Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Fifty]

Then you mis-intrepreted my position grossly. What part of "I dont endorse a first strike" did you fail to understand?

Well I can't speak for C~G, but to me there seems to be some confusion between your stance that the attack in question (namely, a nuclear attack on mecca) "might as well be now while we still have the firepower we do", and your apparent non-endorsement of a preemptive strike.

I don't know about you, but "now" to me doesn't mean "if the jihad kicks up to much higher levels than its at now and we are attacked first". To me, "now" means "now".

So how exactly do you reconcile those statements?

 

[MobBoss]

Well I can't speak for C~G, but to me there seems to be some confusion between your stance that the attack in question (namely, a nuclear attack on mecca) "might as well be now while we still have the firepower we do", and your apparent non-endorsement of a preemptive strike.

I don't know about you, but "now" to me doesn't mean "if the jihad kicks up to much higher levels than its at now and we are attacked first". To me, "now" means "now".

So how exactly do you reconcile those statements?

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.

 

[Mango]

If that ever happened I would probably move to Canada.

 

[Fifty]

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.

So you want Jihadists to kill millions of Americans ASAP?

 

[The Yankee]

If we were engaged in a full scale war and the muslims were all waging jihad against us, we wouldnt have any friends in the muslim world now would we?

Please realize that is about the only extreme that I would be willing to consider such an idea. But there is a part of me that thinks such a confrontation just might happen in the future.

Speculating it may be on that proportion is different than saying "let's get it over and done with already, you hit us, we turn your city into a new nuclear dump." At least the former still has the hope that it won't get to such a level, one way or another.

Well, I dont think its so much crap, especially since OBL directly referred to us not having the balls to fight a war like we are in Iraq. And whats going on here now about Iraq? More than half the country wants to regard Iraq so bloody that its not worth staying - while in contrast it has been one of the least bloody conflicts in our history.

Sounds like a schoolyard antic to me...if bin Laden said "Heh, you don't have the cajones to fight this kind of war in Iraq" and then we do go fight that kind of war in Iraq, who really won that round?

Iraq can be fought or withdrawn on its own merits or demerits. Wondering whether bin Laden is going to go "nyah, nyah, nyah" to us over it should be of less concern than Hillary Clinton's cleavage coverage.

(Which, I suppose, isn't saying much, given the media drooling over it.)

 

[MobBoss]

So you want Jihadists to kill millions of Americans ASAP?

*sigh*.

No.

I dont *want* any of it to happen.

But I dont think the Jihadists will just want to sit and sing kum-bye-yaa with us either.

 

[MobBoss]

Sounds like a schoolyard antic to me...if bin Laden said "Heh, you don't have the cajones to fight this kind of war in Iraq" and then we do go fight that kind of war in Iraq, who really won that round?

Well, he referred to us as a 'paper tiger' in one of his earlier tapings and he pretty much said we dont have the guts for such a war.

You might think it school yard. I am betting that a bunch of fanatic dead end third worlders probably found it inspiring.

Iraq can be fought or withdrawn on its own merits or demerits. Wondering whether bin Laden is going to go "nyah, nyah, nyah" to us over it should be of less concern than Hillary Clinton's cleavage coverage.

I think that largely depends on his status among fundamentalist muslims.

 

[Bill3000]

I heard from a muslim on another forum that the capture of Mecca (or perhaps bombing as well) by non-muslims had been promised in the Qu'ran to be impossible before the end times; if so, then that's clearly a falsifiable test for Islam.

More importantly, it shows that the consequences of this would be seriously more severe than if such a thing was done to any Christian or Jewish site. It would easily cause a backlash like we've never seen before; mere suicidal bombings wouldn't mean much in comparison. I'd easily bet a declaration of war by every muslim nation in the world against the attacker, really.

 

[JollyRoger]

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,

However, I do wish the terrorist would be so utterly stupid as to do something on that scale right now

Wow, I didn't realize you so urgently wanted the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.

 

[sonorakitch]

Unfortunately for Tancredo I think he is in a Cold War mindset.

Of course, his strategy for dealing with terrorists is the same strategy used in the Cold War--mutually assured destruction. There is no doubt a major terrorist attack on US soil will not bode well for our present situation, and he figures countering it with a nuclear placement over Mecca is the way to go. He is very wrong.

The fundamentalist Muslims would love such an act. It would play right into their hands. To galvanize the moderates against the west is what they want, and certainly dusting the Kabba would do this.

The best way to win this war is to maintain standing amongst the moderates while killing every terrorist we can. The people of Egypt are a perfect example: Al Zhawhiri gave us the moderate Egyptian populace. Mubarak crushed the terrorist underground and left them to flee to Afghanistan. The moderates are still the majority in Egypt. You can count on that disintegrating if we nuke Mecca.

