Karachi, 2008, Nuclear Terrorism.

What if the shoe was on the other foot?

from JoeUser Forums
based on this Link

PIcture the crowded Pakistani Market Places, alive and bristling with vibrance and colour one minute....

A desolate wasteland of fire and ash the next.

An International Rogue Crime Syndicate based in the US - All Amercan mercenaries financed by various trust funds, have located Osama bin Laden in Islamabad.

An 8 kiloton weapon is deatonated - a place like Karachi would be just as dense, if not more so than New York.... Thousands, upon thousands die from the rocket attack....

It is quickly learned that the missles were the property of USAF (however the attack wasn't sanctioned by the US) and the mercenaries are predominantly from the combined US defence forces, retired.

Thousands from America, England, Australia all march in support of this action...

What do you think the reaction of Pakistan would be?

BAM!!!
international
19,575 views 49 replies
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great post

You are geting better all the times....
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree, more posts like this and I will be putting you on a favourites list.....if only I could work out how to do one
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
dammit you beat me to it (but ya done it well) i was just about to post bethlahem xmas 2004 in which the israelis nuked the church of the nativity to even the score with the last two palistinian kids living there. my alternate title was gonna be silent night.

can i get a bam from the holy witnesses?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
when you figure it out gerry, please clue me in?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
They would probably try to attack us back, and in doing so, sign off what would be left of their culture and country. Bye bye Pakistan.

Next question?

VES
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
They would probably try to attack us back, and in doing so, sign off what would be left of their culture and country. Bye bye Pakistan


Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could have.

BAM!!!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
And that point is? If folks at outside the official capacity of the their nationality but with the blessings and help of that country they should be responded to? Yes, I agree, that's one of the reasons we are in Iraq. The fact that some countries achieve their ends through the means of people who can't be directly tied to them does not absolve that country of responsibility. If you point was that this kind of attack should be responded to, I'm glad you made that point.

Now, when you consider how well based in reality your scenario is vs. Draginol's scenario, probability is on Draginol's side, by a long shot.

VES
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since:

"The fact that some countries achieve their ends through the means of people who can't be directly tied to them does not absolve that country of responsibility."

would the US would then be held partially culpable, if Pakistan asks the US to hand over those responsible, (as we did in Afghanistan), should we do so?

If we do not, would Pakistan be justified in coming in and getting them? As we did in Afghanistan?

IG
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
IT's interesting that those whose opinions I was really after have not shed any light on the issue...

There seems to be one rule for the USA, and another rule for the rest of the world...

Thanks for your comments guys.

BAM!!!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
would the US would then be held partially culpable, if Pakistan asks the US to hand over those responsible, (as we did in Afghanistan), should we do so?


Can you please clarify the first part of what you are asking here? I tried to make it out, but I'm not going answer based on that much assumption.

VES
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

There seems to be one rule for the USA, and another rule for the rest of the world...


Muggaz, please refrain from painting all us Americans with the same brushstroke.  We don't all hold America to different standards than the rest of the world.  We don't all think that lashing out and attacking is/was the best response. 


And to answer your question:  I don't think that it is Pakistan's response that the world would need to fear, rather al Qaeda's.  I can't pretend to think like them, so I can't tell you exactly what they would plot in response to this hypothetical attack, but I am sure it would be deadly.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Historically speaking, how many "rogue criminal syndicates" of US origin have committed terrorist acts in other countries?

VES
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
rational cop: if you ask middle east people right now, they would said either Bush Jr or Sharon...

I don't say they would be right, but that's what they would answer...
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Historically speaking, how many "rogue criminal syndicates" of US origin have committed terrorist acts in other countries?


About the same amount of times rogue terrorists have sent a Nuclear Bomb to New York.

This is hypothetical mate... I am not saying it would or will happen, I am asking what the respective responses from Pakistan and America would be, but those who the question was aimed at, cant be brave enough to come here and admit the truth.

Shades... You know me, you know I dont dare class all Americans in the same basket... I am just shedding a little perspective... And I dont think it's Pakistans response we need to fear either - It would be the US's retribution... There is no way the US would permit an invasive pakistani force into America to find and eradicate those responsible and their funders... However, on the other side of the coin, it is just a given that the US is allowed to waltz into any country as it chooses...

BAM!!!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

And this scenario is based on what? What previous actions by the US would lend itself to this scenario?

While we're on implausible scenarios, imagine this one: Aliens come to Earth, capture Mugaz, upgrade his brain to one that can make a coherent argument and suddenly he moves up from being community jester to serious intellectual.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The question was not "how many times have people used nukes in terrorist activities?"

It's nice to pose hypothetical situations, but if they have no basis in reality, they are useless. They have no context.

