Article

2008-08-14 Terror Networks

Islamist forum member proposes poisoning Euro water supplies

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-14 09:40|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 It would be grand to announce a "genocide for genocide" decision, to whit, that if Islamists somehow manage to commit a successful act of large scale mass murder against a western nation, that a Muslim nation "most dear" to the attackers will have every Muslim within killed to a ratio of at least 10:1 for every westerner murdered. Most likely using neutron weapons.

And from that point, on those now empty lands, every mosque, artifact and Muslim sacred place will be destroyed, and that land shall become the playground and possession of the attacked western nation. And Muslims shall be forever forbidden from setting foot in that land again.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-08-14 10:13|| 2008-08-14 10:13|| Front Page Top

#2 That would take an insane amount of poison. Hard to stay under the radar while dumping an entire box truck full of white powder into the local reservoir.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-14 10:14|| 2008-08-14 10:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Anonymoose, I thought the idea of blowing up a major muslim site every time they launch an attack was brilliant also. Starting with the big cube.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-14 10:15|| 2008-08-14 10:15|| Front Page Top

#4 bigjim - that depends on whether they use chem poison or a biological

Posted by lotp 2008-08-14 10:22|| 2008-08-14 10:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Aren't biologicals usually killed when chlorine is added to the intake water?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-14 10:29|| 2008-08-14 10:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Depends on where it is inserted.

Posted by lotp 2008-08-14 10:31|| 2008-08-14 10:31|| Front Page Top

#7 so genocide for genocide is an acceptable comment?

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-14 10:36|| 2008-08-14 10:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Even an ineffective attack would cause mass panic

Posted by john frum 2008-08-14 10:36|| 2008-08-14 10:36|| Front Page Top

#9 I hate to mention this, and maybe I shouldn't.
Let me just say there are no values between my sink faucet and the water supply. Only the water pressure to overcome.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 10:38|| 2008-08-14 10:38|| Front Page Top

#10 that should read 'no valves'

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 10:39|| 2008-08-14 10:39|| Front Page Top

#11 Gonna make it a little tricky to change that faucet. I'm guessing there's an underground shut-off valve out at the street that you don't know about.

Posted by Darrell 2008-08-14 10:47|| 2008-08-14 10:47|| Front Page Top

#12 I know about it, and it is open.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 10:50|| 2008-08-14 10:50|| Front Page Top

#13 I've never seen a European use tap water for anything other than bathing or cooking. Bottled mineral water is everywhere.

I've got the "best" Pur filters on most of my sink taps, although not on the refrigerator ice maker. I think I'll call Procter & Gamble's 800-number and ask how much I should worry.

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-14 10:51|| 2008-08-14 10:51|| Front Page Top

#14 Pumping contaminants up-line isn't going to get you very far. You would need a lot of flow as well as pressure because the pipes get bigger as you go up-line. And the local pipes will break under the higher pressure needed to reverse the larger flows. My guess is that you could damage your block that way, but that's about all.

Posted by Darrell 2008-08-14 10:52|| 2008-08-14 10:52|| Front Page Top

#15 Sooner or later some Muslim is gonna come up with a weaponized small pox variant. He's gonna hit Israel and the Palestinians will be effected and it will spread. The Islamic world will die because they have few modern hospitals and the western world will inoculate itself before others.

And they will probably blame Israel to their dying breath.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-08-14 10:55|| 2008-08-14 10:55|| Front Page Top

#16 Luckily many genocidal fanatics are technical idiots and propose unfeasible attacks. They out themselves without doing any damage.

Posted by Darrell 2008-08-14 10:55|| 2008-08-14 10:55|| Front Page Top

#17 They really do love their megadeath wet dreams, don't they?

Posted by tu3031 2008-08-14 10:57|| 2008-08-14 10:57|| Front Page Top

#18 so genocide for genocide is an acceptable comment?

From Amonymoose, Yes. From you, no! BTW, supergal, supergalitz, superGalitzian...etc., or whatever you're calling yourself this troll deposit. Pick. A. Name! And then stick with it.

Posted by GDLotA9226 2008-08-14 10:59|| 2008-08-14 10:59|| Front Page Top

#19 You have to factor in sarcasm and ironic humor when reading posts here supergalitz. It may not always come off as being humor, but there are no genocidal psychos here as far as I know.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-14 11:04|| 2008-08-14 11:04|| Front Page Top

#20 Except me.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-14 11:06|| 2008-08-14 11:06|| Front Page Top

#21 Whoever did that first reply, if it was intended as ironic humor, well they shouldnt count on a career in standup comedy. Read it. I see no hint of humor or irony. It reads pretty straight.

