Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[The Yankee]

If NYC is nuked, do you honestly care? Really think about it.

I am sorry, but if it comes down to that, I would rather see them all dead than risk it ever happening again. The rest of the world and anyone else who would be our enemies would have something to think about.

I would care no less than anyone planning to ensure their family is well-off in the event of a person's death. Just because I may be a radioactive corpse doesn't mean that I'd still have cares about what may happen to my area, my country, and my family in the event that I end up as a radioactive corpse.

Much like I wouldn't relish the thought of some half billion people dying in my name.

 

[JohnRM]

Au contraire.

"Islam" is not a single, momolithic organization, and as such what one Muslim does should not be a reflection of what another does. Killing an entire group, or rather a set of groups, because of the actions of some of them makes no sense. If I start a religion that seeks to convert all to Christianity or kill them, and I get a following of millions, and I nuke Beijing (for example), that has nothing to do with what some Christian in Africa thinks and killing him won't stop me or punish me.

Then it would seem to me that killing all Christians in Africa is not what it will take to stop the terrorist acts, would it? I would be willing to do whatever it takes, even if that is killing a billion Muslims. If they nuke one of our cities, I would do what it takes.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Then it would seem to me that killing all Christians in Africa is not what it will take to stop the terrorist acts, would it? I would be willing to do whatever it takes, even if that is killing a billion Muslims. If they nuke one of our cities, I would do what it takes.

Would killing a billion of anyone to avenge the death of a few million be effective? You basically said that killing Christians by the billions to prevent terrorist acts by Christians is not effective but killing Muslims by the billions to prevent terrorist acts by Muslims is.

 

[mrt144]

Then it would seem to me that killing all Christians in Africa is not what it will take to stop the terrorist acts, would it? I would be willing to do whatever it takes, even if that is killing a billion Muslims. If they nuke one of our cities, I would do what it takes.

and then our lives get worse for it.

A. NYC Attacked by WMD (and it kills a hell of a lot of people)

1. Economic Depression hits the United States
2. Riots happen as people who want retaliation go out in full force.
3. Civil Liberties suspended indefinetly

B. We level Mecca and Medina

1. OPEC stops trading to the west, period.
2. You alienate any Muslim allies we had and encourage the overthrow of any secular Muslim majority nation
3. Your collective punishment will galvanize ALL Muslims against us and make it impossible to ever reconcile with them. ever.
4. Knocking Saudi Arabia down a peg will allow Iran to increase its power.
5. Killing a half million muslims after escelation will galvanize our WESTERN allies against us. WE will go from a position of sympathy to one of arch villiany. Anti American governments in europe, south america, anywhere will arise.
6. China and Russia seizes opportunity to make US even weaker within trade relations

C. Aftermath

1. With half the Muslim world dead Oil becomes hugely expensive
2. All living Muslims will try to attack again
3. Allies will refuse to work with us in stopping terrorism because of the extreme measures we take
4. Domestically we will not be able to climb out of martial law because of terrorism fears.

so essentially if we do something that turns the world against us like that, while at the same time destroying the democratic systems we have within our country, all under economic collapse, our country will be fubared.

 

[drachasor]

mrt144, give John HSOG some credit. He's not proposing leaving half of the Muslim world intact. He's proposing to kill or imprison EVERY LAST MUSLIM on the planet. That's a profoundly evil thing to propose, but it would stop terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. It would also be the slaughter of a billion or so innocent civilians, the largest such slaughter in the history of the planet.

If some small group hurts you, and then you kill of the group, everyone that is ethnically or otherwise similar to the group, then it is probably the case that the group won't hurt you again.

His proposal is much like killing 1000 people to stop the one serial killer among them (when you can't easily figure out who the serial killer is). It's harder with his Muslim proposal, since we'd probably have to nuke or attack some of the Western world and some non-Muslim countries, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work. It would. It's just EVIL.

It would be the same sort of reasoning that would have "justified" killing off every person of Japanese or German descent after WWII to prevent anything like that from happening again (well, to prevent them from causing anything like that again). There are more humane tactics available that don't require mass murder or genocide.

-Drachasor

 

[Fuzzz]

People like this senator should not be allowed to give a speech on national tv. People like this guy ought to be stripped from their power before the damage is done, because this is basically pointing the finger at one minority group and saying you are willing to wipe them out using all means necessary.
Now, haven't we seen this sort of political behavior some 75 years ago as well in Germany???

