Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!

[MobBoss]

I'm using some wiki to refresh my history, but the temple of Jerusalem being destroyed was not the item that ended the wars per se, it was that Jerusalem (and particularly in the Roman case, the temple being in effect the central citadel) was finally overcome after respective sieges. The end of those wars were not specific to the religious implications of the temple's destruction, but rather to the fact that Jerusalem was essentially the final holdout of the local defenders.

This is a far different strategic circumstance than an opening-shot destruction of the holy real estate that has no inherent military value.

Well, we could argue this all day; but I dont think it any great reach of the imagination that destroying the temples in both cases effectively broke the will of the hebrews utterly and totally. In the babylonian case, Israel was captive for like 70 years, until shown mercy by Cyrus; and in the Romans case, the tribes were scattered to the 4 corners of the world.

 

[MobBoss]

Additionally, MobBoss, you didn't address my second point at all. That's a point I consider particularly problematic for your entire line of argument.

I think it a fair enough point; but as to how rational the USA would be after such a strike upon its soil and which targets it would or would not engage - that would remain to be seen.

Again, I dont see any such threat against Mecca or Medina ever being fullfilled except in the case of a fully unified Islamic Jihad. If that ever happened I think all bets would be off on what exactly would happen.

Well, you're the one who just rolled the Basij in together with Usama's boys as the most natural thing in the world. It would seem the al-Q and Iran is the same thing then, or else the Basij aren't really relevant, no?

I will merely point out that Jihadists come from both sides of the aisle in both sunni and shia flavors. If the USA could be allied with such an opposing ideal as Soviet Russia to wage war; then why on earth is it so hard to see the sunni and shia stop their infighting to deal with a common enemy?

 

[Bill3000]

Well, we could argue this all day; but I dont think it any great reach of the imagination that destroying the temples in both cases effectively broke the will of the hebrews utterly and totally. In the babylonian case, Israel was captive for like 70 years, until shown mercy by Cyrus; and in the Romans case, the tribes were scattered to the 4 corners of the world.

No, it didn't - The destruction of the temple is the main event that separates Judaism from Christianity, (Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish sect at the time and had not fully seperated) and what lead to the modern form of Judaism that exists today. Far from destroying Judaism, it made Judaism into a resilient religion and culture that was able to avoid assimilation.

 

[MobBoss]

No, it didn't - The destruction of the temple is the main event that separates Judaism from Christianity,

No...that would be Christ.

Far from destroying Judaism, it made Judaism into a resilient religion and culture that was able to avoid assimilation.

If by 'resilient' you mean scattered to the four corners of the earth, then I agree.

 

[Masquerouge]

Only problem is what to do if attacked by an atheist ?

you win the thread!

 

[drachasor]

If by 'resilient' you mean scattered to the four corners of the earth, then I agree.

Add the concept of terrorism to that and terrorist groups actively recruiting people, and tell me how nuking Medina or Mecca is going to be a good idea.

-Drachasor

 

[VX250]

Tancredo is a wise man.

I may vote for him.

TANCREDO 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trajan12]

Tancredo is a wise man.

I may vote for him.

TANCREDO 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's wise about it? How do you think it will succeed? How do you weight the cost vs. benefit in?

 

[drachasor]

I think it a fair enough point; but as to how rational the USA would be after such a strike upon its soil and which targets it would or would not engage - that would remain to be seen.

Which has nothing to do with your stance that bombing Mecca or Medina is a good idea if we are attacked by terrorists with nukes. You haven't, until now, qualified the statement by staying all Islamic cultures would have to be united together against the US.

I think it a fair enough point; but as to how Again, I dont see any such threat against Mecca or Medina ever being fullfilled except in the case of a fully unified Islamic Jihad. If that ever happened I think all bets would be off on what exactly would happen.

Then you need to be a lot more particular about when you say bombing should happen (nuke + unified islamic countries who have declared a holy war against the USA). That's a huge difference from saying if any US city is nuked, then we should bomb Islamic holy cities in response.

Still, it is a bad idea, and just would add more fuel to the fire. It would make peace harder to come by. Or are you also assuming that once the Jihad is declared (by who? why would everyone listen? why would it be declared?) no one in the Islamic world will ever want peace?