Im not sure why you are sure there are no genocidal psychos here.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-14 11:08|| 2008-08-14 11:08|| Front Page Top

#22 to #21
All humans have the right to defend themselves, and the best defense is usually offense.
The non-Muslim world is not here to be victimize.

Posted by lena">lena 2008-08-14 11:25|| I can not wait this little dictator leave this world forever.]">[I can not wait this little dictator leave this world forever.] 2008-08-14 11:25|| Front Page Top

#23 Darrell, I agree, limited and uncontrolled results, but for panic purposes, it's there, out in the open, and everywhere.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 11:26|| 2008-08-14 11:26|| Front Page Top

#24 SG: genocide for genocide comments are not appropriate if serious. As a moderator I will redact them.

Moose was engaged in hyperbole, a time-honored tradition here. It helps to know the players.

Speaking of knowing the players, I'm not too impressed with you so far. You're new here. Show some humility. Consider that friendly advice.

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-14 11:27|| 2008-08-14 11:27|| Front Page Top

#25 I believe strongly in the right to self defense. I also strongly believe in the right to do so by offense, attacking the enemys ability to attack you. I consider that right, even when there is risk of collateral damage to civilians.

What was proposed here is a revenge attack designed to kill civilians (many of them completely innocent. Its just the kind of thing jihadi terrorists do, and that we rightly call them barbarians for doing.

You may personally disagree with my values on this. I am asking a mod though if such advocacy is now acceptable here. In the past it has not been, ISTM.

Posted by supergalitz 2008-08-14 11:30|| 2008-08-14 11:30|| Front Page Top

#26 Thats me SW. I thought that was clear. I guess id better go back to my old nick.

Hyperbole, ok. Didnt read like it to me, as I state above. Also I doubt y'all would buy that excuse if he was, say, making a suggestion of bodily harm against POTUS.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:32|| 2008-08-14 11:32|| Front Page Top

#27 as info - i changed to superstitious galitizianer during the discussion of Zawahiris "death" for reasons that make sense if you know Jewish superstitions (never say things are good, it will attract the evil eye) I got lazy and didnt change it back, and then kinda liked it. Ive more than hinted at the change in several places, and even had a talk with TW about it.

I am sorry if it created confusion.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:35|| 2008-08-14 11:35|| Front Page Top

#28 500 years ago people in Europe believed that witches poisoned their water.

That didn't go well for the witches

Posted by Sherese Jones6358 2008-08-14 11:44|| 2008-08-14 11:44|| Front Page Top

#29 700 years ago in Western Europe they believed Jews poisoned the water. Thats how my ancestors ended up in EASTERN Europe.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:46|| 2008-08-14 11:46|| Front Page Top

#30 Ever though about combining the 2 nicks? SuperHawk has a nice ring to it.

Posted by ed 2008-08-14 11:46|| 2008-08-14 11:46|| Front Page Top

#31 LH: thanks for the clarification. Not only did the nym change but the writing style was different.

To be clear to all: serious calls for genocide will always be redacted. Snark and hyperbole will not. The difference is clear though at times exceedingly fine.

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-14 11:47|| 2008-08-14 11:47|| Front Page Top

#32 I'll say this LH. Under your new nym, you've made some outrageous comments. Far worse than anyone else posting over the last week. You're normally screwed up, but have you been on heavy chemical addiction for the past 7 days ? Just revving up for the Dummo conglomeration ? Or is this your true self bleeding thru ? In any case, your stoopid rantings are unappreciated. Lose yurself.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-08-14 11:51|| 2008-08-14 11:51|| Front Page Top

#33 30 LOL! might be a tad misleading

31 - Really? I thought it was fairly similar. I always write differently depending on my mood, and the Georgia thing has really affected my mood, perhaps more than it should. And I suppose I write differently on Russian affairs than I do on ME affairs, not only cause my mood is different, but more because my sense of where people here are on the topics is different - IE I guess I write differently when im relatively dovish by community standards, and when Im fairly hawkish by community standards. As youve never seen my writings in forums where im a relative hawk on the ME, you havent seen much of that side.

But my reactions on the issue in this thread are not really different, and I think expressed with more or less the same humorlessness as when I talked to dot.com long ago.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:54|| 2008-08-14 11:54|| Front Page Top

#34 thank you for your input WE, I will give it all the weight it deserves.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:55|| 2008-08-14 11:55|| Front Page Top

#35 Stick around and observe before you comment. If it gets overboard, the mods will deal with it. We're quite capable.

'kay?

