Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[C~G]

Not in the least.

Good God.

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.

What? Are living in the 1950's and scared of russkies now?

Oh wait, this is even more ridiculous since you aren't hitting Soviet Union but China since you are afraid of the communists in general even though exactly Soviet Union might be the actual threat while China is just whipping boy. Better make sure though we get them first.

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

Did I say it was the only reason?
It was the reason presented to the public of US and seemingly it worked to convince quite many about it.

And now we have witnessed the threat was minimal back then.

Not sure how you think this, but /whatever.

Well, if you think striking into some civilian target as pre-emptive measure that hasn't anything to do with actually neutralizing the opponent that has capability to hurt you and will hurt you soon as possible and only reason is to cause terror, then it's terrorism in it's own right. Do you get it now?

Apparently not, since of course for you US can only do threats but not terror. Yeah, righ. Ultimately they are the one and the same thing.

This whole scenarios really sounds like taken from some anti-communist patriotic propaganda flick back in the days or taken directly from Dr. Strangelove. I did love the film as it satirised perfectly these doomsday scenarios and especially those with itchy fingers and being close (maybe too close to remain sane) to the button.

The whole concept is simply nuts.

 

[MobBoss]

Good God.
What? Are living in the 1950's and scared of russkies now?

Do you detect any fear in my comments? Heck, no. I am merely of the opinion that such a jihad religious war is very likely. Sure, I could be wrong, but thats my opinion. Just because I have that opinion doesnt mean I am some sort of fear-monger - its just the way I see things.

Oh wait, this is even more ridiculous since you aren't hitting Soviet Union but China since you are afraid of the communists in general even though exactly Soviet Union might be the actual threat while China is just whipping boy.

Huh? Tell you what...if trying to converse with you on this is going to render you so emtional that you cant make any sense then perhaps you need to step back for a bit.

Better make sure though we get them first.

See. Now you are becoming irrational and you cant even quote me correctly. I never said hit them first. I dont endorse a first strike.

Did I say it was the only reason?

Actually, the way you parsed your comment you did allege it.

It was the reason presented to the public of US and seemingly it worked to convince quite many about it.

It wasnt the only reason presented to the US public. Thats just the truth.

Well, if you think striking into some civilian target as pre-emptive measure that hasn't anything to do with actually neutralizing the opponent that has capability to hurt you and will hurt you soon as possible and only reason is to cause terror, then it's terrorism in it's own right. Do you get it now?

Please retain your faculties. Where did I ever say pre-emptive? The only person here 'not getting it' is you since you cant seem to quote people correctly.

Apparently not, since of course for you US can only do threats but not terror. Yeah, righ. Ultimately they are the one and the same thing.

Again....huh?

This whole scenarios really sounds like taken from some anti-communist patriotic propaganda flick back in the days or taken directly from Dr. Strangelove. I did love the film as it satirised perfectly these doomsday scenarios and especially those with itchy fingers and being close (maybe too close to remain sane) to the button.

The whole concept is simply nuts.

Now its my turn to say Good God.

 

[JollyRoger]

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?

Please send a memo to Tancredo that Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis involved in terror might not mind Saudi Arabia being nuked.

 

[Tee Kay]

People seemed to be forgetting that not all Muslims are fanatics.

 

[The Yankee]

Please send a memo to Tancredo that Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis involved in terror might not mind Saudi Arabia being nuked.

Besides, it's not as if there haven't been attacks on Mecca before.

 

[Verbose]

People seemed to be forgetting that not all Muslims are fanatics.

Oh, that's just a temporary inconvenience!

Apparently there are forces hard at work in the US to remove it.

 

[Fifty]

so Mobby you think nuking a holy cite for hundreds of millions of non-fanatic muslims is fair game to stop a smal contingent of fanatic arab muslims? And you really think that would help end their idea that a holy war is happening?

 

[The Yankee]

so Mobby you think nuking a holy cite for hundreds of millions of non-fanatic muslims is fair game to stop a smal contingent of fanatic arab muslims? And you really think that would help end their idea that a holy war is happening?

