Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Phlegmak]

Tancredo realizes the only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire, give them a taste of their own medicene.

If terrorists bomb a bus, America should bomb ten bus terminals in Saudi Arabia.

If terrorists bomb a cafe, America should blow up ten shopping malls in Pakistan.

If terrorists kill our President, we should kill every leader of every Arab nation.

If terrorists bomb the Sears Tower, America should level the Burj Dubai and the rest of Dubai's skyscrapers.

Do you realize you're a terrorist? Or at least you advocate their methods.

 

[GenMarshall]

I skipped that because I assumed you knew better - Christianity was quite different at the time before it separated itself from Judaism, and Judaism from Christianity. At the time, Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish sect and had not developed into a separate religion. More importantly is how Judaism changed

Again, what separates Judaism from Christianity is Jesus Christ. It was not until St. Paul that ties to Jewish traditions such as the Briss (Jewish Circumcision) were replaced with Baptism.

I dont know how on Earth the subject got drifted to Christianity when we are talking about Muslim Holy Cities.

 

[El_Machinae]

Think about who the more violent of the "anti-Islam" ideologues are. There's not 100% overlap, but the people who're causing most of the problem are people who think that violence is the first solution. And there's a heavy correlation between this type of thinking and thinking that the Bible is literally true (or at least, these thinkers certainly spurn education and intelligence).

Clearly it's easier to clean up one's own house than the neighbour's house, but half the trick to preventing a holy war is to convince both sides that there's nothing 'holy' to war over.

... the people most interested in naively pursuing continued violence tend to be of the "Bible Belt": and their continued willful ignorance isn't helping anything.

I present Exhibit B. I had to wait, what?, a day to find an excellent example of what I was specifically talking about?

There is nothing I can say or do to enlighten the gentleman who posted below. The only people who can enlighten him would be people who he would consider his peers. i.e., cleaning up one's own house.

Tancredo realizes the only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire, give them a taste of their own medicene.

If terrorists bomb a bus, America should bomb ten bus terminals in Saudi Arabia.

If terrorists bomb a cafe, America should blow up ten shopping malls in Pakistan.

If terrorists kill our President, we should kill every leader of every Arab nation.

If terrorists bomb the Sears Tower, America should level the Burj Dubai and the rest of Dubai's skyscrapers.

 

[plarq]

I don't think Islam is like a large alien creature who continuously sucks power from the ground of Mecca and Medina.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't think Islam is like a large alien creature who continuously sucks power from the ground of Mecca and Medina.

But if you blow them up (Both Mecca and Medina) you would most certanly have a ton of POed Muslims at your city gates.

 

[plarq]

But if you blow them up (Both Mecca and Medina) you would most certanly have a ton of POed Muslims at your city gates.

If they're angry enough, that doesn't make a difference.

I think VX250 is regarding Islam as some creeping alien creature and structure who has a core, a colony, a mastermind resting in Mecca. In fact, it doesn't.

 

[VX250]

I don't.

Islam is not the threat, terrorism is the threat.

I am NOT advocating terrorism - I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

 

[The Yankee]

I don't.

Islam is not the threat, terrorism is the threat.

I am NOT advocating terrorism - I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

And yet, none of your solutions actually deal with combating terrorists.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't.

Islam is not the threat, terrorism is the threat.

I am NOT advocating terrorism - I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

Killing millions of innocent people sounds like terrorism to me.

 

[plarq]

In fact, terrorism doesn't work against such decentralized forces.

"Headhunting" could be more effective.

We should fight fire with water, not fire.

 

[drachasor]

I don't.

Islam is not the threat, terrorism is the threat.

I am NOT advocating terrorism - I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

The fire being terrorism, right? The willful targeting and killing of innocent civilians to get the other side to do what you want.

Fighting that "fire" with "fire" is advocating terrorism. How is slaughtering innocent citizens of other countries not terrorism? How is it not evil?

-Drachasor

 

[Trajan12]

I don't.

Islam is not the threat, terrorism is the threat.

I am NOT advocating terrorism - I am advocating fighting fire with fire.

The fire you're fighting is terrorism, thus the fire you're using is terrorism.

 

[VX250]

I am not endorsing killing millions of innocent people. I am endorsing sensible retaliatory actions which may or may not incur heavy collateral damage

 

[The Yankee]

Just who exactly would be the target in bombing a random shopping center in Karachi? The chances that you'll kill a terrorist in that blind strike are close to zero.

There's no need to engage in an international peeing contest with terrorists that love to blow up pizza parlors.

 

[VX250]

The target would be the shoppers.

It would make them angry against Islamic terrorists that they were facing such actions due to the actions of Islamic terrorists - the people of Pakistan would unite to condem the terrorism of Islamic terrorists and their crusade against America.

 

[The Yankee]

The target would be the shoppers.

It would make them angry against Islamic terrorists that they were facing such actions due to the actions of Islamic terrorists - the people of Pakistan would unite to condem the terrorism of Islamic terrorists and their crusade against America.

Swing and a miss!

If terrorists have no qualms about blowing up their own people in the middle of a terrorist attack, why would they back down when we do it?

And, given that they have their own propaganda and that there will be witnesses seeing American jets bombing random shoppers in Karachi, don't ya think they might be just a tad pissed off at us? And a tad more likely to support terrorists groups opposing us?

 

[drachasor]

The target would be the shoppers.

It would make them angry against Islamic terrorists that they were facing such actions due to the actions of Islamic terrorists - the people of Pakistan would unite to condem the terrorism of Islamic terrorists and their crusade against America.

Oh, I really thought the normal reaction was to hate the people who just bombed and killed your people. If someone went into your house and killed your family, would you be more likely to hate him or hate America? Why hate America? He did it because his family was killed after Bush senior encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and then let everyone who rose up die instead of helping them.

Something tells me you'd hate the guy that killed your family, if you were going to hate anyone. I'd imagine the civilians would start hating America too or even more if we started killing INNOCENT CIVILIANS just because some terrorists attacked us (terrorists that are completely separate from said innocent civilians).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

it's not the only reaction, though - the Japanese and Germans didn't hold a permanent grudge against us.

 

[drachasor]

it's not the only reaction, though - the Japanese and Germans didn't hold a permanent grudge against us.

We were at war with them in World War II. We are not at war with innocent shoppers and bus riders in other countries. Also, the standards of war were different back then, and that sort of thing would not be acceptable today.

Japan thought we'd wipe them out and destroy their culture. That's the sort of thing they expected. When we didn't, they loved us for it.

The Nazis had been committing the holocaust, and right after WWII the Cold War began, so they didn't have time to hate the West, nor the inclination given what their government had done.

Bombing civilians in a response to a terrorist attack by inherently non-government agencies is not at all similar to what was going on during and after World War II.

-Drachasor

 

[NecroAngel]

In theory this could be a good idea, you think they'd be scared and listen. But these are fanatics. They go crazy over cartoons. If you bomb the holiest site in Islam? Oh dear god, best not to think about how insanely angry they'd get, making the situation worse.