Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[drachasor]

/shrug.

So, if the former president of Iraq says he will use nukes if his country is attacked by terrorists, everyone nods and says how quite right he is to say this.

Where are you getting this from?

If Tancredo essentially says no targets are off the table if we get attacked by terrorists and mecca and midina are possible retaliation targets, then he is a complete whacko.

Just to be clear. Tancredo isnt calling for some first strike against mecca or midina. He is saying if our country suffers an attack on a far more massive scale than say in 9/11 then such targets shouldnt be dismissed.

They aren't valid military targets. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to how they would be valid military targets. The best you've been able to do is say they are important to the Jihadists, so in response to a terrorist attack we should blow up something important to the attackers (regardless of the innocent lives lost, apparently). You certainly haven't shown any way in which an attack on those targets would be helpful.

Personally I think we should go after valid military targets, not any civilian population. Or do you think that a few terrorists attacks by Islamic extremists means every Muslim in the world is after us and is involved in those attacks?

-Drachasor

 

[Mr. Dictator]

You are kidding me right. Only a few 10s of thousands?

I think you short by a few million.

wanna prove it?

 

[MobBoss]

wanna prove it?

A good example would be the number of soldiers that took up jihad against Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. The Iranian Basij conducted 'human wave' attacks during the war in order to blunt the Iraqi offensive. They took up the jihad as young as 12 years old and many achieved martyrdom by volunteer to walk into minefields to clear them.

Iran estimated it had 11 million Basij ready to take up the jihad in Nov 2005.

So yeah, I am pretty confident we face not just a few tens of thousands (hell we have killed more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan) but possibly millions.

All it takes is a little common sense.

 

[Murky]

How this nut job got elected to any office is a mystery to me.

 

[MobBoss]

Where are you getting this from?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant France and went back and changed it. Thanks.

They aren't valid military targets. You certainly haven't presented any argument as to how they would be valid military targets.

Did we not bomb and destroy non-military targets in WWII?

Were the Twin Towers a valid military target?

Do you think our enemy will limit themselves to valid military targets?

 

[drachasor]

So yeah, I am pretty confident we face not just a few tens of thousands (hell we have killed more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan) but possibly millions.

Lumping civilian war casualties in with terrorists and other extremists is wholly inappropriate and wrong. As is your seeming misconception that all the "jihadists" are on one big team.

 

[MobBoss]

Lumping civilian war casualties in with terrorists and other extremists is wholly inappropriate and wrong. As is your seeming misconception that all the "jihadists" are on one big team.

Exactly how do you separate the civilians from the terrorists and extremists in this situation? Thats part of the current problem we face.

If we have a religious war wont they be on one big team? Isnt that what people say will happen if we nuked those targets?

The point is, attacking those does not make sense unless we are facing them as 'one big team'. Thats part of the point I have been making all along.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

All it takes is a little common sense.

so common sense dictates we be paranoid of an unknown number of people?

even if there are a million. does a million out of a billion justify bombing mecca?

 

[drachasor]

Sorry, my mistake. I meant France and went back and changed it. Thanks.

Do you have a quote on this and reports of the responses. I don't think anyone would think such a statement would be ok.

Did we not bomb and destroy non-military targets in WWII?

Were the Twin Towers a valid military target?

Do you think our enemy will limit themselves to valid military targets?

We were wrong to do so in WWII, and modern warfare doesn't involve the intentional bombing of civilian targets. Even if are enemies stoop to that level, we shouldn't do it. We're better than that.

Also, Islamic terrorists aren't some sort of country. It's a headless beast, and you can't just destroy one thing and get rid of it. You can destroy things important to them, like Mecca, but that's like destroying the Statue of Liberty because it was important to a terrorist from America. In any case, destroying a religious holy site would add more support and volunteers to terrorists organizations. It would make things worse, not better.

 

[drachasor]

Exactly how do you separate the civilians from the terrorists and extremists in this situation? Thats part of the current problem we face.

If we have a religious war wont they be on one big team? Isnt that what people say will happen if we nuked those targets?

The point is, attacking those does not make sense unless we are facing them as 'one big team'. Thats part of the point I have been making all along.

The first step in separating the two is NOT stating every civilian is a terrorist. Wow, you just posted an excellent reason NOT to nuke religious targets. Thanks.

They aren't one big team, and we shouldn't turn it into a religious war like that. Your proposing to commit mass murder just so we have targets that are easy to strike (because we've added targets, not because we've located the hard-to-find targets). Are you saying we should outlaw Islam then and kill or arrest anyone who practices that religion?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you have a quote on this and reports of the responses. I don't think anyone would think such a statement would be ok.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html

As far as responses, I am sure you can find plenty of them, both pro and con.