Posted by Pappy 2008-08-14 11:57|| 2008-08-14 11:57|| Front Page Top

#36 you talking to me pappy? Ive been posting here since 2002.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 11:58|| 2008-08-14 11:58|| Front Page Top

#37 No, not you. It was a general comment.

Frankly, I like you better as LH. 'He' is not so much a self-righteous scold.

Posted by Pappy 2008-08-14 12:00|| 2008-08-14 12:00|| Front Page Top

#38 then you dont remember mer very well.

Its just that there havent been as many death to mooselimbs posts lately (partly due to world events, but partly due to the mods, I think), and ive tended to avoid the threads where they typically occur.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 12:03|| 2008-08-14 12:03|| Front Page Top

#39 BTW I fail to see anything I posted here that is 'self-righteous scolding'

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 12:06|| 2008-08-14 12:06|| Front Page Top

#40 supergalit Im not sure why you are sure there are no genocidal psychos here.

crunch.. crunch.. slurp.. slurp,

I loves me dead corpses especially the babies, 12 days dead..

crunch slurp crunch slurp

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2008-08-14 12:19|| 2008-08-14 12:19|| Front Page Top

#41 Dear liberalhawk has always had his Talmudic side. While I tend to enjoy such discussions, I can see why those not raised in the same tradition might find it a bit off-putting. I would be very interested to see a discussion where he is the right-most participant. Would you be so kind as to email me a link the next time it occurs, liberalhawk? Thanks!

Some non-genocidal psychos, here, too. And non-genocidal non-psychos, and... ;-)

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-08-14 12:27|| 2008-08-14 12:27|| Front Page Top

#42 tw, i prefer as a general rule to keep my online personas seperate. Ive commented under this nick on a few blogs from time to time - those where I was among the hawkish leaners (not the same as rightwing, BTW) include Belgravia Dispatch, Tacitus, and The Moderate Voice. Oh, and Oxblog. I havent posted on Tacitus in a LONG time, and the TMV got way too cluttered as well as largely falling into BDS. Belgravia (a "realist") got fairly nasty after the Leb war, and also suffered from BDS. ANd then went quiet. Hes back now, attacking the white haired dude about Georgia. Im over there attacking Russia, but also citing the Chosen one, so i may not look very "right wing" in my comments.

Oxblog was about the best for pol blog out there (and very close, to my own positions - well other than Taylor Marsh, whos definitely to my "left" though generally not a BDS sufferer), and its main disadvantage vs RB was its low volume, and tendency to spend too much time on obscure qs of interest only to political science academics. Its basically dead now.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 12:54|| 2008-08-14 12:54|| Front Page Top

#43 On the subject of genocidal fantasies. I have one about a Tunguska event over Mecca in the middle of Ramadan. It wouldn't matter if it were a natural event or not, because Arab/Moslem conspiracy theories would go into mega-overdrive.

Posted by phil_b 2008-08-14 12:58|| 2008-08-14 12:58|| Front Page Top

#44 I DONT post except very rarely to the places like Yglesias or Atrios - while theoretically more moderate than Kos or DU, I still cant stand them. They are too far to one side for me to maintain my sanity there - Little Green Footballs would an example the other way (too far right to hang out at).

There really is a deficity of centrist liberal hawkish blogs. Bull Moose was good, if limited, but its gone. TMV is a multiple person blog and one or two were liberal hawks sans BDS, but like I said, the most prolific bloggers there have very bad BDS. Winds of Change is about as rightwing as here, but Armed Liberal who was one of the group bloggers there was close to my positions. he has somewhat different concerns though - hes a bit more left on economics, more right on gun control (hence his nick) and spends alot of time on issues of little concern to me.

The logical thing would be to start my own blog, but ive resisted the temptation.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 13:01|| 2008-08-14 13:01|| Front Page Top

#45 phil_p - I always thought the Project Thor concept needed a major rethinking and upgrading..
Deniable "small tungsten meteors" are really a nice asset - if only used at moments worthy of such an omen and no claim of use.

Posted by 3dc 2008-08-14 13:08|| 2008-08-14 13:08|| Front Page Top

#46 #44 LH --

obviously there's a need for it -- why not step up to the plate and fill it?

Posted by Querent 2008-08-14 13:20|| 2008-08-14 13:20|| Front Page Top

#47 There have been many threads in the past several years covering the potential responses to an islamo-terrorist mass casualty event in a western nation. An overwhelming response that did not consider civilian casualties a deterrent to undertaking that response has usually been a part of the discussion. That said, Anonymoose's description does appear more clinical and exacting, thus far more morally bankrupt, than a general overwhelming response.

