--Apparently, the plot goes all the way back to 1996, and originally involved 10 planes on both coasts.
--By 1999, thanks to visa problems, the plot had modified to become simultaneous attacks on the US and East Asia. The following year, it got whittled down to just America.
--There was supposed to have been a second wave of attacks right after the first, more than likely in East Asia, run by al-Qaeda-linked Islamic terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (the same ones believed responsible for the Bali bombing.)
Regarding the nuclear option I do wonder though, if they had hit 10 seperate targets, and pulled a body count of say 25,000 to 30,000 people, does anyone think Bush could have resisted pushing the button?
Originally posted by spf2119Regarding the nuclear option I do wonder though, if they had hit 10 seperate targets, and pulled a body count of say 25,000 to 30,000 people, does anyone think Bush could have resisted pushing the button?
(edited by spf2119 on 22.9.03 1433)
If they had hit the Capitol Building and the White House he might have had no choice but to play the nuclear card, especially in the mountainous regions along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Time to do a Red Sox pennant chase supply list: Arsenic: check. Cyanide: check. Booze: check. Fully loaded gun for full chamber Russian Roulette: check. Ok, I'm prepared, let the pennant race commence.
No one's going to drop a nuke on a mountain in Pakistan. It's terribly inelegant, and who knows if it will hit it's target? I'm more of the mind that we would have nuked Riyadh, if anything. Bush might be willing to cover up Saudi involvement with a death toll of 3,000 and promises of cooperation, but a death toll upwards of 25,000? We would have rolled through the mid east like a steamroller. Hell, if there was less resistance to it at home, we might have rolled through the mideast anyway.
Hold up, y'all. I wasn't seriously suggesting we start lobbing A-bombs. I'm just still angry enough at Al-Qaeda to do it...but no, nukes aren't on the table. Too big, too many civilian casualties, and too big repurcussions.
That's a tough call. I was all set to say "As long as their bias doesnt effect how they report actual news events they are covering, I dont have a probelm if they decide to let me know how they feel about that particular news event.