Wouldn't help cure the fundy mindset that "Islam is under siege."

 

[BasketCase]

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.”

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.

 

[MobBoss]

People seemed to be forgetting that not all Muslims are fanatics.

Not all Germans supported Hitler either...but that didnt stop the war from happening.

so Mobby you think nuking a holy cite for hundreds of millions of non-fanatic muslims is fair game to stop a smal contingent of fanatic arab muslims?

No. I would only advocate blowing those cities if the Jihad turned full-bore.

And you really think that would help end their idea that a holy war is happening?

I think it would send them a pretty good message that God isnt really backing them and that perhaps the whole 'holy war' thing was a mistake to begin with.

 

[blacktrance]

Ok, Tancredo! Welcome to the club of crazies along with Ron Paul, and Rudi Guiliani. Who if elected will cause me to imediatel emmigrate or begin an armed revolt...

Ron Paul isn't crazy! He's the best G.O.P. candidate.

 

[BasketCase]

People seemed to be forgetting that not all Muslims are fanatics.

And Muslims forget that not all Americans who got killed in the World Trade Center bombing were anti-Muslim. We all saw the result of 9/11: America was (temporarily) radicalized. Widespread support for George Bush, and a huge surge in signups for the U.S. military.

The difference is, once we whacked the Taliban, we left the rest of the Muslim world alone. All Muslims would do well to remember that. We didn't nuke the entire Muslim world off the Earth--we went after the one party who wronged us.

(Our later invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Islam--Saddam's Iraq was a secular state)

 

[C~G]

Do you detect any fear in my comments? Heck, no. I am merely of the opinion that such a jihad religious war is very likely. Sure, I could be wrong, but thats my opinion. Just because I have that opinion doesnt mean I am some sort of fear-monger - its just the way I see things.

Please retain your faculties. Where did I ever say pre-emptive? The only person here 'not getting it' is you since you cant seem to quote people correctly.

Now its my turn to say Good God.

So I try to get this straight now, MobBoss, even though my message was maybe obscure there's nothing irrational about since your position is bit more than confusing.

You say it's not pre-emptive but it should happen now before it's too late.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. I would only advocate blowing those cities if the Jihad turned full-bore.

Which happens from your point of you inevitably so it's better hit them now (with nukes?) => sooner rather than later when not so many yet have nuclear capacity?

That is your position, am I not correct?

And please don't say I misquoted you, those are direct quotes.

I think it would send them a pretty good message that God isnt really backing them and that perhaps the whole 'holy war' thing was a mistake to begin with.

Would you remind or think your God isn't anymore in your side if your holy cities are bombed?
Would it change anything? Probably not.

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..

Yeah, and the other part is that it would be against freedom, democracy and peace and all that other crap which is supposed to contrast the ways of these lads we fight against...
But let's forget those and concentrate into the issue of being sissy.

 

[The Yankee]

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

Yep, poor us. But given enough determination and will, we have stared down those iron-fisted dictators (unless we feel like supporting them because there are pinkos waving weapons).

And Muslims forget that not all Americans who got killed in the World Trade Center bombing were anti-Muslim. We all saw the result of 9/11: America was (temporarily) radicalized. Widespread support for George Bush, and a huge surge in signups for the U.S. military.

The difference is, once we whacked the Taliban, we left the rest of the Muslim world alone. All Muslims would do well to remember that. We didn't nuke the entire Muslim world off the Earth--we went after the one party who wronged us.

(Our later invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Islam--Saddam's Iraq was a secular state)

In this, you're right (I don't think we became radicalized, even if temporarily, but it is true that some feelings did come to the forefront from those already radicalized. Rather, I think we were united...a dangerous opponent to our enemies.). I know someone will come back and say Hussein supported Palestinian terrorists by offering checks...yet that was an Arab-Israeli affair rather than a fanatical religious terrorist issue. Hussein feared those fundies, as they posed a threat to his own power.