Posted by remoteman 2008-08-14 13:30|| 2008-08-14 13:30|| Front Page Top

#48 3dc, while there has been much speculative fiction on how the Earth could stop a meteorite/comet impact, no one seems to have considered the opposite, deliberately targeting an asteroid at a place on Earth. (Excepting Footfall which had aliens doing it)

There are a lot of near Earth objects out there in space. All it would take is a fairly small nudge is the right (wrong) direction.

Posted by phil_b 2008-08-14 13:37|| 2008-08-14 13:37|| Front Page Top

#49 Today we discuss the possibility that members of the superior religion, the religion of blood and death, will kill, indiscriminately, any and all Europeans who intake water. We have not outlawed the practice of this blood cult. We have not opened dialog on the pros and cons of this blood cult. Instead, we tiptoe around the forbidden words. Retreating, ever retreating from macho violence into the vanilla land of appeasment and eventually, dhimmitude.
Doesn't the State Dept want to outlaw words ? Don't universities provide foot baths and exclusive prayer rooms ? Is our culture soon to go the way of Europe ? Are we still welcoming them into America for their glorious future ?
When you can no longer say what you want to say, then pull the trigger, all is lost.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 14:11|| 2008-08-14 14:11|| Front Page Top

#50 then you dont remember mer very well.

Probably not. I was more... engaged in my profession... six years ago.

BTW I fail to see anything I posted here that is 'self-righteous scolding'

I was 1) thinking of yesterday and 2) your interpretation may vary.

The logical thing would be to start my own blog, but ive resisted the temptation.

Pity.

Posted by Pappy 2008-08-14 14:12|| 2008-08-14 14:12|| Front Page Top

#51 In truth, my comment was more subtle than hyperbole, yet at the same time it was more the *threat* of extraordinary response, instead of the response itself: that is, the use of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

To explain: I have long seriously proposed an international interpolation to the MAD theory, that so effectively prevented a worldwide thermonuclear exchange during the Cold War. The idea being that lesser powers who had become nuclear weapons capable would be *threatened* by the major powers in the following manner:

If they dared to use their nuclear weapon against their hated enemy, most likely the "country next door", *before the fact*, they would be *warned* by the major powers that to do so would result in their destruction by the major powers.

The literal extermination of every life form in their nation with neutron bombs, *after* which, their entire nation would be given as reparations to the nation they had attacked with a nuclear weapon.

This might penetrate their thick skulls that not just would their lives, and that of their entire people be over; but an even more horrifying prospect, that their "stuff" would become the property of their hated enemy. As mind numbingly stupid as it sounds, this would matter to many of them even more than their lives, or the lives of their people.

As I have said, I have proposed this idea several times, not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, but to *prevent* the use of nuclear weapons. This is NOT calling for genocide, but to *prevent* genocide.

But that being said, the article mentions the contemplation of terrorists to commit a horrific act of mass murder, if not by using nuclear weapons, then by using a different "weapon of mass destruction."

I might add that neither the US nor Russia take the use of any weapons of mass destruction lightly. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are seen in much the same light, as are the means of escalation in their use, and the appropriate response.

For example, the US has long had the policy that if an enemy attacked a US airbase with chemical weapons in war, the US would be willing to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This is less a promise than a threat--do not use chemical weapons against our airfields.

Of course this is made far more difficult with the act of terrorism being made not by a nation, but by a religion, and most likely a subset of a religion. That is, the destruction of the WTC was carried out by Wahabbi terrorists from Saudi Arabia. The villain is not the nation of Saudi Arabia, but the Islamic sect of Wahabbism.

But even the destruction of the WTC and the resultant loss of life does not rise to the level of the use of WMD to commit an act of mass murder killing tens or hundreds of thousands.

It is the weapon itself as much as the act, that would almost certainly right now result in terrible retaliation, much like I described. For any nation to even permit Wahabbism in its territory at all after that would be like the Taliban sponsoring al-Qaeda. Intolerable.

We would direct the Saudis to both depose the Wahabbi regime in Saudi Arabia, or else we would, and we would kill them all with little reservation if they resisted at all. They would be stripped of all power and religious authority worldwide. And we would have no problem telling mosques that either they embrace a different sect of Islam, or they would be razed.

We would outlaw Wahabbism on a worldwide scale, with both an individual and group death penalty for its adherents who refused to publicly change their sect.

Again, we do not want to do this. It is a threat to keep terrorists from using WMDs against us.

I always objected to hyperbolic comments about turning Mecca into "a pool of glass" with a nuclear weapon. This is because fighting us, or even ordinary acts of terrorism do not rise anywhere near the level of WMD retaliation. It is out of the question.

However, we should issue fair warning to terrorists, that if they use WMDs against us, it is already our policy to retaliate with WMDs.

