Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Fifty]

But to everyone getting their panties all up in a wad: This happening is about as unlikely a thing ever happening. I think Tancredos actually point is that nothing is ever totally off the table. Well, I think such things should (and are) totally off the table until condition X exists.

You see, this is precisely why these threads become so confusing. You're very wishy-washy on exactly what your position is.

In Nicholas Shackel's paper, "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology" he outlines a rhetorical tactic that he dubs a "Motte and Baily Doctrine". The basic idea is to make some sweeping, yet deliberately vague pronouncement, then "defend" it by backing off gradually enough that when you look back on things, the first point made is totally different than the point presently being defended. I think that's what's going on here.

This is the evolution of your position as I've seen it (it's probably shifted even more, but I haven't payed close attention to this thread):

1. "In my opinion, its probably going to happen sooner or later anyway, so it may as well be now while we still have the fire power we do."

2. I only think we should nuke mecca if a huge terrorist attack occurs that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans. I think it's going to happen inevitably so I hope it happens soon while we're still the biggest kid on the playground by a wide margin.

3. I only think we should not rule out bombing if a huge terrorist attack occurs, which I think it will inevitably.

4. This whole thing is extremely unlikely, but I'm just saying we shouldn't COMPLETELY RULE OUT any option.

Now Mobby, do you really think those positions are reasonably consistent with one-another? I'm not saying "technically defensible", but rather "reasonably consistent and coherent, such that an average person not searching for a technical connection would take those four positions and think they are the same thing"?

 

[The Yankee]

Hmm...all this trouble and we're not even taking out the Saudi royal family. I mean, if we're going to carpet bomb or nuke the place....

 

[MobBoss]

How smart is it to make a point which one knows will get totally drowned out in the ensuing uproar, giving our enemy rhetorical ammunition to use against us?

As if they need any. Our culture and way of life is more than enough ammunition for them as it is. Compared to that stuff, tancredo isnt even a blip on their radar screen.

But there are plenty of people that think that in this "global clash of civilizations" it is just a matter of time before terrorists employ a WMD against us. Indeed the only truly unlikely thing within that mindset is that Tancredo could actually be elected President.

As I said, if people start dying, attitudes start changing. And as we witnessed on 9/11 that change can happen extremely fast. Consider an event that kills 1000x as many that died on 9/11. How load would the uproar for action be?

I daresay killing millions of their innocent women and children wouldn't bring my heart any peace.

Me neither. The whole thing is just beyond depressing to think about. Someone start a thread about puppies or something.

 

[MobBoss]

So much for the moral high ground.

Moral high ground and war have never, ever really mixed very well. The only reason we claim a moral high ground at all is we feel the need to handicap ourselves because of our technology.

But there most certainly can come a point in war in which morals get tossed out the window. Just like after the Nazis killed the american prisoners at Malemedy. In the aftermath at least one US Unit gave the order to kill all SS personnell on sight and to not take prisoners. In a war like that, quid pro quo is often the final end state of such actions. If such a war with Islam got bad enough, in which our innocents were deliberately targeted and killed, we would only tolerate it so long and so far before we would compromise our own moral highground.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are correct. I will correct the typo thanks.

No problem. I just clarified because my entire reply wouldn't have made the least sense if you didn't actually mean 'can' instead of 'cant'. I was sure a typo (I've made my share!), but I figured that being extra-cautious was acceptable.

Never what I said. You seem to have a problem in understanding the concept that an all-out war would only occur with the unification of the Islamic States and a worldwide Jihad.

I am a bit confused then, I was of the impression that you thought it would be 'an all out war' once a WMD was used by a terrorist group. So, now the all-out war starts once a universal jihad is declared? Well, that's fine.

I can't figure out the "I'd rather it sooner than later, it's going to happen eventually" comment, then. Because a universal Jihad doesn't seem to be inevitable. In fact, it seems entirely avoidable. I'd think that a major terrorist attack is nigh-inevitable, but the battle against those people is a battle against only a few thousand un-unified groups.

Again, how exactly do we reduce their recruiting pool when they control their own recruiting pool in the forms of their madrassas?

Oh, I remember.....we get the ID people to change their minds. /smacks forehead. I forgot thats the answer to everything.

