Imus in the Hot Seat

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]426646[/snapback]</div>

Berman, try reading the book "The Sum of All Fears". It's about some nuclear scientists that defected from Russia, built a bomb for some madmen, and blew it up in the US. If you pay very close attention to the book, you'll notice that the moronic president almost starts WWIII without knowing all the facts. Once the facts are known, he takes the appropriate action to hunt down the people who were actually responsible.

But by all means berman, use whatever excuses you can find for your trigger happy finger. ignore the fact that instructions for building nuclear weapons have been available on the internet for 15 years. Ignore the fact that other nations facilities aren't as secure as ours. Ignore the fact that there are known quantities of nuclear material unaccounted for, whereabouts unknown.

Ignore these facts all you want. If it comes down to it and you and your conservative buddies pull the trigger on WWIII, we'll know who really hates America, the World, and all of Mankind.
[/b]
Click to expand...

step off the soap box - answer my question. and when does hate legitamize the use of WMD's? but answer my question above - or can you? perhaps another one of my traps you will fall into????

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

The proper procedure for participating on a message board:

1. Read.
2. Comprehend.
3. Respond.

Might i suggest you're missing one of the first two steps? Your question was answered. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear.

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]426680[/snapback]</div>

The proper procedure for participating on a message board:

1. Read.
2. Comprehend.
3. Respond.
Might i suggest you're missing one of the first two steps? Your question was answered. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear.
[/b]
Click to expand...

may i suggest you just answer my question.

a recap ...

a saudi national terrorist obtains a nuclear device made in iran and detonates it in manhattan killing said terrorist and one hundred thousand americans +++. your response please.....

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

My response was, for the comprehension impaired amongst us, that we should find those responsible. Not attack a foreign nation whose only crime was poor security measures.

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]426696[/snapback]</div>

My response was, for the comprehension impaired amongst us, that we should find those responsible. Not attack a foreign nation whose only crime was poor security measures.
[/b]
Click to expand...

ok for the record the one terrorist is gone, 100,000 americans are dead and you as POTUS is done - no response. i guess you would just grieve and mourn the dead and seek out why it was done - but you know why - because he hated us like everyone else does.

COOL.

give me 30 terrorists and i have destroyed the US of A - good going genius. something the russians would never have attempted or completed - or any enemy of the US of A - until you were president. just tell me who you are voting for in '08 so i can stay away.

you just lowered the threshold for MASS MURDER of Americans to ZERO. perhaps you should rethink your current position??

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

So by all means, lets launch every nuke we've got, and destroy the world.

Your willingness to engage in armed conflicts with foreign nations for reasons that aren't connected to them scares me, Berman. In it, i see our own eventual destruction, and the destruction of the entire world.

livelychick · Apr 20, 2007

Wait--Imus is responsible for terrorism? Or he isn't? We're nuking Imus? When'd that happen?

Of course, JK, but I left this thread for a bit, come back, and see that it's now turned into another "Dr Evil taking over the world" thread. Looks like someone took a hard right turn at Albequerque. (from Bugs Bunny).

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]426708[/snapback]</div>

In it, i see our own eventual destruction, and the destruction of the entire world.
[/b]
Click to expand...

the destruction is not eventual with you at the helm. seems to me MAD worked well forever - that is until we face this enemy that relishes death - you may want to noodle that.

so you would bury what is left of 100,000+ americans and ONE terrorist and call it a day. this is why a large % of us Americans do not want you and your fellow dems/liberals in control of our security.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 20 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]426755[/snapback]</div>

Wait--Imus is responsible for terrorism? Or he isn't?

[/b]
Click to expand...

i think alec baldwin - another lib - showing his true colors again. another phony baloney hollier than thou limosine liberal.

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

Ok berman, what would you do if a terrorist came here and blew up a city with a nuke?

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]426865[/snapback]</div>

Ok berman, what would you do if a terrorist came here and blew up a city with a nuke?
[/b]
Click to expand...

in my scenario above - i would have taken out iran in short. in long, i would have pre-warned the world any use of wmd's on american soil that is linked to islamoterrorism will be met with a response that would target the country the weapon was produced in and i would retain the right to flatten mecca and or medina. if the islamoterrorists did not respect life-either theirs or my citizenz-they should respect their holy sites because that is what i would target too.

obviously the group or groups responsible would be hunted down and eliminated - any country that housed them, that supported them, that gave them aid or comfort are now my enemies and a state of war now exists. i would reserve the right to violate their territory to hunt down the bad guys and if i had evidence of state sponsorship of the terrorists i reserve the right to take down that govt.

my response would be direct, overwhelming, massive, and potentially as indiscriminate as theirs.

and

the second use of wmds on american soil would be met with a response that would be exponentially greater than my initial response.

i would not tolerate 1 dead american due to islamoterrorists on american soil much less 100,000+

airportkid · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 05:02 AM) [snapback]426615[/snapback]</div>

What are you going to do, just bury the million americans or the remains of those that can be buried and stop since the bad guy is done too?[/b]
Click to expand...

