Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[dutchfire]

This idea is so incredibily stupid that there are hardly words to describe it.

Starting a nuclear war is NOT going to make our problems smaller.

 

[Bill3000]

Outside of the obvious example of Pakistan declaring war, I'd probably even bet Russia would even use it as an excuse to attack, considering its large muslim minority.

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.

No, we would still have Hinduism.

 

[Phlegmak]

Tancredo's strategy won't work--but not for the reason any of you expected.

The real problem with Tancredo's idea is that even if we did nuke a Muslim holy city off the map, by and large we Westerners are still goodie-two-shoes sissies. Large numbers of Westerners would still sob and cry and moan at the number of civilian casualties inflicted.

In order to be an effective iron-fisted dictator, you have to genuinely not care. You have to be willing to kill everybody who gets in your way without shedding a tear. That's why totalitarian regimes such as China don't have a problem with terrorism: they don't give half a crap about their own citizens. Nobody bothers holding said citizens to ransom because the government doesn't care.

And that's where we Westerners fall short. That's why we don't cut it as iron-fisted dictators.

The president of the goddamned US isn't an iron fisted dictator! Your entire post is meaningless!

 

[aneeshm]

No, we would still have Hinduism.

In the context of what you quoted, this makes absolutely no sense.

 

[useless]

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.

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

I mean seriously.....

Oh yes by destroying the place that the 1 billion americans work at means that muslims are peaceful!!!

yes. islam. the peaceful religion. they're so peaceful.

 

[silver 2039]

Oh yes by destroying the place that the 1 billion americans work at means that muslims are peaceful!!!

1. There aren't 1 billion Americans.

2. Not all of them work there.

3. Whats your point?

 

[Speedo]

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.

So we "respond" to a terrorist attack by murdering more innocent civilians, and inciting 20% of the world's population (muslims) to hate us utterly and completely?

Well, at least you've succeeded in letting us know that you're a complete Moderator Action: <snip><snip> .

Moderator Action: Language and flame.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[El_Machinae]

Considering how many shrines and mosques are bombed, I don't think that the protection of Holy Sites is high on many whack-jobs lists.

There may be millions of potential terrorists deterred by such a threat, but there are thousands who aren't: they'd be more than happy for a global war between Islam and everyone else.

The best weapon is education. Convince enough people that "Mountains don't actually keep the earth stable" and you'll get a tipping point where idiocy will be a hiccup in society.

 

[JohnRM]

To start, I never stated that nuclear weapons would be used, as part of my policy. I hadn't even given it any thought, actually, but needless to say if it comes down to our cities getting attacked with weapons of mass destruction, I would destroy the central identity or source of power of the attackers.

If the attackers are Russian, claim to fight for Russia, and the nuke is Russian, I will, at minimum, demand or DYI the destruction of Russian nukes or wipe out the entire country, if I have to.

If the attackers are French, claim to fight for France, and the cheese-missile has French writing on it, I will destroy every last cheese factory in France.

If the attackers are Muslims and fight in the name of Islam, I would destroy the foundations of Islam itself, including its holiest sites, intern all Muslims within this country, and prevent any other Muslims from coming in.

The day our people start dying by the hundreds of thousands is the day that this world will truly change. If you think I'm crazy, then just stand-by, cause if this ever happens, you'll find out how truly crazy the majority of the people in this country can get.

 

[Red Door]

So, by that argument, wouldn't Islam have the right to destroy the foundation of Christianity in the Middle Ages?

 

[Bast]

Obviously, this isn't going to solve any problems.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If the attackers are Muslims and fight in the name of Islam, I would destroy the foundations of Islam itself, including its holiest sites, intern all Muslims within this country, and prevent any other Muslims from coming in.

i'd have you know that i'd support your internment, for inciting terrorism.

 

[JollyRoger]

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.

It's not anti-Christian. It's anti-fundy. You stated you hope for a massive terrorist attack on an unheard of scale now because you are convinced that the attack will happen eventually. Posts like that are going to get a negative reaction. If some Muslim or atheist came on here and posted they are hoping for a million American deaths sooner rather than later, I don't think you would hold back your criticism and I don't think you would consider yourself the troll in that situation.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not anti-Christian. It's anti-fundy. You stated you hope for a massive terrorist attack on an unheard of scale now because you are convinced that the attack will happen eventually.