I have already stated that you're not comprehending my point or even the gist of what I am stating with reducing fundie-style ignorance. It's very funny that you'll continue to mischaracterise and mock something you've been told you don't understand. Especially given what I was talking about.

But, regarding the Madrasses. The world is modernising and information technology spreading. The number of 'poor' people who will be able to afford an internet connection (and who will be able to understand english) is growing at a massive rate. The number of people who will become more educated (and thus, less hateful) will grow as wealth and educational levels grow. But the only way they're going to realise that they're not our enemies is if we reduce and eliminate all the ignorance that we can. We need to proactively reduce the propaganda and idiocy all around us. As long as the Christian Fundies (as a subgroup of "Right Wing Westerners") are wallowing in deluded and encouraged ignorance, though, they're not going to find enough common ground.

Harun Yahya is trying to convince Muslims that that the Koran is smarter than the atheist scientists and the Christian bible-thumpers. Well, they're half right. Muslim terrorists are (kinda by definition) a subgroup of people who think that the Koran is correct. Only education can convince them they're wrong, but their most important resource is their recruiting pool

The real Westerners who need to stop being ignorant (and I targeted them immediately upon entering this discussion) are the war-mongerers. They're wrong about most of the cause-and-effect of what's going on. I mentioned the fundie Christians because they form an essential subgroup and it was an easy example of encouraged ignorance. It's not a surprise that you've latched onto the Christian part, which is why I gave more specific examples in that specific subgroup. But it's part of a larger problem. Luckily, reducing any of the ignorance in any of the subgroups reduces the total ignorance.

 

[Red Door]

Yeah, we should.

So, you want to force something that can't be done, aka impossible? That makes a lot of sense.

I don't think there is a possibility of them just stopping terrorist activity and still living back in the seventh century. The change would have to be all-encompassing.

You're right, not all terrorists are going to give up, the best we can do is hope that some of them do, or continue to fight terrorism at the level we are today.

Wrong. Iraq is now a meat grinder for terrorists. They are being sent in from all over the Muslim world and they are being killed. And, lets be real here. The sudden rise in the numbers of terrorists with Al-Qaeda are mostly Iraqis who aren't going to fight for Al-Qaeda elsewhere. When this conflict ends, Al-Qaeda isn't going to be much more well off in numbers than it was before the conflict.

In case you didn't notice:
Al Qaeda Strength since pre-9/11 Attacks

But, the point of what he said is, "If that is what it takes, then I'll do it."

It's part of it, but perhaps you missed the whole quote:

“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,”

 

[El_Machinae]

If this were true, the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over years ago....YEARS AGO as we would have eliminated those few thousand plus a lot more.

What part of "Don't use tactics which make more proactive Jihadists!" don't you understand?

At any given time these days, there are only a few thousands of people who're willing to become 'terrorists'. If all the killing you're doing is not reducing that number, then you're making more.

The vast majority of people, even if they hate you, would rather work a job and support their family. They'll be Jihadists if attacked, sure, but so would anyone.

The goal is to reduce the number of people who wish you harm for less than reasonable reasons. And then act reasonably.

 

[El_Machinae]

Our culture and way of life is more than enough ammunition for them as it is.

Thanks FOX news, for the soundbite.
However, it's not true. We didn't get millions of child martyrs coming out of Iran because of Iraq's lifestyle and culture. We got it because Iranians felt like they had to defend themselves.

There are a LOT of good reasons why the Muslim world hates the West. And there are a few stupid reasons, too. Terrorists will pick and choose, to be sure. But you'll have fewer terrorists if there are fewer reasons (net) for them to choose from, because everyone has a different tipping-point.

Of course, finding out what the legitimate grieviences are would require a reduction in local ignorance. You can't convince people to not mind the legitimate grieviences that they hold against you, you can only get rid of the issues or buy off the complainers.

As I said, if people start dying, attitudes start changing. And as we witnessed on 9/11 that change can happen extremely fast. Consider an event that kills 1000x as many that died on 9/11. How load would the uproar for action be?

Loud, to be sure. Hopefully we'll focus on the source of the perpetrators a little more carefully next time. Of course, decreasing the psychological grip of terrorism on the populace will allow cooler heads to prevail. Amusingly, that requires reducing local ignorance too!