What's obvious, Dr. Berman, is that there's some threshold of carnage (which, I do not know, based on prior posts of yours is about 1,000 corpses) beyond which nothing less than doubling or tripling or quadrupling that number of corpses, regardless of involvement, just so long as they're foreign, is to your mind the ONLY conceivable response. Thankfully that attitude is relatively rare else mankind would never have survived itself more than two or three months after coming down out of the trees.

Dr. Berman, you're very fond of posing loaded rhetorical questions. Here's one for you:

What should have been our response to 9/11 had it been discovered that all 19 hijackers were Timothy McVeighs?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 20 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]426928[/snapback]</div>

What's obvious, Dr. Berman, is that there's some threshold of carnage (which, I do not know, based on prior posts of yours is about 1,000 corpses) beyond which nothing less than doubling or tripling or quadrupling that number of corpses, regardless of involvement, just so long as they're foreign, is to your mind the ONLY conceivable response. Thankfully that attitude is relatively rare else mankind would never have survived itself more than two or three months after coming down out of the trees.

Dr. Berman, you're very fond of posing loaded rhetorical questions. Here's one for you:

What should have been our response to 9/11 had it been discovered that all 19 hijackers were Timothy McVeighs?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA
[/b]
Click to expand...

a good question. i have not spent a lot of time contemplating that. my gut reaction would be to empower federal authorities to search out that specific group and similar groups and eliminate them and insure they did not have support from outside our borders. i would use whatever means possible under the law to do so .

btw my magic # for death and dying in terms of innocent americans has been met already - i think the 3,000 from 9/11 is more than enough to justify our response(s).

how about you with my prior scenario - an islamoterrorist sets off an iranian produced nuke in manhattan and murders 100,000+ americans and he himself meets his 72 virgins?

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

Now how about this: Lets say the nuclear material was found to be of American origin (believe it or not, there is some of that unaccounted for currently). Then what do you do?

Berman, your response above would be met with outrage from nearly the entire world. Your threats of flattening their holy land would not only outrage them, but everyone else. You would make every individual who holds any respect for those lands into an Enemy of the US.

If anything like that happened, i would leave the country, because i can promise you it would only lead to much more bloodshed on American soil.

dbermanmd · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 20 2007, 04:26 PM) [snapback]426952[/snapback]</div>

Now how about this: Lets say the nuclear material was found to be of American origin (believe it or not, there is some of that unaccounted for currently). Then what do you do?

Berman, your response above would be met with outrage from nearly the entire world. Your threats of flattening their holy land would not only outrage them, but everyone else. You would make every individual who holds any respect for those lands into an Enemy of the US.

If anything like that happened, i would leave the country, because i can promise you it would only lead to much more bloodshed on American soil.
[/b]
Click to expand...

first - you have ABSOLUTELY NO OUTRAGE FOR THE 100,000 DEAD AMERICANS - but you have sensitivity for what the rest of the world thinks about our response - that says all you need to know about your thinking.

second - i look forward to your moving to some other country - we dont need people here who do not value american lives above the feelings of foreigners - many of which want to diminish if not destroy this country - good bye and good riddance.

second A - manhattan to me as POTUS is Holy Land and as holy to me as Mecca or Medina is to Muslims - we pray to different Gods i guess - my god cherishes life - theirs does not.

second B - trust me - when you refer to more bloodshed - you are right - and as POTUS i would do my best to make sure it is their blood on their land - trust me on that one. your perverted views of not protecting or responding to the mass murder of 100,000+ americans makes more bloodshed here a guarantee - my way - they will have little doubt in their mind death and destruction will be hurtling their way - big time.

third - do some more research - you need more than nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb go boom bro. perhaps if you say its a stolen american nuke i can go with that scenario -.

i am going to head home while you read on nuclear technology and weapons construction. to start - read about what IRAN is doing now and the complaints brought by the UN for their violations to date.... i hope you got the irony here....

eagle33199 · Apr 20, 2007

Take a deep breath. calm down. Let out some of the anger.

I never said i wouldn't be outraged. I simply stated that i would ensure those responsible paid for it, and not plunge the country into a war against a religion with 1.4 billion followers.

You do some research, Berman. Over the past 30 years or so things have gotten better, but America had some of the worst inventory control and security precautions on the planet. There's probably enough nuclear material unaccounted for to make a dozen nuclear bombs.

But you don't seem to care about that. Instead, you're going to continue to spout off about the need to attack a country that has stated its desire to develop nuclear energy, not weapons.

airportkid · Apr 20, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]426936[/snapback]</div>

A good question.[/b]
Click to expand...

