Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Ban the Koran - Something to look into?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 576-600 of 624 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 7:41:04 AM PDT
I don't think you followed what we were talking about.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 7:44:42 AM PDT
Paul Weston is a Neo-Nazi. He is the leader of the British Freedom Party, a breakaway from the BNP, which was formerly the National Front.

According to the party's official return to the Electoral Commission, at the end of 2010 the party had 62 members.

He has no credibility, just an agenda.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:10:21 AM PDT
TN said that any Christian who would kill somebody in the name of Jesus wasn't a "true follower" and I just couldn't resist.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:32:23 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Nat says: "In the name of him a billion."

This number is more far-fetched than your claim about 114 million Indians. Show us your totals.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:35:40 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Nat says: "No they weren't
http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

This is your source? The "expressostalinist. Wake up to the smell of class struggle." The author of this blog says: "I am a working class, self-taught, unrepentant Marxist-Leninist;"

You are using trash for sources.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:48:41 AM PDT
BPL,
We were also able to time Pearl Harbor for all the good it did us.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:53:55 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
Mr. Smith--"If terrorists steal our nukes we would know it. Plus it's not easy to do."

>>JGC: I know that. But I doubt that the safeguards in Pakistan, North Korea, and even Israel are as good as ours. I only meant to provide a little perspective. How long do you think it would take to figure out if the weapons were willingly provided by the country you want to incinerate or if they were stolen? What if we got it wrong?

RMS--"My plan isincentive to safeguard nukes."

>>JGC: Threatening to annihilate millions of innocent people is a strong incentive, but it is based on fear, which may be effective but it also produces resentment. I would rather rely on positive incentives.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:54:59 AM PDT
Empress,
I say it based on the extremists past behavior. There isn't any horrific act that I can think of that they haven't at least tried to commit. They have tried to use chemical weapons in Iraq, but failed due to lack of knowledge and overage weapons. It's their very mindset to kill as many people that disagree with their twisted version of religion as possible, and dying killing, or even trying to kill, infidels is a non-stop ticket to heaven.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:55:54 AM PDT
Nat says:
Yeah notice how they are bashing Stalin for genocide? Go to hell. I went this yesterday you can go back but I'm not repeating myself

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 8:57:46 AM PDT
James,
Remember MAD? It worked. What kind of positive incentment could be offer the Pakistanis that we already aren't, and they still are actively supporting Al Queda and the Taliban?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:04:12 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
Ah--so you're the culprit! You were right, of course.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:17:24 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Nat says: "Yeah notice how they are bashing Stalin for genocide? Go to hell. I went this yesterday you can go back but I'm not repeating myself"

So? It is still a very biased site with no reliable information. He exaggerates fact to make his political point. Now I see where you are getting some of those wild claims of yours. Try some reputable historians for your information, not partisan hacks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:18:56 AM PDT
Nat says:
I think you are the bias one

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:28:45 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Nat says: "I think you are the bias one"

I'm not the one taking my information from such a biased source. I try to determine reasonable facts. No reputable scholars accept anything close to the numbers on your web site.

I can't even find where the guys tells his name. He says he is a political scientist--probably a member of the Caucus for a New Political Science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:31:26 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
Mr. Smith--"Remember MAD? It worked."

>>JGC: I sure do. I also remember drills in school about what to do if we were subjected to a nuclear attack. It did not inspire great confidence in the future. I am also aware that, in addition to the Cuban missile crisis, the US and Russia have come very close to launching a nuclear attack on at least four occasions, in response to a perceived attack by the other. The situation we are talking about now is quite different from the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the US had the power to destroy the other as a functioning society, so massive retaliation and launch-on-warning made some sense, in a strange sort of way. No wannabe nuclear state and not terrorist presents that kind of threat today and to threaten massive retaliation for a terrorist attack just reinforces the image of the US as a nuclear-armed bully.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:33:01 AM PDT
RMS: Remember MAD? It worked.

