Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[ParadigmShifter]

I don't know why we bother arguing with MobBoss. He is clearly a far-leftist who makes child-like right-wing arguments in order to make people think all right-wing Christians in the US army are total idiots. His idea of a debate is (a) make an inflammatory remark, preferably against a minority group (b) pick up on small inconsistencies in other peoples counter arguments, (c) subtly change the context of remark (a) in response to criticisms, often backtracking completely from original remark.

*sigh* /whatever.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. Stick to the topic and not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[El_Machinae]

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

And the other side trying to drum up evidence that "science lies, there was no evolution or global warming", there is little hope of education being a complete solution. Both extremist sides are fundamentally disinterested in knowledge. The trick is to discourage those two sides as proactively as possible. Farfur is a lie, but you can't convince people of that unless you give them access to truer information.

But education is still really the key. Think about how you mentioned China and Russia earlier. There was no war (and so wanting a pre-emptive war was the wrong desire). And the reason why things are getting better with these states can easily be tied to education. The Russians learned that globalisation was a superior method of wealth-building and that 'wealth-by-teamwork' worked better than 'wealth by conquest'. So did China

Education can beat the Qur'an too. But, you can't beat it with the wrong education. You can't educate (truthfully) someone that the Bible is 'more true' than the Qur'an (because it's not) (even though I think that the Bible is nicer than the Qur'an, don't get me wrong). But you can educate people to the point where they realise that the Qur'an is not really true and thus not a good reason to kill people.

But getting the education in is the key. We have Farfur equivalents in the Western World, but we don't fall for their crap because we can easily see that their theological foundation is built upon lies.

Bombing inevitably promotes ignorance, because it ruins foundational infrastructure. We want education to happen.

 

[sonorakitch]

No, we would still have Hinduism.

Did you seek to prove your ignorance regarding Hinduism today or did it just slip out? Naturally you do have time to redeem yourself and retract it. If indeed you'd like to compare Islam and Hinduism, then you are off your rocker.

~Chris

 

[sonorakitch]

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

and they'd have every right,

Funny really. You lambast our response for 9/11 and other attacks upon our shrines of culture, but only the Muslims would actually have the right if Mecca were stupidly attacked. And of course "we" don't have the right to be against Islam, but the Muslims would have the right to be against us in response to a government action. Hypocritical to say the least. Or maybe I am jumping to conclusions?

My point is that any foolish attack on Mecca would not be conducted with the support of the people, and thus, if Muslims are as civilized as we are, they wouldn't hold us responsible...only the government.

~Chris

 

[drachasor]

Education can beat the Qur'an too. But, you can't beat it with the wrong education. You can't educate (truthfully) someone that the Bible is 'more true' than the Qur'an (because it's not) (even though I think that the Bible is nicer than the Qur'an, don't get me wrong). But you can educate people to the point where they realise that the Qur'an is not really true and thus not a good reason to kill people.

The Bible (which is full of god-approved genocide) isn't really nicer the Qur'an. Christianity just went through an Enlightenment wherein they decided (and the western world in general) that they'd take the Bible a heck of a lot less seriously and literally. That hasn't happened to Islam yet, so you still have a lot of crazy people in the mainstream (unlike Christianity, generally, where the crazy people are far from mainstream though still there).

 

[MobBoss]

And the other side trying to drum up evidence that "science lies, there was no evolution or global warming", there is little hope of education being a complete solution.

There are more than a few problems with your statement here. The 'other side' most definitely consists of far more than the extremists you mention here; nor are the groups you mention really violent in any way - when was the last time the 'no evolution' group decapitated someone?

Also, I would be willing to bet that the number of violent jihadists far, far, outnumber those that dont believe in evolution or deny global warming.

In terms of impact, there is just no comparing the two groups. None at all.

Both extremist sides are fundamentally disinterested in knowledge.

Sigh. I dont think this true at all.

The trick is to discourage those two sides as proactively as possible. Farfur is a lie, but you can't convince people of that unless you give them access to truer information.

And how do you suggest that we 'control' such access?

But education is still really the key. Think about how you mentioned China and Russia earlier. There was no war (and so wanting a pre-emptive war was the wrong desire). And the reason why things are getting better with these states can easily be tied to education. The Russians learned that globalisation was a superior method of wealth-building and that 'wealth-by-teamwork' worked better than 'wealth by conquest'. So did China

Again, I am not so sure I agree with you. I dont think I would say the Soviet Union was brought down by education, inasmuch as it was brought down by its own corrupt structure and inability to keep up with the USA.

But you can educate people to the point where they realise that the Qur'an is not really true and thus not a good reason to kill people.

Again, nice thoughts. Now how are we supposed to introduce this concept into the Madrassas?

But getting the education in is the key. We have Farfur equivalents in the Western World, but we don't fall for their crap because we can easily see that their theological foundation is built upon lies.

Huh? A Farfur equivalent? Where?

Bombing inevitably promotes ignorance, because it ruins foundational infrastructure. We want education to happen.