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Tancredo wasn't the one saying all Muslims should be killed, he just wanted to wipe out a couple of their cities. It was a few posters here who sugegsted genocide.

 

[Fuzzz]

Fascists didn't say they were going to put Jew people in ovens, they just said Jews were no better than rats who stole Arian money.

 

[JohnRM]

Would killing a billion of anyone to avenge the death of a few million be effective? You basically said that killing Christians by the billions to prevent terrorist acts by Christians is not effective but killing Muslims by the billions to prevent terrorist acts by Muslims is.

If the terrorists are within that population of the billion that we kill, then yes.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If the terrorists are within that population of the billion that we kill, then yes.

So, is it reasonable to conclude that you feel it is acceptable to respond to the killing of thousands of people by killing a billion people, the overwhelming majority of whom were not involved with the killing of thousands?

 

[Fuzzz]

Violence is not to be solved with violence IMHO.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Violence is never solved with violence IMHO.

Depends on what you mean by solving violence, though. Sometimes, a direct application of violence may prevent more violence, in larger amounts.

 

[The Yankee]

Violence is not to be solved with violence IMHO.

Violence is not to be solved with senseless violence.

Since we're already dealing with senseless violence from these groups, perpetuating it to infinity certainly won't give us the win and peace.

 

[drachasor]

Violence is not to be solved with senseless violence.

Since we're already dealing with senseless violence from these groups, perpetuating it to infinity certainly won't give us the win and peace.

I tend to disagree. I think what John HSOG proposes would work (though we might have to level much of Europe and other countries too). This isn't about whether it would work or not, but whether what he proposes is at all morally acceptable. It isn't.

There's not a lot of difference between him and Lenin, as best I can tell. Millions of deaths are just numbers on a page to him.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There is a world of difference between someone who proposes doing something and someone who actually does it.

 

[El_Machinae]

If NYC is nuked, do you honestly care? Really think about it.

I am sorry, but if it comes down to that, I would rather see them all dead than risk it ever happening again. The rest of the world and anyone else who would be our enemies would have something to think about.

For a few million? It's not worth it.

USA indirectly killed over half a million Iraqs by invading Iraq: all to make Americans feel 'safer' (or, more appropriately, make misinformed people feel safer).

According to your reasoning, I'm well within my rights to sanction the death of all Americans in order to prevent further such events. Or should I show an ounce of compasion, and limit myself to killing Americans who morally sanctioned the attack and then felt the internal urge to discount the suffering it caused?

Of course, it doesn't work that way. I can keep hoping that we can educate the war-mongers (and their children) to the point where such atrocites will become more and more rare.

BTW: I'm delighted someone who's willing to kill masses of innocents to deter 'bad guys' is about to get a gun.

 

[mrt144]

the mentality of killing millions to stop a few is the same mentality employed by terrorists.

 

[El_Machinae]

Additionally, America already suffers a fairly massive credibility problem. They used 9/11 to attack Iraq.

This means that Muslims would have no choice but to assume that an NBC attack on an American city would eventually result in a declaration of Holy War against them (no matter the actual guilt involved). This means that smart Muslims would immediately enter a state of complete war with the West if an NBC attack occured. And it would be completely self-defense on their part at that point, self-defense that your policy justified.

You'd have just effectively sucked me into a war that I didn't want

 

[plarq]

If a unknown missile hit US, you leveled every possible launchers of the map.

Especially the Muslim Terrorist Plot doesn't gather in Mecca.

 

[LightFang]

Ok. If, for example, islamic terrorists backed by various fundamentalist islamic states hits New York with an attack that manages to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of americans, all bets are off and Mecca and Medina are glowing holes in the ground.

But currently, I dont think that necessary at all. Especially in any pre-emptive or first strike scenario.

However, I do wish the terrorist would be so utterly stupid as to do something on that scale right now while we have a huge advantage, for the sole reason I think it will happen eventually, and if we face nuke armed fundamentalist states the stakes will be significantly higher. If we engaged in such a conflict now, it would be a terrible war yes; but one in which nukes arent really involved.

Wait. You're actually advocating millions of your fellow countrymen's death through a terrorist attack just so we have the justification to invade the Middle East? How does this jive with your "Christian" outlook (please don't be a dispensational millenialist.)