Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Verbose]

I would say that people like this Tancredo are a much larger source of power for the jihadists than Medina or Mekka, because it reassures them that we really are the enemy.

I'd say the Jihadists don't need more convincing. They've already decided, no matter what.

What Tancredo might do, is help the Jihadists convince your average Muslims Joe in the street that the West really intends to do them harm.

 

[Grisu]

I'd say the Jihadists don't need more convincing. They've already decided, no matter what.

What Tancredo might do, is help the Jihadists convince your average Muslims Joe in the street that the West really intends to do them harm.

My writing skills aren't really up to par today (or ever?). This is exactly what I meant to say

 

[MobBoss]

I have yet to figure out how you can so massively misunderstand what people are trying to communicate. Your reply doesn't even comprehend the gist of what I am saying, never mind the specifics.

I understand what you are saying just fine. Really. Its just that I think its beyond realistic to think its ever going to happen.

 

[Rambuchan]

Just posting to:

1) Re-iterate the point that such action as Tancredo advocates would be an act of terrorism itself, would inspire only more terrorist attacks, thereby enhancing a problem which has been grossly inflated here anyway. And it would screw the world economy.

2) Inform the community of the new quote in my sig from MobBoss, who has been in fine old form in this thread.

 

[El_Machinae]

Man, I read this and was thinking "What the...El Mac said that?!" and then looked in the spoiler!

I have trouble understanding Tancredo's logic, but I think I'm close.

I understand what you are saying just fine.

No you don't, it's obvious from your replies. Sorry.

 

[El_Machinae]

Double post

 

[Phlegmak]

Just posting to:

1) Re-iterate the point that such action as Tancredo advocates would be an act of terrorism itself, would inspire only more terrorist attacks, thereby enhancing a problem which has been grossly inflated here anyway. And it would screw the world economy.

The part I bolded never ceases to amaze me. Some users on this forum have said, "The losses we have had in Iraq are acceptable to spread freedom." That sort of thinking is identical to what communists and terrorists think. "Killing X number of people is acceptable to further our cause." The people in the US who are the biggest advocates of the War on Terrorism (tm) are becoming terrorists.

Your quote from MobBoss is missing the closing quotation mark.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Terrorism is about more than body count, though . . . saying that loss of life to spread freedom is not automatically supporting terrorism (even if, as it happens, one is wrong about the freedom being spread).

 

[Rambuchan]

The part I bolded never ceases to amaze me. Some users on this forum have said, "The losses we have had in Iraq are acceptable to spread freedom." That sort of thinking is identical to what communists and terrorists think. "Killing X number of people is acceptable to further our cause." The people in the US who are the biggest advocates of the War on Terrorism (tm) are becoming terrorists.

And don't forget that people who say such things are from a culture that "respects human life". Indeed, "it's what sets us aside from the terrorists".

Your quote from MobBoss is missing the closing quotation mark.

Not anymore

 

[Gladi]

Terrorism is about more than body count, though . . . saying that loss of life to spread freedom is not automatically supporting terrorism (even if, as it happens, one is wrong about the freedom being spread).

Bright day
So what would attacks on muslim Holy Sites be about if not the body count and radicalizing the 1.4 milliard ( billion for short-scalers) muslims?

 

[drachasor]

The part I bolded never ceases to amaze me. Some users on this forum have said, "The losses we have had in Iraq are acceptable to spread freedom." That sort of thinking is identical to what communists and terrorists think. "Killing X number of people is acceptable to further our cause." The people in the US who are the biggest advocates of the War on Terrorism (tm) are becoming terrorists.

Your quote from MobBoss is missing the closing quotation mark.

I don't think that's quite fair. In WWII for instance, the losses the allies suffered were acceptable to further our cause. Just because you are willing to take losses to achieve an end doesn't mean you are just like a terrorist.

What makes terrorists awful is that they are willing and happy to target and kill civilians and civilian targets. They don't focus on military targets or anything like that. It doesn't help that their attacks don't actually help them achieve their ends.