We were wrong to do so in WWII, and modern warfare doesn't involve the intentional bombing of civilian targets. Even if are enemies stoop to that level, we shouldn't do it. We're better than that.

That only goes so far. Part of the reason we did it during WWII was precisely because the enemy did it first.

If our enemy continues to kill our civilians, there will be a threshold to that and at some point the line will be crossed and we will retalitate in kind.

If an enemy launched a nuke(s) at our major cities, do you think we wouldnt respond in kind or do you think we would hold back in fear of harming civilians?

Also, Islamic terrorists aren't some sort of country. It's a headless beast, and you can't just destroy one thing and get rid of it.

Islamic terrorism wouldnt exist without nations backing them.

 

[MobBoss]

The first step in separating the two is NOT stating every civilian is a terrorist. Wow, you just posted an excellent reason NOT to nuke religious targets. Thanks.

They aren't one big team, and we shouldn't turn it into a religious war like that. Your proposing to commit mass murder just so we have targets that are easy to strike (because we've added targets, not because we've located the hard-to-find targets). Are you saying we should outlaw Islam then and kill or arrest anyone who practices that religion?

Again, you dont seem to understand what I am saying here. Such an attack would ONLY come if the Jihadists had struck us massively across the USA. I am talking pretty much full war with the Islamic states.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Because the Islamic States are the terrorists?

 

[drachasor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html

As far as responses, I am sure you can find plenty of them, both pro and con.

So everyone didn't nod and say how right they were. So it isn't like what you said.

That only goes so far. Part of the reason we did it during WWII was precisely because the enemy did it first.

If our enemy continues to kill our civilians, there will be a threshold to that and at some point the line will be crossed and we will retalitate in kind.

Terrorists don't have civilians. They aren't part of a government or country, but groups of people acting outside of nations. So retaliation doesn't work as a justification at all.

That only goes so far. Part of the reason we did If an enemy launched a nuke(s) at our major cities, do you think we wouldnt respond in kind or do you think we would hold back in fear of harming civilians?

Since they wouldn't be part of the terrorist outfit that was responsible, then yes, I think we wouldn't attack.

That only goes so far. Part of the reason we did Islamic terrorism wouldnt exist without nations backing them.

This certainly has happened in some cases, but terrorist groups can find plenty of ways to function without the backing of a government. They need money, but there are many ways to get financing without the backing of a nation.

Anyhow, are you suggesting that if America is attacked by terrorists we should nuke a random country that has supported terrorism in its past (and perhaps still is)? Even if it didn't support anyone that attacked us? That's an unsound policy if so.

 

[skadistic]

Because the Islamic States are the terrorists?

Some of them are yes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Some of them are yes.

And after nuking Mecca?

 

[drachasor]

Again, you dont seem to understand what I am saying here. Such an attack would ONLY come if the Jihadists had struck us massively across the USA. I am talking pretty much full war with the Islamic states.

It's not like all the "Islamic States" even get along with each other. They aren't one big team doing everything in concert, and blaming all of them for the act of one terrorist group that didn't necessarily have the support of any of them is a bad idea.

You seem to want to have one big, easy enemy to attack. I'm sorry but terrorism doesn't work that way. There are no big nations to strike at, you must largely hunt down the groups one piece at a time instead.

-Drachasor

 

[skadistic]

And after nuking Mecca?

They will still be terrorists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They will still be terrorists.

No doubt. And the non-terrorist Islamic States? (or should I say, former non-terrorist Islamic States by that time). edit: No, I shouldn't. I realize that reacting on such an atrocity in warlike fashion doesn't make them terrorists. Make that non-hostile and former non-hostile

---

Unite the Islamic States in a holy war against the West.

Is this a good idea?
[]Yes
[]No

 

[IglooDame]

"If this is done to us, this is how we'll respond." - Rep. Tancredo just failed International Relations 101.

The Muslim terrorists, like anyone crusading on God's behalf, will reinterpret their holy book as necessary - coating bullets in pig's blood doesn't make them cower and surrender, neither will this. Quite the opposite, they'll probably either see the destruction of Mecca/Medina as the key to rallying all Muslims to their cause, or they'll anticipate that Allah will protect those two sites, showing the Great Satan for what it is, etc etc.

I have decided to never again say that something was the stupidest thing I've ever heard, because for the rest of the day stupider things seem to keep coming up.

Edit: And if you think "home-grown terrorist" was a bunch of moron pizza delivery drivers, you can't imagine what will happen just among Americans that are Muslim.

How many Christians would reconsider their loyalties if the US government firebombed Bethlehem after a terrorist attack by the KKK?