No terrorist anywhere has ever used a dirty bomb.
The US army is still the only military body of any kind to have used nuclear weapons on anyone.
~~
And the rest of your post was just as hysterical. Terrorism is a tactic, used in measured doses to produce a calculated effect in support of a political cause.
I’m sure there are soldiers who enjoy killing just as there may be terrorists who feel the same, but the “joy in killing” theory is the product of panic, not reason or observation.
Yes, genocide is worse, especially in scope, and the matter in question, of Andrew Jackson’s forced Removal, while perhaps not genocide per se, was definitely an action in that direction.
There’s little doubt that terrorists would use dirty bombs or other WMD of any and every kind, as I said, “if they were available.” The US being first to use nuclear weapons has little bearing on who the next one will be, or when, or how, or on who. The reality, not the hysteria, is that it will happen.
Terrorism, being a tactic, has little to no bearing on the size of the weapon used during the demonstration. The term, “measured doses” has no limit, and therefore is of no practical use as we contemplate the real possibilities. It’s naive to think that the size of a shoe, a suitcase, a vest, an automobile, or even a rocket has any relation to the dose, when detonated, or the destructive potential that might be available to a terrorist in the near future. Reaction to what that might be is no alternative, esp to the dimmer of wit.
Said support always has been pretty much a ‘flag of convenience’ arrangement. (Except for Celtic and Rangers of course.)
Um, Muslim is a religion, and there are many muslims in the U.S., who are indeed in their country.
I guess by your thinking, we should send ALL Irish Catholics to Ireland, all Jews to Israel, etc? What about the Catholics, Quakers, Episcopaleans, (I guess we can send them to the U.K.). A lot of these folks were born in the U.S, and are U.S. citizens.
Tom
Yup, which is why it is a totally preposterous idea to hold a huge group of people responsible for the actions of an extremist minority.
I didn’t think my post needed a smiley.
Mukade
I was wondering when somebody would point out the true meaning of your post 
I got it first time and cannot believe how it has been misunderstood by so many.
Slan,
D.
There’s little doubt that terrorists would use dirty bombs or other WMD of any and every kind, as I said, “if they were available.” The US being first to use nuclear weapons has little bearing on who the next one will be, or when, or how, or on who. The reality, not the hysteria, is that it will happen.
Terrorism, being a tactic, has little to no bearing on the size of the weapon used during the demonstration. The term, “measured doses” has no limit, and therefore is of no practical use as we contemplate the real possibilities.
You’ve been carried away by the hype. There’s a great deal of doubt about terrorist’s use of nuclear weapons, supposing they had them.
Terrorism, as I said, is the weapon of the nearly powerless. It’s only used by people who have no better or more direct means of getting their way.
If you’re NOT nearly powerless–if you have the kind of real power that posession of a nuclear weapon provides–then whole other, much more effective vistas of opportunity open up before you.
With the bomb, you don’t have to go around staging violent stunts and absorbing crushing counter-strikes, hoping that your opponant’s overreaction will change the balance of power in your favour.
If you have the bomb, you can retire to some corner of the world and announce that your enemies should leave you the heck alone, because you are now a government.
~~
And if you really do have a bomb, they will.
~~
Once again, despite the hype, the only thing even a bit like a dirty bomb which has ever been deployed is the US’s use of depleted uranium shells.
Advanced torrorism awareness includes allowing for possible tactics and methods we never imagined or thought probable. Surely the sand piles are not so high that for lack of vision we would need to label prudence as hype.
“The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material.”[NYT, 10/25/04]
It may not seal the case in everyone’s mind, but several months ago, the New York Times revealed that the Bush Administration failed to secure nearly 380 tons of high-grade explosives in Iraq shortly after the United States took control over the country, despite being informed of their exact location. The failure to secure the explosives has led to three major concerns:
The weapons could end up or have already ended up in the hands of a terrorist group;
The explosives might be used against our troops on the ground; and
The explosives could be used to carry out a deadly attack against America or our allies.
Can anyone afford to let this type of oversight happen again, perhaps with other weapons of greater consequence?
Why? It wouldn’t surprise me if that view was held by quite a few folks- not necessarily here, but throught the U.S.