 

[Phlegmak]

I have yet to figure out how you can so massively misunderstand what people are trying to communicate. Your reply doesn't even comprehend the gist of what I am saying, never mind the specifics.

Those are his standard "debate" skills. Obfuscate, misrepresent, change the subject, etcetera.

Moderator Action: Debate the topic, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So what would attacks on muslim Holy Sites be about if not the body count and radicalizing the 1.4 milliard ( billion for short-scalers) muslims?

That could be terrorism; I was referring to the current, actual conflict.

(In my view, though, terrorism refers to method rather than motive and need not be pejorative.)

 

[El_Machinae]

2) Inform the community of the new quote in my sig from MobBoss, who has been in fine old form in this thread.

I don't think you're representing his position correctly. The position seems to be that it would be best if fanatics successfully deployed a major destruction, and then the nuking of Medina and Mecca would be the reply. Sooner, rather than later, though.

 

[MobBoss]

Just posting to:

1) Re-iterate the point that such action as Tancredo advocates would be an act of terrorism itself, would inspire only more terrorist attacks, thereby enhancing a problem which has been grossly inflated here anyway. And it would screw the world economy.

2) Inform the community of the new quote in my sig from MobBoss, who has been in fine old form in this thread.

/shrug.

So, if the former president of France says he will use nukes if his country is attacked by terrorists, everyone nods and says how quite right he is to say this.

If Tancredo essentially says no targets are off the table if we get attacked by terrorists and mecca and midina are possible retaliation targets, then he is a complete whacko.

Just to be clear. Tancredo isnt calling for some first strike against mecca or midina. He is saying if our country suffers an attack on a far more massive scale than say in 9/11 then such targets shouldnt be dismissed.

Its hard to say what should or should not be a target if an all out religious war occurs between the jihadists and the rest of the world. In WWII major population centers were bombed, even firebombed and utterly destroyed in a bid to win the war. If such a war escalates against the west, and our cities and people are being murdered because of religious zealotry, what then are we to do?

I can say with full assurance that we should do more than point fingers at the ID people...thats for sure.

EDIT: I made an error in my original post. I meant the former president of France, Chirac, not Iraq. Sorry.

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't think you're representing his position correctly. The position seems to be that it would be best if fanatics successfully deployed a major destruction, and then the nuking of Medina and Mecca would be the reply. Sooner, rather than later, though.

The problem is, he doesn't know what he is saying himself, or what he means. I took the essence.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't think you're representing his position correctly. The position seems to be that it would be best if fanatics successfully deployed a major destruction, and then the nuking of Medina and Mecca would be the reply. Sooner, rather than later, though.

Thanks for summarizing 5+ pages of posts for me. It sounds repulsive.

 

[El_Machinae]

Its hard to say what should or should not be a target if an all out religious war occurs between the jihadists and the rest of the world.

Do you understand that there are only a few tens of thousands of Jihadists? There's no such thing as "an all out war", there can't be. All there are are 'recruiting grounds'

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Deter? Hah! Incentive more like it. Imagine the potential for terrorist recuitment if Mecca ever was nuked. They saw what happened in Iraq. This is like a carrot dangling in front of their noses. Attack us, and we will retaliate in such a dramatic way that you will be drowning in new recruits.

Just ask yourself, what do you think weighs more heavy in a terrorist's mind (hard to do, I know) the love for their religion, or the hatred for the West?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you understand that there are only a few tens of thousands of Jihadists? There's no such thing as "an all out war", there can't be. All there are are 'recruiting grounds'

You are kidding me right. Only a few 10s of thousands?

I think you short by a few million.

And yes, there most certainly cant be a thing as 'all out war'. Dont be so naive as to think otherwise. Its precisely what the most active jihadists seek to have occur.

EDIT: And I must be doing something right in my debate agianst you folks, since you all seem determined to discuss me instead of the topic.