/shrug. I dunno. In my point of view history shows us that sometimes getting bombed can be a very educational expereience.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Funny really. You lambast our response for 9/11 and other attacks upon our shrines of culture, but only the Muslims would actually have the right if Mecca were stupidly attacked. And of course "we" don't have the right to be against Islam, but the Muslims would have the right to be against us in response to a government action. Hypocritical to say the least. Or maybe I am jumping to conclusions?

My point is that any foolish attack on Mecca would not be conducted with the support of the people, and thus, if Muslims are as civilized as we are, they wouldn't hold us responsible...only the government.

~Chris

if the american gov't bombed mecca then government targets would be eligible targets. now, what counts as government is a bit iffy. because anything that harms the government could be seen as valid in realpolitik. i say many tacticians would have found 9/11 to be fascinating.

should the UK have bombed the vatican for the IRA?

 

[Mulholland]

should the UK have bombed rome for the IRA?

Vatican city would have sufficed.

 

[drachasor]

/shrug. I dunno. In my point of view history shows us that sometimes getting bombed can be a very educational expereience.

Cite an example that applies to radical extremists groups with members who are willing to die to hurt their enemy.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Vatican city would have sufficed.

haha, a long night of work does that too ya.

 

[MobBoss]

Cite an example that applies to radical extremists groups with members who are willing to die to hurt their enemy.

I was indirectly referring to nations like Japan and Germany.

 

[drachasor]

I was indirectly referring to nations like Japan and Germany.

In other words, you actually don't have an example that applies to terrorism.

 

[scy12]

Dr Strangelove or how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. This thread is nominated for the most hilarious thread for all the time i spent here.

 

[MobBoss]

In other words, you actually don't have an example that applies to terrorism.

I didnt mention terrorism in my comment now did I?

 

[C~G]

Dr Strangelove or how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. This thread is nominated for the most hilarious thread for all the time i spent here.

Yes, indeed.
I actually said this on page 4 or something

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.

I don't want to have anything to do with this thread any more apart from this comment since it's just turd pile similar to that of comment made by the person in the article in the OP.

We could start rolling similar movie in based into this thread and it would be even more funnier. Then again did people laugh to Kubrick's masterpiece during 1960?
I bet some didn't since there are genuine nutcases in both in the muslim party and also in the west.

Allah only knows what will happen.

 

[The Yankee]

For bloody heck...this isn't an argument about kamikaze fighters from Japan or the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Those have nothing to do with the current ridiculous proposition. It's like comparing apples to caulk.

 

[scy12]

Yes, indeed.
I actually said this on page 4 or something

I don't want to have anything to do with this thread any more apart from this comment since it's just turd pile similar to that of comment made by the person in the article in the OP.

We could start rolling similar movie in based into this thread and it would be even more funnier. Then again did people laugh to Kubrick's masterpiece during 1960?
I bet some didn't since there are genuine nutcases in both in the muslim party and also in the west.

Allah only knows what will happen.

Ιncidentally i didn't read all 8 pages and i misted your post but i don't think it's a coincidence we made the same reference.

Some of the posts here are a direct ripoff from the movie and dare i say have surpassed it in brilliance and humour .

Whether or not it was consciously , this is a great moment we are living here.

The worrying is that while American foreign policy when controlled by american interest can be aggressive , violent , etc but all in a controlable rate . As a power it does try to have alies. Compare this with the bomb everyone approach , if Muslim all Muslims and so on :

Originally Posted by John HSOG View Post
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.

And world's future starts to become more uncertain. Do we want a similar ending with an apocalypse ?

Only luck and time will tell.


Since i am powerless , i will just enjoy the show.

 

[El_Machinae]

The 'other side' most definitely consists of far more than the extremists you mention here; nor are the groups you mention really violent in any way - when was the last time the 'no evolution' group decapitated someone?

Think about who the more violent of the "anti-Islam" ideologues are. There's not 100% overlap, but the people who're causing most of the problem are people who think that violence is the first solution. And there's a heavy correlation between this type of thinking and thinking that the Bible is literally true (or at least, these thinkers certainly spurn education and intelligence).

Clearly it's easier to clean up one's own house than the neighbour's house, but half the trick to preventing a holy war is to convince both sides that there's nothing 'holy' to war over. While New York may have been the 9/11 target, the people most interested in naively pursuing continued violence tend to be of the "Bible Belt": and their continued willful ignorance isn't helping anything. Like I said, you can't convince people to give up the Qur'an claiming the Bible is more true. You can convince them that the Bible is nicer (and many people will opt for 'nicer' given the opportunity, really, since most people like nicer lives), or you can convince them that the Qur'an is not true enough to blow yourself up for. But the only way to do that is to discourage ignorance. And cleaning up one's own house is part of a solution: because it's easier to export education when your education is also true. It's a war not only of ideologies, but also a war of religion. Discrediting the source of the religion (through education) will have the best long-term benefits.

 

[JohnRM]

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

It might have solved their problems, if that is what you're asking.

 

[JohnRM]

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.

Actually, this has worked quite well in the past. It is just that, for you, it is much easier to come up with examples of how it didn't work, because those religions/groups are still around to be pointed at. The ones that were destroyed cannot be pointed to.