BPL: It worked, but it was unethical. Carter changed the national strategy to one of counterforce attacks, and Reagan tried missile defense. Those also worked (as strategies, whether or not we can ever get Star Wars working).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:53:37 AM PDT
James,
Even a small nuke in a densly populated city like Manhatten, Chicago or San Francisco could kill millions by direct and indirect effects. Terrorists are actually a larger threat than the old Soviets were because they don't care about retaliation. The people killed would either be infidels unworthy of notice, or believers killed in jihad and go to heaven. Would you be willing to take those kind of casualties and not retaliate on the country that built the weapon and allowed it to get into terrorist hands? At least that policy could make governments think a little before enabling terrorists to use WMD.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 9:57:55 AM PDT
BPL,
I agree, but as a practical matter, how do you defend against a nuke, or Chemical weapon smuggled into the US? Most containers are never inspected at ports of entry. For that matter it wouldn't be hard to attach a gravity bomb nuke or chemical dispersal bomb to the keel of a sail boat and sail it right into Marina Del Rey in Los Angeles or another major harbor on the east or west coasts. The shape would be streamlined and not slow the boat down noticeably.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 10:44:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 15, 2012 10:44:32 AM PDT
RMS: how do you defend against a nuke, or Chemical weapon smuggled into the US?

BPL: That's the responsibility of NEST, the Nuclear Emergency Support Team of the US Department of Energy. Of the 125 nuclear emergencies since President Ford created NEST in 1975, only 30 warranted investigation, and all turned out to be hoaxes. However, when an emergency is declared, NEST gets priority in US airspace (call sign "FLYNET"). They can scramble their detector teams within minutes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 10:57:55 AM PDT
BPl,
They respond when someone thinks they have found a nuke, or evidence of one being close. I'm talking about one or more being smuggled into the country. Our system is wide open.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 11:12:07 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
Mr. Smith--"Terrorists are actually a larger threat than the old Soviets were because they don't care about retaliation."

>>JGC: Well, terrorists are a different kind of threat. I agree they are far crazier than the Soviets, but the Soviets had something like 10,000 nuclear warheads, including thermonuclear weapons with yields in the range of 50 megatons--all on ready alert.

RMS--"Would you be willing to take those kind of casualties and not retaliate on the country that built the weapon and allowed it to get into terrorist hands?"

>>JGC: I wouldn't automatically be opposed to a proportionate response. However, you are talking about massive retaliation on an entire country (I believe the word you used was "incinerate"). Pakistan for example, has a population of 150,000,000, most of whom would be entirely innocent.

RMS--"At least that policy could make governments think a little before enabling terrorists to use WMD."

>>JGC: I think they have major disincentives to giving terrorists WMDs right now, including Israel's 100-200 nuclear weapons, in the case of Iran.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 3:46:23 PM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
They still have to get one and go completely undected while they bring it into the country.
The moment one goes missing the US would go on high alert and be looking for it.
So would the rest of the world.
The US isn't the only country that has enemies.
Both China and Russia have enemies as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 15, 2012 11:57:14 PM PDT
Dragonwolf,
How would we know when one or more nukes goes missing? Pakistan certainly wouldn't tell us, they wouldn't even tell us Bin Ladin was living there in plain sight. North Korea wouldn't tell us the sky was blue or water was wet. I think either country would provide any weapon to terrorists to use against us if they even thought they had a miniscule chance of getting away with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 5:27:35 AM PDT
Dragonwolf says:
Why would we rely on what Pakistan tells us?
Their is a reason we have an intelligence community.
North Korea barely has anything and I'm guessing China is watching them.
A nuke going off anywhere could set off a nuclear war, China and Russia don't want that either.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 10:03:09 AM PDT
Nat says:
He wasn't in plain site. The doctor the conspired for the CIA to get the DNA from that compound got 30 years and OBL's wives got 2 for being there illegally. Nice try but no cookie
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
3779 1 day ago
"You have sacrificed nothing. And no one." 86 1 second ago
Trump polling high with Uneducated White Men 15 1 second ago
Rasmussen: Trump up by +7 points! 432 37 seconds ago
The DNC Is Clearly, and Angrily Divided! 6 1 minute ago
Chelsea Clinton is a cow. When did she get so damn fat? 106 1 minute ago
President Obama's Speech is the one of the Best Political Speeches in Modern History 274 3 minutes ago
Pence Tries to Cover for Trump's Embarrassing Invite to Russia 158 4 minutes ago
Donald Trump is a Pig. When did He get so Damned Fat? 0 4 minutes ago
All the News Anti-Israel Posters do not care to read or discuss 2715 12 minutes ago
I'm not sure that Mike Pence knows who he is running with 41 12 minutes ago
I miss the Very Reverend Father Benjamin Harris Tyrone Topley DDS 2546 20 minutes ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  624
Initial post:  Apr 24, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions