Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[Verbose]

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.

It would seem that the declaration of a state of war between the US and Iran is a mere formality then. When is it due?

 

[MobBoss]

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

Bethlehem isnt the christian equivalant of Mecca or Medina; plus Bethlehem isnt regarded as specifically holy by the KKK as far as I know.

But to everyone getting their panties all up in a wad: This happening is about as unlikely a thing ever happening. I think Tancredos actually point is that nothing is ever totally off the table. Well, I think such things should (and are) totally off the table until condition X exists.

Could I envision a future in which this happens? Sure, I have at least that much imagination. I could also envision the conditions that need to occur prior to any such terrible event happening. And we are truly an extremely long way away from any of those even remotely occuring.

I daresay many of who here to lament Tancredos comments might have a change of heart if indeed our own innocent women and children were being killed by the millions by a terrorist nuclear attack.

It would seem that the declaration of a state of war between the US and Iran is a mere formality then. When is it due?

I am not sure how you get that from the facts I stated. I dont think Evil Knieval could make that leap....

 

[Rambuchan]

Your quote from MobBoss is missing the closing quotation mark.

It's also missing acceptance from the quote giver himself, who has complained to the authorities, meaning I must remove it. It's a shame some people can't stand by their words, however muddled they may be.

MobBoss: I guess you have realised by now that I have no intention of replying to your post directed at me earlier. You know all the reasons already, many of which have been elaborated upon by Phlegmak in this thread. And you know why I haven't replied to your PM, given your history of invading my PM box and trolling me there. Have a nice day.

Moderator Action: I'll say it one more time. Address the topic and not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JohnRM]

I'm not rewording anything, I'm taking your words, and applying logic to them, something you failed to do, multiple times.

Eh, whatever.

There is no this or that (black and white) Middle Eastern problem. Neither situation is going to happen, and we shouldn't force it to happen.

Yeah, we should.

Okay, except I doubt they'd work with their enemies, they'd most likely just stop committing terrorism.

I don't think there is a possibility of them just stopping terrorist activity and still living back in the seventh century. The change would have to be all-encompassing.

Except Iraq is now a terrorist-breeding ground, and just gets more footage for the terrorists to recruit more of them. Say what you will about the war's progress, but more terrorists are being recruited by showing footage of US Soldiers killing Iraqis, whether they're terrorists, insurgents, or civilians.

Wrong. Iraq is now a meat grinder for terrorists. They are being sent in from all over the Muslim world and they are being killed. And, lets be real here. The sudden rise in the numbers of terrorists with Al-Qaeda are mostly Iraqis who aren't going to fight for Al-Qaeda elsewhere. When this conflict ends, Al-Qaeda isn't going to be much more well off in numbers than it was before the conflict.

Okay, good for you. If you think Islam is what causes terrorism, that might work, but you'll still see terrorism. No, Tom Tancredo is saying that he'll bomb Mecca if attacked.

But, the point of what he said is, "If that is what it takes, then I'll do it."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I daresay many of who here to lament Tancredos comments might have a change of heart if indeed our own innocent women and children were being killed by the millions by a terrorist nuclear attack.

No. I still would not advocate nuking Mecca. Other targets perhaps. And maybe not nukes, but other means. And I would guess that the State delivering those nukes would lose quite some cool points with other Islamic States who might be willing to fight with us. States who would turn fanatically against us if we'd nuke Mecca or Teheran, since fall-out doesn't recognize borders.

So, it would also be a matter of a Strategical Error the likes we've never seen.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So, it would also be a matter of a Strategical Error the likes we've never seen.

but we'd get a new world war, which would boost the FPS market!

 

[MobBoss]

No. I still would not advocate nuking Mecca.

Easy to say now. Things change as do peoples attitudes.

 

[El_Machinae]

And yes, there most certainly cant be a thing as 'all out war'. Dont be so naive as to think otherwise. Its precisely what the most active jihadists seek to have occur.

I'll assume you mean "can"

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

So, your point is that you want to give them what they want? Basically, they've already won, they've already gotten what they want? You're just determined to give it to them in doses more than they can handle?

Your posts are funny.

You can't have an all-out war with a subgroup of people who are trying to convince people that you're a monster worth hating. Not successfully. The only viable tactic is to reduce the recruiting pool and marginalise your fear of terrorism to a reasonable scale.