 

[The Yankee]

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

Careful, before someone interprets that as you wanting a terrorist attack to happen here sooner so we can go ahead and turn the Ka'aba into a glowing pile of wreckage.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

Again, such an attack would further entrench those already wishing us harm. Plus an attack that could take out Muslims from pretty much every country in the world on hajj would earn us absolutely zero friends. And regardless of the "us v. them" battle, we do need friends.

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.

Or we could go after the terrorists. Maybe Obamarama's declaration of telling Musharraf to shove off if he doesn't step up the campaign in Waziristan has some merit after all...

Until then, we need to cut the crap about being so scared that the terrorists will think we're weak. We must be weak if we're so damn concerned about appearing weak.

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?

That they do, because of the choices made by the leaders of the Saudi royal family. Yet the alliance between the Wahhabis and the House of Sa'ud has probably given us more grief than that coming from dozens of other countries.

Here's an interesting Q & A from 2003 from the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

[Merkinball]

This is CRAZY! I cannot believe that anybody would possibly support Tancredo's statement. Tancredo needs to have to shut up. It's pretty sad when the State Department has to come out and tell presidential wannabe's to shut up because they are hurting diplomatic relations before they are even president.

This is stupid. Nuking Mecca would be the absolute stupidest thing to do...EVER.

Now, Locke can feel free to chime in, but so far as what I've gathered, there are about two things that COULD draw forth a fatwa from all the Imam's and Sheikh's calling for jihad. One could possibly, maybe be an attack on the Temple Mount. But the one sure thing, that would trigger fatwa's in every corner of Islam, except for maybe America. Would be bombing Mecca. It would be instantaneous world war. Every Islamic theocracy on earth would declare war on America. Every mosque would be calling for jihad and sending recruits. Man...this is the worst possible thing that could ever happen on the face of the earth. Pakistan has nukes. Iran is close to nukes. Various Islamic states have WMD's. We'd lose God knows how much oil, our economy would crash for at least a decade. There would be endless violence. Other nations not involved would surely get involved.

Please Tancredo. Shut up.

Why, oh why, would we destroy the holiest site, of the most hardline religion on earth, to over a billion people, because of the actions of a few terrorists? Hm. Makes sense. Terrorists hit Iraq, go after ALL Muslims. Ya know, the ones in Bagladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco...they all deserve punishment.

God what an idiot.

Anybody advocating this is in the same boat.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, if enough Grand Ayatollahs in Shi'a Islam issue the fatwa, we'll have the whole of Shi'a Islam on our case (since it won't be just the individual hawza from an ayatollah acting on it, it'll be on everyone)...and though Sunnis don't have the same structure, I'm sure we'll find ourselves battling far more Sunnis than we have previously.

So, once the nukes go off...we kiss our Middle Eastern assets goodbye. And, if one's concerned about it, Israel would probably get in another fight for its life.

 

[MobBoss]

You say it's not pre-emptive but it should happen now before it's too late.

What I said is that I prefer the conflict happen now, while we realize a significant techology/firepower edge, than in the future where that may be in doubt.

Clear enough?

/shrug. Thought I made it clear when I said plain that I didnt endorse a pre-emptive strike. But if you can comprehend such a statement, I cant help you.

Which happens from your point of you inevitably so it's better hit them now (with nukes?) => sooner rather than later when not so many yet have nuclear capacity?

That is your position, am I not correct?

You are not correct. I dont believe nukes should ever be used in a pre-emptive or first strike capability.

And please don't say I misquoted you, those are direct quotes.

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

Would you remind or think your God isn't anymore in your side if your holy cities are bombed?

I could see where some would. Dont you?

Would it change anything? Probably not.

/shrug. I disagree. I think it would change everything. I do not see how it could fail to do so.

 

[MobBoss]

Again, such an attack would further entrench those already wishing us harm. Plus an attack that could take out Muslims from pretty much every country in the world on hajj would earn us absolutely zero friends. And regardless of the "us v. them" battle, we do need friends.

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.

Until then, we need to cut the crap about being so scared that the terrorists will think we're weak. We must be weak if we're so damn concerned about appearing weak.

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.