 

[MobBoss]

You see, this is precisely why these threads become so confusing. You're very wishy-washy on exactly what your position is.

Dont confuse wishy-washy with breakdown in communication in trying to make my point clear to where those that oppose me understand it.

In Nicholas Shackel's paper, "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology" he outlines a rhetorical tactic that he dubs a "Motte and Baily Doctrine". The basic idea is to make some sweeping, yet deliberately vague pronouncement, then "defend" it by backing off gradually enough that when you look back on things, the first point made is totally different than the point presently being defended. I think that's what's going on here.

That one missed my reading list....but ok. Would it be better for me to say first "I think nuking Mecca and Medina would be a bad idea also, but, consider this.....etc."? As opposed to the "Motte and Baily" thingy you are referring to?

Merely sounds to me like different routes but still arriving at the same destination, actually.

1. "In my opinion, its probably going to happen sooner or later anyway, so it may as well be now while we still have the fire power we do."

Thats referring to a religious war with Islam.

2. I only think we should nuke mecca if a huge terrorist attack occurs that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans. I think it's going to happen inevitably so I hope it happens soon while we're still the biggest kid on the playground by a wide margin.

While I do think the war inevitable, I am unsure as to the scope and extent of it. I dont know for certain that they will be able to attack us on our home turf and kill hundreds and thousands. I know you view my comment here as additional 'backing off' the initial premise, but I brought up the attacks on US soil for the sole reason that is the only qualifier I can see for anyone even suggesting attacking Mecca or Medina.

3. I only think we should not rule out bombing if a huge terrorist attack occurs, which I think it will inevitably.

Again, we are talking hypotheticals here. I am not certain that we will ever see a huge and successful terrorist attack on US soil. That, and I dont think its wise to ever to state publically which targets are or are off the table. In my opinion, in war, nothing should ever be off the table.

4. This whole thing is extremely unlikely, but I'm just saying we shouldn't COMPLETELY RULE OUT any option.

/shrug. Its all hypothetical. Both sides.

Now Mobby, do you really think those positions are reasonably consistent with one-another? I'm not saying "technically defensible", but rather "reasonably consistent and coherent, such that an average person not searching for a technical connection would take those four positions and think they are the same thing"?

Well, Fiddy, when I am trying to debate with about 7 different opponents, keeping things straight and coherent among all points given is problematic. Surely you can see my problem. Why dont you join my side and argue with me and help me keep it straight!

 

[MobBoss]

Sigh. While I knew this already, but am experiencing it in this thread in spades.

Communication be hard.

If only we were all around a table, beers and poker cards in hand, I could make it plain to all of you using hand gestures.....

If all I have done is confuse people with my thoughts, then I humbly apologize. I know what I have there in my head, but seem to be having difficulty in expressing it so that my opposition clearly understands me.

 

[MobBoss]

Some people have already gone through their own hells brought upon by the terrorists.

Don't we elect presidents to have a clearer head about them even in the face of disaster?

We hope they do, but its not like we hook them up to a machine and monitor how well they hold up under stress.

Truman decided to use the bomb. Not every president would. The people we elect president are just like you and me, they are people just like all the rest of us, with the same issues and problems we all have. People are just cookie cutter images of one another, and neither are our presidents.

 

[The Yankee]

We hope they do, but its not like we hook them up to a machine and monitor how well they hold up under stress.

Truman decided to use the bomb. Not every president would. The people we elect president are just like you and me, they are people just like all the rest of us, with the same issues and problems we all have. People are just cookie cutter images of one another, and neither are our presidents.

We can also make educated guesses about the temperament of a candidate and Tancredo's already shown his hand. Much like how we all know Al Gore would be under his desk in the Oval Office sucking his thumb!

 

[drachasor]

MobBoss, you don't seem to understand the all Muslims uniting together against the United States is a far-fetched fantasy. That's so unlikely to happen as to be a ridiculous proposition. Sunnis and Shiites are not going to join up like that for religious reasons. Additionally, considering the terrorist groups (which aren't united either) don't recruit a significant portion of the Arab population, it is ridiculous to think that they suddenly will recruit so many people and be so united that anyone could think of the "Islamic States" as unified. Yet you seem to be referring to this mythical unified Islam of hate as "they" and "them" as if they really exist or will exist, and you seem to be basing your arguments on this concept.