I stated I hope our enemies are that stupid; not that I hope for an attack. My hope is that no attack EVER happens. BUT, if a war is truly inevitable, I would want it sooner, rather than later for the reasons I stated.

Clear enough for you?

Posts like that are going to get a negative reaction. If some Muslim or atheist came on here and posted they are hoping for a million American deaths sooner rather than later, I don't think you would hold back your criticism and I don't think you would consider yourself the troll in that situation.

*sigh*. You know, the difference between you and I is that if someone clarifies their position then I am more than happy to accept what they say. You on the other hand just dont seem to get it, because clarification gets in the way of your agenda.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think that war is inevitable. I keep thinking that education can change someone's mind. Of course, I've learned that people have to want to learn. And most people don't. This is probably why we force young people to learn, because few people do it willingly.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think that war is inevitable. I keep thinking that education can change someone's mind. Of course, I've learned that people have to want to learn. And most people don't. This is probably why we force young people to learn, because few people do it willingly.

Well, when one sides education consists of Farfur the Jew hating mouse it kinda defines the entire situation......

 

[JollyRoger]

I stated I hope our enemies are that stupid; not that I hope for an attack.

You say you are hoping that are enemies are stupid enough to cause a millions deaths asap, but you are also hoping that those attacks don't happen. Looks like pretty inconsistent hopes and until you drop the first "hope", you don't get a pass from me.

I*sigh*. You know, the difference between you and I is that if someone clarifies their position then I am more than happy to accept what they say. You on the other hand just dont seem to get it, because clarification gets in the way of your agenda.

Even to this latest post in the exchange, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and not clarifying at all. You stated two contradictory hopes. Which part of the contradiction should I accept?

 

[drachasor]

To start, I never stated that nuclear weapons would be used, as part of my policy. I hadn't even given it any thought, actually, but needless to say if it comes down to our cities getting attacked with weapons of mass destruction, I would destroy the central identity or source of power of the attackers.

If the attackers are Russian, claim to fight for Russia, and the nuke is Russian, I will, at minimum, demand or DYI the destruction of Russian nukes or wipe out the entire country, if I have to.

If the attackers are French, claim to fight for France, and the cheese-missile has French writing on it, I will destroy every last cheese factory in France.

If the attackers are Muslims and fight in the name of Islam, I would destroy the foundations of Islam itself, including its holiest sites, intern all Muslims within this country, and prevent any other Muslims from coming in.

The day our people start dying by the hundreds of thousands is the day that this world will truly change. If you think I'm crazy, then just stand-by, cause if this ever happens, you'll find out how truly crazy the majority of the people in this country can get.

Bloody brilliant.

How stupid we are to not realize that if you destroy all the holy sites of a religion, then that religion will die. I mean, just look at history and you'll see a long line of examples where this strategy has worked. It's especially effective at getting people who weren't sure where to stand to be on your side, and to ensure that moderation rather extremism prevails in the future.

or....(commenting on blaming a majority for the actions of a tiny minority)

Terrorist Strategy against John HSG:

1. Make list of enemies

2. Attack Target

3. Claim you are fighting for cause of said enemy (particularly effective is to claim to be fighting for America, or, if you don't like dentists, then dentistry. Then John will nuke the Statue of Liberty and bomb all Dental Schools).

And yes, I think you are bloody crazy. Just because there are crazier people out there does not make you less crazy. Well, maybe you are just horribly ignorant and/or haven't thought out what you are proposing. In that case, you are just very, very foolish.

Moderator Action: Flaming. Lighten up.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Yankee]

I stated I hope our enemies are that stupid; not that I hope for an attack. My hope is that no attack EVER happens. BUT, if a war is truly inevitable, I would want it sooner, rather than later for the reasons I stated.

Does not compute.

What ever happened to "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," anyway?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

if you bombed mecca, you'd turn the entire world of muslims against the US.

and they'd have every right, just as catholics would if we bombed the vatican.

and i'm sure uncle sam could wrestle a world of muslims

i'm sorry, for emphasis