not.

I think we should have more outspoken people about using nukes.

And I think those who say, "Be careful what you talk about" are missing the point of American freedom: We talk, we are free, and we can think about whatever we want to.

Those who stifle that debate, discussion, and free exchange of ideas [whether they be the White House to silence those talking about unlawful wars or JTTF over the patriot act], the world should know that we're not going to bow down to those who want to take away rights or intimidate us to be silent or do/not do something.

You are an enemy when you threaten, whether you are in JTTF and being an asshole, or whether you are a religious person who says, "Can't say that."

Fuck off! We can say whatever we want.