 

[The Yankee]

That could be terrorism; I was referring to the current, actual conflict.

(In my view, though, terrorism refers to method rather than motive and need not be pejorative.)

Quite right. And given the warped views from these groups, I'd dare say that they'd welcome an attack on Mecca and Medina. After all, if only having American soldiers in the country that was the Guardian of the Two Holy Cities or whatever is the title was enough to be listed as yet another reason to hate the West, then surely they'd have a major PR win from a boneheaded move such as Tancredo's proposal.

I don't think that's quite fair. In WWII for instance, the losses the allies suffered were acceptable to further our cause. Just because you are willing to take losses to achieve an end doesn't mean you are just like a terrorist.

What makes terrorists awful is that they are willing and happy to target and kill civilians and civilian targets. They don't focus on military targets or anything like that. It doesn't help that their attacks don't actually help them achieve their ends.

I'm not so sure about that. It could be said that in the very long term, they may actually want to achieve some of their means by the fact that it's very painful in blood and treasure for some people to continue to fight them. It may not necessarily be against the United States, but if they can get some of the Muslim countries to give in, then they may call it their victory.

2) Inform the community of the new quote in my sig from MobBoss, who has been in fine old form in this thread.

"Space is the Place."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

but we'd get a new world war, which would boost the FPS market!

FPSS, First Person Sticks and Stones.

Easy to say now. Things change as do peoples attitudes.

Yup, you might even come around to my way of thinking

 

[The Yankee]

Easy to say now. Things change as do peoples attitudes.

Which apparently you want to happen sooner rather than later.

Regardless of what us plebians might feel, it'd be a terrible strategic move to go ballistic and wipe out Saudi Arabia's Red Sea coastline.

Besides, haven't we thought of fallout going to Israel? We can't do it if we must back Israel at all costs!

And yes, there most certainly cant be a thing as 'all out war'. Dont be so naive as to think otherwise. Its precisely what the most active jihadists seek to have occur.

Sounds like you're ready to help them achieve that goal.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

I was under the impression we were discussing proactive terrorism, not regional self-defense.

If you're going to count people who'll defend their homeland as 'jihadists', then I guess your best bet to reduce jihadist absolute numbers is to invade and attack as many holy sites as possible. Find everyone who's willing to defend Mecca with their lives by attacking Mecca.

The number of people who're motivated sufficiently to kill Westerners (as part of a Jihad), enough that they'll take proactive steps, is only a few thousand.

If you want to reduce the number of people who're willing to kill you (out of some type of regional defense motive) is to reduce the number of people who feel like they're being proactively attacked. But that would make sense, you know, like by trying to encourage education.

 

[MobBoss]

I'll assume you mean "can"

You are correct. I will correct the typo thanks.

So, your point is that you want to give them what they want?

No, my point is that if we ever felt the need to nuke those sites they will already have what they want.

Your posts are funny.

/shrug. I happen to think yours are so out of touch with reality as to be fantasy material. But /oh well.

You can't have an all-out war with a subgroup of people who are trying to convince people that you're a monster worth hating.

Never what I said. You seem to have a problem in understanding the concept that an all-out war would only occur with the unification of the Islamic States and a worldwide Jihad.

Not successfully. The only viable tactic is to reduce the recruiting pool and marginalise your fear of terrorism to a reasonable scale.

Again, how exactly do we reduce their recruiting pool when they control their own recruiting pool in the forms of their madrassas?

Oh, I remember.....we get the ID people to change their minds. /smacks forehead. I forgot thats the answer to everything.

 

[IglooDame]

Bethlehem isnt the christian equivalant of Mecca or Medina; plus Bethlehem isnt regarded as specifically holy by the KKK as far as I know.

No worries, just hit it on Christmas Eve. But sure my illustrative comparison isn't an exact analogy; in this case that doesn't particularly detract from my point that leveling Mecca and Medina would be in effect doing to our own citizens roughly what the Japanese internment camps did in WWII, if not moreso.

But to everyone getting their panties all up in a wad: This happening is about as unlikely a thing ever happening. I think Tancredos actually point is that nothing is ever totally off the table. Well, I think such things should (and are) totally off the table until condition X exists.

