Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[luiz]

Well, I can at least walk in Rome. I have a Muslim friend that lives in Jeddah and he told me that I am not allowed in Mecca or Medina.

Yes, I have heard that infidels caught in Mecca actually receive the death penalty. Don't know if it's true, though.

 

[wicshade]

i would think that if any western country was nuked it would be irrelovent if somebody bombed meca, because i think WWIII would began if a nuke was ever let off in any western nation. especialy if multiple WMD attacks were made.

If anything ever happend that took the lives of millions of people, i think all of the nations in the world would start forming sides.

 

[wicshade]

Yes, I have heard that infidels caught in Mecca actually receive the death penalty. Don't know if it's true, though.

in islamic belief
, the death penalty is not given to people of non muslim beliefes, but it is sopused to be given to anybody that has defected from Islam to another religion.

but only muslims are aloud to make the pilgramige to meca.

 

[aneeshm]

Of course not since quite probably many of their goals are purely political in nature, religion is just mean, excuse and justification for it.
The actual fanatics don't necessarily care nothing about how many muslims die in conflict.

I don't know how to explain this, but please, bear with me.

It's not that they don't care, it's that they genuinely believe that even if they die, they go to heaven. It's so drilled in that nothing can dislodge it. They care. They really do. And their religion channels that care into what we see today.

Yes, yes.
Bashing continues, nothing new under the sun.

Call it bashing, call it whatever - it's a fact.

Islam, as a religion, has failed. According to you, not in principles, but I call that irrelevant, as the institutions it created have, in practice, been counter-productive. The culture of the regions it spread to has also failed. Deny it all you want - but remember, reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

 

[The Yankee]

I would think a bunch of terrorists would be secretly hoping we do attack Mecca and Medina, since support for their warped cause would grow tremendously.

Not that much different from Chiracs statement that France would use nukes in retaliation for a terrorist attack against France. He didnt actually say 'where' those nukes would be used, but I dont think he was referring to French soil.....

Admittedly, I don't know the context of such a saying, but I figure he'd be nuking Algiers.

 

[MobBoss]

I would think a bunch of terrorists would be secretly hoping we do attack Mecca and Medina, since support for their warped cause would grow tremendously.

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.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

That's scary reasoning. "Let's just pre-empt everything!"

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well it's scary but I don't see any reasoning involved.

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

So are you advocating we nuke Mecca and Medina today?

 

[C~G]

IIt's not that they don't care, it's that they genuinely believe that even if they die, they go to heaven. It's so drilled in that nothing can dislodge it. They care. They really do. And their religion channels that care into what we see today.

Religion doesn't live outside people's minds, or you might think so but then this turns into philosophical debate. I think this is big illusion with people who see Islamic doctrine as monolithic and unchanging that lives outside human understanding or interpretarion. It's pure nonsense.

Actually the danger becomes closer if you think so. Because you want to free those people who follow those principles of Islam, we don't want them to follow, by braking this image of Islam that lives outside their mind or cannot adopt to anything. You, yourself create monster out of it and like you said aren't able to anything but maybe plan genocide which is unthinkable. Into this kind of dead end it leads. Your way explains nothing and provides no solutions. Only submission.

People project to religion and their into culture their needs and desires and if it gives them enough back they choose to follow the parts of it that gives them the highest payback. If it is way of violence or being subdued to blind faith, they do so. But if there are other options for them provided by their religion and culture, they will feel as happy to follow those than other possibilities.

And I think these can be provided by following Islam. It is just different Islam that currently might be present in many current muslim countries. And that is a problem, I'm not disagreeing with.

Question is how do you introduce it to the masses of islam and give them more options if their poltiical system not only because of religion but also otherwise is corrupted?

Call it bashing, call it whatever - it's a fact.

No it isn't and won't change to such whatever amount of times you repeat it.
It's your opinion and so is your estimation of it being a fact is your opinion too.

How many muslims there are exactly currently, in what kind of area they live and how deeply they are religious? I wouldn't call that a failure my any means. Whether it can adopt to the modern times over time remains still to be seen.

Islam, as a religion, has failed. According to you, not in principles, but I call that irrelevant, as the institutions it created have, in practice, been counter-productive. The culture of the regions it spread to has also failed. Deny it all you want - but remember, reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Oh, so you now even quote LSD-trip Philip K. Dick there in the end about the reality?

I can as well do statement that the hindu culture in general is in similar condition as Islam and state that it is a fact. How's river Ganges BTW?
In same crappy state or in even more crappy state?
This isn't very constructive way to see things, is it?

We can maybe agree that following the orthodox laws of Islam with narrow outlooks can cause trouble when encountering modern age but it doesn't reflect the fact that Islam can do also fine with modernism just like many other religions have done even with troubled past. Other religions or ideologies as well can in similar fashion cause problems if you follow them by some strange orthodox doctrine even by today. Even atheism, secularism, liberalism if followed by conviction to wrong ends can be such.

Christianity had to change quite much and be become more and more separated from the state in order to still fit to lives of the people and meet the demands of modern age. And everyday religion meets new challenges from the everchanging world. Especially since nowadays the change is so fast.