You're damn right it's a good question. It's a question that should have been asked on 9/12.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]426936[/snapback]</div>

I have not spent a lot of time contemplating that.[/b]
Click to expand...

It is to mankind's everlasting sorrow that no one did, or does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]426936[/snapback]</div>

My gut reaction would be to empower federal authorities to search out that specific group and similar groups and eliminate them, using whatever means possible under the law to do so.[/b]
Click to expand...

You wouldn't bomb Montana for harboring such a group? As an object lesson to those careless Montanans to be more vigilant about letting miscreants plot and operate on their soil? Why not? Too likely that more innocents would be needlessly killed?

Your gut reaction here sounds reasonable - you're even careful to avoid irrational emotionalism and confine your response to what's legal. I commend it. But then you get derailed:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]426936[/snapback]</div>

I'd insure they did not have support from outside our borders.[/b]
Click to expand...

This is xenophobia crippling your judgement. Let's say they're supported by a network of thousands of domestic subscribers all across states from Washington to Maine to Florida to Hawaii. This focus on whether support was foreign or domestic is a pointless distraction. Suppose you find that ten of those thousands of subscribers were Iranian shopkeepers. Would that give you license to bomb Tehran, killing thousands of innocent Iranians, while continuing non-violent police apprehensions in the United States (an operation hobbled by your diverting huge resources to discover IF there were any foreign involvement)?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]426936[/snapback]</div>

How about you with my prior scenario - a terrorist sets off an Iranian produced nuclear device in Manhattan and murders 100,000+ Americans and he himself meets his 72 virgins?[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm not like you, Dr. Berman. To me they aren't 100,000 dead AMERICANS, they're 100,000 dead HUMAN BEINGS. So going out and making MORE dead HUMAN BEINGS is not a response I'd find anything but just as stupidly barbaric as the original atrocity. I would not summarily bomb Iran as an object lesson to those careless Iranians who let a terrorist plot and operate on their soil, just as you (presumably) would not bomb the careless Montanans. Committing mass murder as a message that you disapprove of committing mass murder is the very definition of psychotic lunacy.

So I would do what your gut told you in the Tim McVeigh scenario: put together a police action to seek out and neutralize any remaining support, irrespective of whether such support was domestic or foreign or both, which would mean assembling an international cooperative/coordinated police force (now there's an idea desperately overdue) and, ABOVE ALL, don't litter the landscape with even MORE CORPSES tearing up the world in a blind, stupid rage.

By the way, suppose our 19 Tim McVeighs had flown their four Boeings into the holy city of Mecca on 9/11, leveling it? Would I see Dr. Berman out atop the Empire State Building on 9/12, waving in Saudi Arabian fighter bombers to bomb Manhattan in just and deserved retribution?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

dbermanmd · Apr 23, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 20 2007, 05:15 PM) [snapback]426984[/snapback]</div>

You're damn right it's a good question. It's a question that should have been asked on 9/12.

It is to mankind's everlasting sorrow that no one did, or does.

You wouldn't bomb Montana for harboring such a group? As an object lesson to those careless Montanans to be more vigilant about letting miscreants plot and operate on their soil? Why not? Too likely that more innocents would be needlessly killed?

Your gut reaction here sounds reasonable - you're even careful to avoid irrational emotionalism and confine your response to what's legal. I commend it. But then you get derailed:

This is xenophobia crippling your judgement. Let's say they're supported by a network of thousands of domestic subscribers all across states from Washington to Maine to Florida to Hawaii. This focus on whether support was foreign or domestic is a pointless distraction. Suppose you find that ten of those thousands of subscribers were Iranian shopkeepers. Would that give you license to bomb Tehran, killing thousands of innocent Iranians, while continuing non-violent police apprehensions in the United States (an operation hobbled by your diverting huge resources to discover IF there were any foreign involvement)?

I'm not like you, Dr. Berman. To me they aren't 100,000 dead AMERICANS, they're 100,000 dead HUMAN BEINGS. So going out and making MORE dead HUMAN BEINGS is not a response I'd find anything but just as stupidly barbaric as the original atrocity. I would not summarily bomb Iran as an object lesson to those careless Iranians who let a terrorist plot and operate on their soil, just as you (presumably) would not bomb the careless Montanans. Committing mass murder as a message that you disapprove of committing mass murder is the very definition of psychotic lunacy.

So I would do what your gut told you in the Tim McVeigh scenario: put together a police action to seek out and neutralize any remaining support, irrespective of whether such support was domestic or foreign or both, which would mean assembling an international cooperative/coordinated police force (now there's an idea desperately overdue) and, ABOVE ALL, don't litter the landscape with even MORE CORPSES tearing up the world in a blind, stupid rage.