Secondly, even if there was a nuclear attack by Islamic terrorists on the United States and it killed millions, that doesn't mean all the Islamic States are unified together. You seem to think that if such an attack happens, then it means the "holy war" has began, rather than some terrorist group got their hands on a Russian nuke or the like (infinitely more likely). I don't follow why you are equating a unified Islam against the US and a nuclear attack on the US.

Thirdly, even if all you say actually happened, what is nuking a holy site going to do? Since when does destroying religious targets in a holy war actually get the other side to stop? Can you even name one example? It is far more likely to make things far, far worse.

-Drachasor

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, you don't seem to understand the all Muslims uniting together against the United States is a far-fetched fantasy.

So is actually nuking Mecca or Medina. But dont let that stop ya.

That's so unlikely to happen as to be a ridiculous proposition. Sunnis and Shiites are not going to join up like that for religious reasons.

You dont think they would join up in order to battle a common enemy?

Wars make strange bed fellows. I mean whodathunk the US and Soviet Russia would join up to fight a common cause? Stranger things have happened.

Thirdly, even if all you say actually happened, what is nuking a holy site going to do? Since when does destroying religious targets in a holy war actually get the other side to stop? Can you even name one example?

Sure. When the Babylonians destroyed the temple of Jerusalem the first time it ended that war. Then after the Roman seige of Jeruselam the rebuilt temple was destroyed again ended that war.

I am sure there are other examples, but those are two quick ones that come to mind.

It is far more likely to make things far, far worse.

Worked out pretty well for the Babylonians and the Romans.

 

[Murky]

Worked out pretty well for the Babylonians and the Romans.

I think Muslims view Mecca as being way more than just some holy shrine. They believe that Allah is actually living there and is frequently visited by Pilgrims. You target it and every Muslim in the world would unite for jihad like you've never seen. It would be apocalyptic to say the least.

Tancredo is a wacko that should be committed to a mental institution, not running for office.

 

[IglooDame]

Sure. When the Babylonians destroyed the temple of Jerusalem the first time it ended that war. Then after the Roman seige of Jeruselam the rebuilt temple was destroyed again ended that war.

I am sure there are other examples, but those are two quick ones that come to mind.

I'm using some wiki to refresh my history, but the temple of Jerusalem being destroyed was not the item that ended the wars per se, it was that Jerusalem (and particularly in the Roman case, the temple being in effect the central citadel) was finally overcome after respective sieges. The end of those wars were not specific to the religious implications of the temple's destruction, but rather to the fact that Jerusalem was essentially the final holdout of the local defenders.

This is a far different strategic circumstance than an opening-shot destruction of the holy real estate that has no inherent military value.

 

[drachasor]

Additionally, MobBoss, you didn't address my second point at all. That's a point I consider particularly problematic for your entire line of argument.

 

[Bill3000]

and Shiites are not going to join up like that for religious reasons. Additionally, considering the terrorist groups (which aren't united either) don't recruit a significant portion of the Arab population, it is ridiculous to think that they suddenly will recruit so many people and be so united that anyone could think of the "Islamic States" as unified. Yet you seem to be referring to this mythical unified Islam of hate as "they" and "them" as if they really exist or will exist, and you seem to be basing your arguments on this concept.

I dunno - I'm pretty sure the destruction of the holiest of Islamic sites would be the *only* cause which would unite all muslims, really. (And no, there isn't a good comparison of a holy site in Christianity, or heck, even Judaism, considering the promise from the Qu'ran I said earlier, in importance.)

 

[BirraImperial]

Nuking Mecca would only start WWIII, and I don't think Muslims are going to be the only ones pissed off about this, but the rest of the world as well, regardless of the religion. Thank God megalomaniacs like Tancredo are not going to become president any time soon. (I hope).

 

[Verbose]

I am not sure how you get that from the facts I stated. I dont think Evil Knieval could make that leap....

Well, you're the one who just rolled the Basij in together with Usama's boys as the most natural thing in the world. It would seem the al-Q and Iran is the same thing then, or else the Basij aren't really relevant, no?