Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Yoda Power]

*I only read the OP, sorry*

That's some the dumbest stuff I ever heard! Every single muslim in the world will be ready to blow himself up in the US if they ever do that.

This is not just stupidity, but an actual lack of understanding how the Middle East works.

 

[aronnax]

Wow, the presence of stupidityy in that person is so huge that it blocks the air in a room and suffocates anyone else. Bombing Mecca is stupid stupid stupid. I say, we find him, tar and feather him, then give him to the muslims to deal with

 

[plarq]

My suggestion:

Group up some 100% Muslim battle groups called Jihadi Paras, parachute with a Yemen, or Egypt, or Brunei, whatever-flagged transport plane into Mecca and Medina, declare a Caliphate and a Jihad against those terrorists.

In the mean time, capture Riyadh with regular paratroopers, force Saudi princes surrender to the Caliphate.

 

[useless]

*I only read the OP, sorry*

That's some the dumbest stuff I ever heard! Every single muslim in the world will be ready to blow himself up in the US if they ever do that.

This is not just stupidity, but an actual lack of understanding how the Middle East works.

If only people actually understood this. true word yoda. true words.

 

[Verbose]

*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.

But you do consider it inevitable that it is the Jihadists, not any kind of moderate reform-Islam, which will win the the hearts and minds of the Muslim Arab world?

Is that a fair interpretation?

("Put in an absolutely non-offending inquisitive tone of voice"-smily.)

 

[Winner]

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.

Isn't this exactly what I proposed some time ago?

Well, I meant it as a hypothetical way how to deter terrorism. It is logical that in a war with a determined enemy who doesn't care about his own survival, you have to threaten something he holds dear. In the case of Muslims it is their precious religion.

If they were CONVINCED that the West would use nuclear weapons and evaporate their holy sites in case of being attacked by WMD's, they'd probably not do it.

Unfortunately, they know the West is way too soft to do something like that, therefore threatening to do it has no effect.

Perhaps a demonstration of our determination would help.

 

[Winner]

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

Good, that would help a much.

Because actual wars are easily won.

 

[Tee Kay]

Good, that would help a much.

Because actual wars are easily won.

Well that all depends on what you mean by easily won. World War II is an "actual war", I think.

 

[Trajan12]

Isn't this exactly what I proposed some time ago?

Well, I meant it as a hypothetical way how to deter terrorism. It is logical that in a war with a determined enemy who doesn't care about his own survival, you have to threaten something he holds dear. In the case of Muslims it is their precious religion.

If they were CONVINCED that the West would use nuclear weapons and evaporate their holy sites in case of being attacked by WMD's, they'd probably not do it.

Unfortunately, they know the West is way too soft to do something like that, therefore threatening to do it has no effect.

Perhaps a demonstration of our determination would help.

Not being willing to commit nuclear terrorism against millions of innocent lives isn't a sign of "softness" it's a sign of common sense and political maturity.

Wake up and smell the 21st century, we're not going to raze and main and kill until we get what we want. What he proposed and you support is absolute terrorism no matter what way you spin it.

It's not practical, not wise, not right, it's the kind of solution a 10 year old would come to.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

this is why tancredo and you will never be president, john.

 

[silver 2039]

I swear....people are idiots.....

I mean seriously.....

Oh yes by bombing the place that the 1 billion Muslims of the world hold dear we are sure to win!!!

As if....when people desecrate sites of Islam the result is war thats what will happen. Nothing else.

 

[Winner]

Well that all depends on what you mean by easily won. World War II is an "actual war", I think.

Actual war has a beginning and an end. You know who the enemy is and you know how to fight.

 

[Winner]

Not being willing to commit nuclear terrorism against millions of innocent lives isn't a sign of "softness" it's a sign of common sense and political maturity.

Then every war is terrorism. And yes, from certain perspective, it's true. In every war, civilians die. In the modern wars, civilians die more than the combatants.

In the current war, the enemy lacks the common sense and his goals are irrational.

You either accept that and adopt different strategy, or you stubbornly treat him as a "standard" enemy and you lose. Your choice.

And before you say that, I don't necessarily say that nuking Mecca is the solution. I say that the West must stop being soft, because soft civilizations tend to fall.

Wake up and smell the 21st century, we're not going to raze and main and kill until we get what we want. What he proposed and you support is absolute terrorism no matter what way you spin it.

No, in 21st century, we do nothing and hope things will get better. If that's supposed to be a sign of our maturity, we're screwed.

It's not practical, not wise, not right, it's the kind of solution a 10 year old would come to.

Life is not wise, right, fair or practical. If you think that asserting you're morally superior or mature will make your argument better, you're wrong.

 

[Winner]

I swear....people are idiots.....

I mean seriously.....

Oh yes by bombing the place that the 1 billion Muslims of the world hold dear we are sure to win!!!

It is a way how to win. One of the possible ways. Are you going to dispute that?

As if....when people desecrate sites of Islam the result is war thats what will happen. Nothing else.

War with who? Arab League? Oh, I am so afraid of them - they've not been able to destroy one tiny Jewish state in how many, four wars?

Conventional war is not an option, they know that, that's why they've come up with terrorism.

 

[silver 2039]

It is a way how to win. One of the possible ways. Are you going to dispute that?

Yes. It would only serve to radicalize the Islamic population, you would have bombings every day in the US. and Islamic revolutions in formerly secular or moderate countries. Namely places like Pakistan which might I add posses nuclear weapons of their own.

 

[scy12]

Some of the rhetoric in this thread reassures my position that many have extremely strong Idiot side in such matters. Unfortunately i thought this trend started to change in the 21 century. Damn i was wrong.

So I am going to hopelessly laugh.

 

[Winner]

Yes. It would only serve to radicalize the Islamic population, you would have bombings every day in the US. and Islamic revolutions in formerly secular or moderate countries. Namely places like Pakistan which might I add posses nuclear weapons of their own.

What Islamic population? It would be exterminated, as you said.

You said that killing one billion Muslims (which means almost all of them) isn't a way how to win. I say it is - it is inhuman, unacceptable, genocidal etc. - but it IS a way how to win.

 

[Kraznaya]

Win? When the radioactive cloud and Nuclear Winter reaches Europe, who wins?

 

[silver 2039]

You said that killing one billion Muslims (which means almost all of them) isn't a way how to win. I say it is - it is inhuman, unacceptable, genocidal etc. - but it IS a way how to win.

You misinterpreted me. I said nuking Mecca which is a holy site for 1 billion Muslims isn't a way to win.

Oh yes by bombing the place that the 1 billion Muslims of the world hold dear we are sure to win!!!

I never said anything about exterminating them.

 

[aneeshm]

Isn't this exactly what I proposed some time ago?

Well, I meant it as a hypothetical way how to deter terrorism. It is logical that in a war with a determined enemy who doesn't care about his own survival, you have to threaten something he holds dear. In the case of Muslims it is their precious religion.

If they were CONVINCED that the West would use nuclear weapons and evaporate their holy sites in case of being attacked by WMD's, they'd probably not do it.

Unfortunately, they know the West is way too soft to do something like that, therefore threatening to do it has no effect.

Perhaps a demonstration of our determination would help.

I'm afraid, Winner, that it won't work.

It won't work because we're dealing with what are essentially the last, and completely irrational, remnants of what is in both theory and practice a mostly irrational religion/ideology.

The Cold war was a meta-stable state because both actors were rational. In this conflict, one side is completely and irrevocably irrational. So nothing which can be expected to work on a rational opponent will work on them.

How can a deterrent work effectively on people who use something akin to a random number generator to decide their next action?