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.

You're joking right?
By what means you are losing even bit of your fire power in order not to do so?

By the way system of US is designed you are able to retaliate almost in all possible scenarios anyway so that pre-emptive thing is just BS. But then not long ago even scam evidence presented of weapons that might threat your country some day caused majority of US support a war because of them so I can't say I'm totally surprised.

But if you really think so, you're also a wannabe terrorist.

 

[mangxema]

The problem I see with his plan is that eventually, they're going to call our bluff... which means eventually, we'd have to actually bomb Mecca or admit that we full of it. You lose either way.

 

[_Philospher_]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“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.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.



No Rep Tancredo, this option would show U.S. has converted to the most primative and minimal levels of strategic and diplomatic thinking to create stabile Arab-Western relations. No, Re. Tancredo, it is not the most "effective" detterent, it is indeed the worst signal we can give to moderate muslims and the worst excuse we can give to extremist. Extremist groups will simply eat threats like this up and spit out to the moderate masses in form of: "See! We told you the western world was out to destroy Islam! See why we fight westerners?!" An "economic collapse" Rep. Tancredo? Please, don't scare the public with speculative dooms-day scenarios that are as productive as your mis-guided global solutions.

 

[nonconformist]

Tancredo isn't Catholic.

Now let's not bring logic into this.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

OK, wow. Why?

This would only make the situation worse. Most Muslims are either indifferent towards the West or are willing to engage in dialog. This would only offend them all beyond all reason and drive them into a rage. It's not a matter of proportionality but rather American power: you can forget keeping Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in the American fold, and if you even think that anything American can be placed in Turkey or any other Muslim country ever again, you are horribly, horribly wrong. India may be offended as well; I don't know about anybody else, though I wouldn't be surprised if the European reaction was harsh. Beyond that, we're talking big-time revolution across the Middle East. In other words: destroy Muslim holy cities=goodbye American power.

I agree. Thats just idiotic. Iran attacks us, we retaliate by attacking Saudi arabia and the holy cities???? That makes no sense. Anotherwards if one muslim group attacks the US they respond by at least angering all muslim groups???

 

[MobBoss]

That's scary reasoning. "Let's just pre-empt everything!"

Well it's scary but I don't see any reasoning involved.

So are you advocating we nuke Mecca and Medina today?

Well, no, I am not advocating that we nuke anyone. But in my opinion, a much wider confrontation with muslim fundamentalists is a foregone conclusion before the religion will enjoy any significant reformation into something more accepting of alternate points of view.

And I am not saying we need to do this in a pre-emptive strike either Yankee; but I dont think shying away from confrontation is very healthy either.

 

[Godwynn]

Now let's not bring logic into this.

You're right, what was I thinking?!?

 

[JollyRoger]

Tancredo isn't Catholic.

Yep, he's a former Catholic, so nuking the Vatican may already be on his to-do list.

 

[MobBoss]

You're joking right?

Not in the least.

By what means you are losing even bit of your fire power in order not to do so?

Do you think it is going to be better for us if such a confrontation happens when even more arabic/muslims states have nuclear capability?

My point is, if it is inevitable (and I think it is), I would want it to happen sooner rather than later.

By the way system of US is designed you are able to retaliate almost in all possible scenarios anyway so that pre-emptive thing is just BS. But then not long ago even scam evidence presented of weapons that might threat your country some day caused majority of US support a war because of them so I can't say I'm totally surprised.

I am surprised that you think that was the only reason for the war.

But if you really think so, you're also a wannabe terrorist.

Not sure how you think this, but /whatever.

 

[The Yankee]

And I am not saying we need to do this in a pre-emptive strike either Yankee; but I dont think shying away from confrontation is very healthy either.

I think we'd just be playing into the terrorists' hands if we try to point our guns (or actually fire) against the two holy cities. Since we're always concerned about what the terrorists think when we don't sign some surveillance bill or something, hopefully we'd pay attention to it in this case.

Besides, we lost our chance to turn the Arabian desert into a giant mirror when we didn't take out Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers were from there. How easily we forget.

 

[MobBoss]

I think we'd just be playing into the terrorists' hands if we try to point our guns (or actually fire) against the two holy cities.

Well, the funny thing about holy cities is they tend to get raised and destroyed in religious wars. If Muslims want to wage Jihad against the world on the basis that their religion is the only religion, why on earth should we discount their holy cities as targets? I say if we do declare them 'off limits' we play into their hands even more. They wont use such 'kid gloves' where we are concerned, I assure you.

Since we're always concerned about what the terrorists think when we don't sign some surveillance bill or something, hopefully we'd pay attention to it in this case.

But thats kind of my point. We need to stop caring so much about what they think and just hold them accountable for their actions. If they attack us we should promise escalation 10x worse.

Besides, we lost our chance to turn the Arabian desert into a giant mirror when we didn't take out Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers were from there. How easily we forget.

I was under the impression they had been exiled or were under warrant from Saudi Arabia. It may come as news to you, but some Saudi Arabians commit acts of terror against Saudi Arabia itself. If we are going to the trouble to remember a detail, perhaps we should remember all the details associated with the issue?