So your answer is no rogue crime syndicates from of US origin have ever committed a terrorist act on another nation. This is quite a bit different from the number of times other nations have had their people commit terrorist acts on us and other nations. This makes your hypothetical situation pointless. Others may well not be answering you dilemna because they see that it is pointless and don't even want to take the time like I have to show you why.

Brad's situation however represents a logical progression demonstrated by terrorist's desire to inflict greater and greater casualties with each successive terrorist act against us.


VES
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Historically speaking, how many "rogue criminal syndicates" of US origin have committed terrorist acts in other countries?

just in our own hemisphere or do you want to expand that question further? which period of time?

mexico, honduras, el salvador, nicaragua, panama, colombia, venezuela, cuba (pre-castro and post-castro)

pick any 2 and any century
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
While we're on implausible scenarios, imagine this one: Aliens come to Earth, capture Mugaz, upgrade his brain to one that can make a coherent argument and suddenly he moves up from being community jester to serious intellectual.


Brad,

I am glad you consider me capable of becoming a coherent intelectual, even if it would take a little help from Aliens... Thats why you are wasting your time... trying to get your point across that the US does not deserve any hostility at all will never sit with me... yes, their are varying degrees of hostility, I have never justified thousands of people dying all I have done is said that this is a cause of an effect... and you are ever so blind to that...

BAM!!!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

While we're on implausible scenarios, imagine this one: Aliens come to Earth, capture Mugaz, upgrade his brain to one that can make a coherent argument and suddenly he moves up from being community jester to serious intellectual.


Brad--that was a bit harsh, don't you think?  Really, name calling should be beneath you.  Last time I checked, this was Muggaz's blog and he can write whatever he'd like, whether plausbile or not.  If you don't have something constructive to add, I might suggest looking elsewhere.


Muggaz--I'm confused as you why you are fearing US retribution after an attack by "retired US military perssonel."  If you mean US retribution after al Queda chimes in with a response, maybe.  But, projecting to 2008, Bush will definitely not be the President after Nov, 2008 (and hopefully not after Nov, 2004).  Let's say Bush wins this election and therefore Hillary runs in 2008 as she is threatening to do.  If she wins, I don't think you'd have to fear an immediate lash out--she'd most likely be cautious with a response.  Or, she could try to prove the point that women are just as "war-like" as men, and go after them guns blazing.  Yup, so my answer is--well, I guess it all depends.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rational:
Since:

"The fact that some countries achieve their ends through the means of people who can't be directly tied to them does not absolve that country of responsibility."

With regard to the retired soldiers attack on Pakistan (the original scenario of the post) would the US would then be held partially culpable, if Pakistan asks the US to hand over those responsible, (as we did in Afghanistan), should we do so?

If we do not, would Pakistan be justified in coming in and getting them? As we did in Afghanistan?

IG
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shades - thanks for the defense... where would i be without the ladies of JU?

as for US retribution - Its based on the assumption that Pakistan would act like the US - Intervene. The US would not allow this, so I fear the lack of retribution, or the drastic ammounts should Pakistan take and aggesive stance.

The main point I am emphasising is one rule for USA, and another for the rest of the world. People like BakerStreet mention that terrorists should go on hunger strikes... If pakistan sent some troops and desicrated the USA, would the people of USA sit on their hands and starve to death?

Ridiculous double standards aside, as the worlds leader, the USA has a responsibility to lead the way... Violence breeds violence...

BAM!!!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Muggaz: Please listen carefully because words mean things:

There is a big difference between arguing that Americans do not deserve to be slaughtered wholesale and arguing that the United States doesn't deserve any hostility.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is you that need to listen Brad.

If someone accuses me of being happy that thousands of people died on 9/11... well, it just prooves that they dont know who I am. Those that know me on these forums - they know I am no advocate of terrorism.

I dont know how I can get my point across to you? The issue is that you see 9/11 as the core issue, I see American foreign policy as the core issue. AS far as I can see, that is really the bottom line.

It doesn't make what happened right or wrong, It just helps me undertand why it happened, and it makes me think what I can do as a person to try and stop it from happening in the future.

Americans seem to think that going to war on foreign soil will solve all the world's problems... I hate to sound belittling, but anyone who hasn't figured out that this is not the answer, is a blind fool. There are extenuating circumstances that require conflict - we cannot avoid it, but I would rather it be kept to a minimum... I wish US troops did not have to die on foreign soil...

The USA can continue being the worlds police man, however, based on the current path and attitude toward the US, and you see this yourself, the threat of terrorists nuking New York is a real one - what can be done to eradicate this threat? If you had your way? Is it possible to root out all terrorist organisations?

BAM!!!