By the way, suppose our 19 Tim McVeighs had flown their four Boeings into the holy city of Mecca on 9/11, leveling it? Would I see Dr. Berman out atop the Empire State Building on 9/12, waving in Saudi Arabian fighter bombers to bomb Manhattan in just and deserved retribution?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA
[/b]
Click to expand...

Perhaps the crippled judgement is yours and your belief that we face a greater threat of WMD's being used on us from within than from without. Perhaps your current beliefs will make the probability of them being used on us from forces external to our borders more likely.

tell me, how do home grown terrorists get their hands on nukes made in the US of A?

the question still remains - what would you do to revenge the deaths of over 100,000 americans who died via a wmd attack on the US of A from externally made wmd's. send them a thank you note?

efusco · Apr 23, 2007

Dr. B,
You're evading the entire point of the question. That point being that the reaction to this external group is far different than if it were an internal/US based group with the same motives and means as what we're dealing with currently in the Middle East. You're trying to make him out as an anti-American to avoid dealing with the important question. IOW, is our response in Iraq practical, reasonable, rational to achieve the end we desire without undue loss of innocent life?

While construction of an all out military style nuclear weapon is, indeed, well outside the realm of likelihood for civilians the construction of a so-called dirty bomb is not. Nor is the widespread contamination of water and food sources with said nuclear material. Again, you're talking about terror as the actual weapon much more so than the actual physical damage or numerical loss of life. What one is looking for is the impact on the lives of the survivors.

The reaction to the proposed WMD attack would and should depend upon where it came from....a wide spread terror group such as Al Quaida that is spread around the world in isolated cells would require a much different reaction than would a single cell sponsored by the Syrian gov't for example. In the former case the use of technology and intelligence to seek out and destroy the individual cells would take out the individual groups, the sources of their funding and their communications networks. In the latter it would be reasonable to enlist as much international support as possible to eliminate the Syrian government and power along with that terror cell.

In neither case do blind attacks against random unrelated countries whom our president has deemed as "evil" serve as an appropriate reaction. And no, no thank you letters.

eagle33199 · Apr 23, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 23 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]428272[/snapback]</div>

In neither case do blind attacks against random unrelated countries whom our president has deemed as "evil" serve as an appropriate reaction. And no, no thank you letters.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh but Evan, suck attacks and wars help to ensure that such a president is much loved and gets reelected! Isn't that justification enough? :lol:

Like i said Berman, red, comprehend, reply. A vast majority of your posts (in any thread) don't actually reply to what was written or intended - you take one sentence out of a 5 paragraph essay and attack the person over what may have just amounted to a poor word choice. You ignore their main point because it's something you don't want to deal with - you know you have no solid ground from which to attack it.

dbermanmd · Apr 23, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 23 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]428272[/snapback]</div>

Dr. B,
You're evading the entire point of the question. That point being that the reaction to this external group is far different than if it were an internal/US based group with the same motives and means as what we're dealing with currently in the Middle East. You're trying to make him out as an anti-American to avoid dealing with the important question. IOW, is our response in Iraq practical, reasonable, rational to achieve the end we desire without undue loss of innocent life?

While construction of an all out military style nuclear weapon is, indeed, well outside the realm of likelihood for civilians the construction of a so-called dirty bomb is not. Nor is the widespread contamination of water and food sources with said nuclear material. Again, you're talking about terror as the actual weapon much more so than the actual physical damage or numerical loss of life. What one is looking for is the impact on the lives of the survivors.

The reaction to the proposed WMD attack would and should depend upon where it came from....a wide spread terror group such as Al Quaida that is spread around the world in isolated cells would require a much different reaction than would a single cell sponsored by the Syrian gov't for example. In the former case the use of technology and intelligence to seek out and destroy the individual cells would take out the individual groups, the sources of their funding and their communications networks. In the latter it would be reasonable to enlist as much international support as possible to eliminate the Syrian government and power along with that terror cell.

In neither case do blind attacks against random unrelated countries whom our president has deemed as "evil" serve as an appropriate reaction. And no, no thank you letters.
[/b]
Click to expand...

my good doctor,
local terrorists might get wmds - probably from outside sources - if the operation was 100% made in the USA there is little to do except hunt them down and eliminate them.

if the operation is from without - the weapon lets say - i would favor in this case neutralizing that source. what if you dont get your international support to act on syria??????? if you do NOT get it - what do you do bro? just bury 100,000 americans and hit next??

Imus in the Hot Seat

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

livelychick Missin' My Prius

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

airportkid Will Fly For Food

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

airportkid Will Fly For Food

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Imus in the Hot Seat

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

livelychick Missin' My Prius

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

airportkid Will Fly For Food

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

airportkid Will Fly For Food

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

eagle33199 Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member