The Cold War way of doing things won't work in this crusade. We need to win a PR war, not lose it.

However, Tancredo is correct in one assertion: we will find another attack.

~Chris

 

[Merkinball]

Wow, I didn't realize you so urgently wanted the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans. - JollyRoger

Chuck Rangle would have his draft!

I can't believe this is even being debated on here. Everyone needs to completely ignore Tancredo at this point. Nobody should give this guy the slightest bit of a credence at this point.

 

[The Yankee]

Chuck Rangle would have his draft!

I can't believe this is even being debated on here. Everyone needs to completely ignore Tancredo at this point. Nobody should give this guy the slightest bit of a credence at this point.

But Tancredo wanted Jack Bauer to save us! [/reference to second Republican debate]

 

[MobBoss]

Wow, I didn't realize you so urgently wanted the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans.

I dont. I wish the entire world was one big happy place and we all got along. But thats not reality.

As to my comment. If my choices were war right now in which several million were to die, or a nuclear holocaust because of religious zealots decades from now, pardon me for hoping for the millions now in order to resolve the issue.

In my mind I see it like Patton did Russia toward the end of WWII and how MacArthur viewed communist China during the Korean War. They wanted to get it over and done with right then, but on a smaller scale than what they thought would happen down the road. Now, we never ended up in a war with either the Soviet Union or Communist China, but we have come incredibly close on several times in history.

Likewise I hope I am wrong too and that there is no end-all; be-all Jihad in the worlds future. But in my opinion, things are not looking that great right now.

 

[The Yankee]

I suppose I should really be scared if MobBoss's faith in our ability to win this is wavering...

 

[JollyRoger]

As to my comment. If my choices were war right now in which several million were to die, or a nuclear holocaust because of religious zealots decades from now, pardon me for hoping for the millions now in order to resolve the issue.

You have a very narrow range of choices there and in my opinion, it's your own religious zealotry that is causing pessimism to the extent that you look at holy war right now as a good thing.

In my mind I see it like Patton did Russia toward the end of WWII and how MacArthur viewed communist China during the Korean War. They wanted to get it over and done with right then, but on a smaller scale than what they thought would happen down the road. Now, we never ended up in a war with either the Soviet Union or Communist China, but we have come incredibly close on several times in history.

Yep - we should have had those million death wars back then so we would have avoided the close calls.

Likewise I hope I am wrong too and that there is no end-all; be-all Jihad in the worlds future. But in my opinion, things are not looking that great right now.

Yep - with fanatics of all religious stripes envisioning how millions of deaths now would be a good thing, I can see where you may be pessimistic. Your eagerness to get the holy war started now certainly has made me more pessimistic about the Christian side of the equation.

 

[Merkinball]

In my mind I see it like Patton did Russia toward the end of WWII and how MacArthur viewed communist China during the Korean War. They wanted to get it over and done with right then, but on a smaller scale than what they thought would happen down the road. Now, we never ended up in a war with either the Soviet Union or Communist China, but we have come incredibly close on several times in history. - MobBoss

We aren't talking about anything that could even be construed as equivocal here though. Patton and McArthur's views were more viewed, IMHO, as rational. What Tancredo has said is ******ed. It's not rational in the slightest.

"Oh, a terrorist plot involving 13 Algerian terrorists has leveled 25 downtown Los Angeles sky scrapers! See you later Mecca!"

 

[MobBoss]

You have a very narrow range of choices there and in my opinion, it's your own religious zealotry that is causing pessimism to the extent that you look at holy war right now as a good thing.

Yep - with fanatics of all religious stripes envisioning how millions of deaths now would be a good thing, I can see where you may be pessimistic. Your eagerness to get the holy war started now certainly has made me more pessimistic about the Christian side of the equation.

Stop with the anti-christian agenda for once. I mean really, it has no place in this conversation and is nothing more than another troll from you at me.

I dont view holy war as a good thing in any way, shape or form. Not at all. And I get really, really tired of you trolling me like this. Its just...pathetic really.

 

[warpus]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/




If we are attacked with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or any other form of attack that would kill massive numbers of Americans, then it would be my policy to launch a counterstrike that would destroy Medina. A second attack, would prompt me to order the complete destruction of Mecca.

That's as illogical and.. stupid.. as bombing the Vatican next time a Catholic commits a murder.

 

[Tee Kay]

Stop with the anti-christian agenda for once. I mean really, it has no place in this conversation and is nothing more than another troll from you at me.

I dont view holy war as a good thing in any way, shape or form. Not at all. And I get really, really tired of you trolling me like this. Its just...pathetic really.

Well if you bomb Mecca you'll get one definitely. Not like the suicide bombings here and there, but an actual war.

 

[useless]

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.

that doesn't stop pallie's destroying sacred jewish sites . of course the muslims are indifferent to the west. 9/11 showed just how indifferent they where!