I also would like to add that even during the Cold War, while the Soviets reserved the use of their nuclear weapons to target military targets, the US pointedly targeted Soviet cities and civilian targets.

Therefore, the bottom line is that whenever some terrorists brag about using WMDs against us, we should be very clear that if they do, it is likely that everything they cherish will be annihilated in response.

This is not because we want to. It is a threat, pure and simple.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-08-14 14:55|| 2008-08-14 14:55|| Front Page Top

#52 " while the Soviets reserved the use of their nuclear weapons to target military targets, the US pointedly targeted Soviet cities and civilian targets."

Unless Im deeply mistaken, the USSR while it began to adopt a counterforce strategy against US strategic weapons, always targeted US cities. And the US, while refraining from targeting strategic weapons (as part of MAD doctrine) never refrained from targeting Soviet Military assets, and in fact always made the point that targeted cities included either military bases or economic assets important to warmaking ability.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-14 15:00|| 2008-08-14 15:00|| Front Page Top

#53 A detailed and thoughtful clarification of your earlier post Anonymoose. Thanks.

Clean up on aisle #53!!!

Posted by remoteman 2008-08-14 16:09|| 2008-08-14 16:09|| Front Page Top

#54 Phil_b, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Posted by Spike Uniter 2008-08-14 17:53|| 2008-08-14 17:53|| Front Page Top

#55 Sonofabitchin terrorists.

Posted by JohnQC 2008-08-14 18:13|| 2008-08-14 18:13|| Front Page Top

#56 Interesting, Moose.
The support of a threat is part of the reason we went to war in Iraq. Our invasion was the or else that Saddam Hussein had ignored for so long. When, therefore, is it acceptable by the agressor to execute the or else ? This question has an answer via Putin. When everyone is sitting down at the dinner table discussing the games. The American way would be after too many warnings and saber rattling and official negotiation conclusions. We cannot negotiate with Wahabbism any more than we can trust Pakistan. Maybe Putin's right, whack the hell outta them and see who really cares to defend them.
The world is really dangerous now and on the decline. Have a great day.

Posted by wxjames 2008-08-14 19:16|| 2008-08-14 19:16|| Front Page Top

#57 And we would have no problem telling mosques that either they embrace a different sect of Islam, or they would be razed.

No, I'm not willing to accept that. Taqqiyya and kitman make it impossible to believe Muzzies on most issues, and certainly not on this one. If Muslims commit an act of mass murder with WMDs, it will be time to ban the practice of Islam and either raze the mosques or turn them into museums. Forcible expulsion to Saudi combined with prior confiscation of all assets sounds like a reasonable penalty as well.

If that sounds harsh, you can bet that if such an attack with major casualties takes place, the retaliation I've proposed will look very moderate compared to a lot of the other alternatives that will be put forward afterward.

Posted by Spike Speaque2226 2008-08-14 20:15|| 2008-08-14 20:15|| Front Page Top

#58 In agreement with my namesake in the sense that is is Islam, it always was Islam. I would, though, seek some method... even gradual, how to eradicate Islam. Expulsions means shuffling the problem. Switching from a sect to a sect means sweeping the problem under the rug where it would, one day, gain its virulence again. I want it to be gone, at some point, utterly, no more, nada, zippo, zilch.

Disclaimer: Plese note I say Islam, not muslims--meaning people that currently adhere to that creed.

Posted by Spike Uniter 2008-08-14 20:38|| 2008-08-14 20:38|| Front Page Top

#59 Back in the early 'fifties any one of influence who did anything to enable the USSR to end the US nuclear monopoly, earned the "traitor" label. Within a couple of years that tag is attaching to each and every malfeasant in office, who indulged proliferation among the Clash enemy. Islam isn't peace; it is the worst form of slavery ever imposed on humanity. And they despise us, by divine order.

Posted by McZoid 2008-08-14 20:51|| 2008-08-14 20:51|| Front Page Top

23:53 ArmyLife
23:50 ArmyLife
23:45 KBK
23:37 MoreScotch4Me
23:34 ArmyLife
23:23 MoreScotch4Me
23:08 badanov
23:05 Richard Aubrey
22:54 ArmyLife
22:39 ArmyLife
22:38 ArmyLife
22:36 ArmyLife
22:33 ArmyLife
22:30 DanNY
22:23 Spike Uniter
22:21 ArmyLife
22:20 Besoeker
22:13 Glenmore
22:11 Procopius2k
22:08 Mad Eye Flalet9204
21:49 Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields
21:45 Abdominal Snowman
21:38 Hupusong Hatfield aka Broadhead6
21:35 Spike Speaque2226