How smart is it to make a point which one knows will get totally drowned out in the ensuing uproar, giving our enemy rhetorical ammunition to use against us?

Could I envision a future in which this happens? Sure, I have at least that much imagination. I could also envision the conditions that need to occur prior to any such terrible event happening. And we are truly an extremely long way away from any of those even remotely occuring.

But there are plenty of people that think that in this "global clash of civilizations" it is just a matter of time before terrorists employ a WMD against us. Indeed the only truly unlikely thing within that mindset is that Tancredo could actually be elected President.

I daresay many of who here to lament Tancredos comments might have a change of heart if indeed our own innocent women and children were being killed by the millions by a terrorist nuclear attack.

I daresay killing millions of their innocent women and children wouldn't bring my heart any peace.

 

[The Yankee]

Were the Twin Towers a valid military target?

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

So much for the moral high ground.

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.

We're not even facing the Basij. Whatever you may think of Iran's motives and whatever support they've given to Hezbollah and others, those human wave Basij forces operated in the defense of Iran against Iraqi aggression (one of the reasons we love calling Hussein a butcher, because of all the wars he liked to start). Is there any evidence that we are or will face Iran's Basij, especially all 11 million plus whatever they draft, before deciding to have Muslims pray in the direction of a mushroom cloud?

 

[The Yankee]

They will still be terrorists.

So what's the flippin' point of using those weapons if it doesn't even give us a win?

 

[MobBoss]

Which apparently you want to happen sooner rather than later.

Well, my point was simply that if such a war was indeed inevitable, sooner would be better than later.

Besides, haven't we thought of fallout going to Israel? We can't do it if we must back Israel at all costs!

I thought the prevailing winds were the other way?

Sounds like you're ready to help them achieve that goal.

*sigh*. How many times do I have to say it before people understand. I agree with you, doing it prior to any such world-wide jihad would only piss them off worse. But, if the religious war to end all wars is already in progress; nuking their religious sites isnt going to make them pissed off +1. It would be a result of them tearing the living hell out of us on our home turf.

Now, we both know all of that is sheer fantasy considering where we are at today. But then again, thats where discussing such hypotheticals gets you.

 

[The Yankee]

I daresay many of who here to lament Tancredos comments might have a change of heart if indeed our own innocent women and children were being killed by the millions by a terrorist nuclear attack.

Some people have already gone through their own hells brought upon by the terrorists.

Don't we elect presidents to have a clearer head about them even in the face of disaster?

 

[The Yankee]

Well, my point was simply that if such a war was indeed inevitable, sooner would be better than later.

We haven't even given the hearts and minds tactic a real shot yet.

I thought the prevailing winds were the other way?

And the waves of new soldiers head in that direction regardless.

*sigh*. How many times do I have to say it before people understand. I agree with you, doing it prior to any such world-wide jihad would only piss them off worse. But, if the religious war to end all wars is already in progress; nuking their religious sites isnt going to make them pissed off +1. It would be a result of them tearing the living hell out of us on our home turf.

Now, we both know all of that is sheer fantasy considering where we are at today. But then again, thats where discussing such hypotheticals gets you.

So...if you agree that Tancredo's hypothetical is sheer folly, then why continue with this exercise? The only thing we've gained from his statement is that he seems to be unfit to be President.

 

[MobBoss]

I was under the impression we were discussing proactive terrorism, not regional self-defense.

Not all jihadists are proactive terrorists.

If you're going to count people who'll defend their homeland as 'jihadists', then I guess your best bet to reduce jihadist absolute numbers is to invade and attack as many holy sites as possible. Find everyone who's willing to defend Mecca with their lives by attacking Mecca.

Are you really so naive that you dont think Iran is covertly helping out the insurgents in Iraq? There is mounting evidence that this is indeed the case and there is more coming in monthly? Is Iraq part of the Iranian homeland?

Has not Iran been supplying, training and funding Hezbollah for decades? Is Lebanon part of the Iranian homeland?

Wake up for goodness sake.

The number of people who're motivated sufficiently to kill Westerners (as part of a Jihad), enough that they'll take proactive steps, is only a few thousand.

If this were true, the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over years ago....YEARS AGO as we would have eliminated those few thousand plus a lot more.

You couldnt be more completely wrong in your assumption.