 

[drachasor]

Nuking Mecca would only start WWIII, and I don't think Muslims are going to be the only ones pissed off about this, but the rest of the world as well, regardless of the religion. Thank God megalomaniacs like Tancredo are not going to become president any time soon. (I hope).

He's apparently assuming WWIII has already started, and the terrorist attack happened as well. I still think the bombing is a bad idea. All bombing does is kill a whole bunch of people, add more hatred and anger, and probably lead to a lot more problems with racism and bigotry against Muslim citizens in western countries (and more anger from them as well).

 

[VX250]

Tancredo realizes the only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire, give them a taste of their own medicene.

If terrorists bomb a bus, America should bomb ten bus terminals in Saudi Arabia.

If terrorists bomb a cafe, America should blow up ten shopping malls in Pakistan.

If terrorists kill our President, we should kill every leader of every Arab nation.

If terrorists bomb the Sears Tower, America should level the Burj Dubai and the rest of Dubai's skyscrapers.

 

[The Yankee]

Yep, America should get into the terrorist business. Who wants to be the first patriotic suicide bomber?

Look, the only thing Tancredo will manage to liberate in this scenario are lots of Americans (and others) from their lives.

 

[Bill3000]

No...that would be Christ.

I skipped that because I assumed you knew better - Christianity was quite different at the time before it separated itself from Judaism, and Judaism from Christianity. At the time, Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish sect and had not developed into a separate religion. More importantly is how Judaism changed:

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law and discussed the Bible without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves.) This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 C.E. and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple and Judea without autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing.

If by 'resilient' you mean scattered to the four corners of the earth, then I agree.

Yeah, it was pretty resilient - it managed to survive this entire time despite its people having every advantage to assimilate into the local culture. The religion adapted to an environment in which it was not restricted to a particular place on Earth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Tancredo realizes the only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire, give them a taste of their own medicene.

If terrorists bomb a bus, America should bomb ten bus terminals in Saudi Arabia.

If terrorists bomb a cafe, America should blow up ten shopping malls in Pakistan.

If terrorists kill our President, we should kill every leader of every Arab nation.

If terrorists bomb the Sears Tower, America should level the Burj Dubai and the rest of Dubai's skyscrapers.

VX250 is a wise man.
And if anyone disagrees, I'll shoot up your church

Spoiler :

Again, WTH? Seriously?

 

[Trajan12]

Tancredo realizes the only way to deal with this is to fight fire with fire, give them a taste of their own medicene.

If terrorists bomb a bus, America should bomb ten bus terminals in Saudi Arabia.

If terrorists bomb a cafe, America should blow up ten shopping malls in Pakistan.

SO you say in order to fight terrorism we should be...terrorists?

If terrorists kill our President, we should kill every leader of every Arab nation.

And throw them into anarchy? So that we have no way to get resources and eventually terrorists take over as heads of state anyway? Including terrorist control of Nuclear Pakistan?

If terrorists bomb the Sears Tower, America should level the Burj Dubai and the rest of Dubai's skyscrapers.

Destory the few glimmers of hope that the ME won't always just be a a third world hell hole? Thus creating less hope for advancement and more desperation creation more terrorists?

The even more startling part of your ridiculous plan is that you don't even care if you're punishing people who committed the acts. You're just as low as Osama, Zawahiri and all the other terrorists you hate so much. Congrats.

 

[VX250]

This is a war and there will be deaths on both sides.

I dont mean to sound extreme but it's the best way to protect people on BOTH sides on the fence.

 

[The Yankee]

VX250 is a wise man.
And if anyone disagrees, I'll shoot up your church

Spoiler :

Again, WTH? Seriously?

Just make sure it's a church that has nothing to do with the person that's disagreeing with that statement.

This is a war and there will be deaths on both sides.

I dont mean to sound extreme but it's the best way to protect people on BOTH sides on the fence.

Even in messy wars like World War II (which seems to be a favorite comparison to this current war by many), we made sure not to attack Brazil or some other random country in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

Think this through.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Why not simply boycott Arab oil instead of all those extreme retaliations?

Maybe you could change your sig to something like that instead. After all, killing inncoent people may be OK in moderation (as long as you give back 10 times more than you receive, just to show them who is boss) but a TV show about swinging is simply abominable, is it not?

 

[Trajan12]

This is a war and there will be deaths on both sides.

I dont mean to sound extreme but it's the best way to protect people on BOTH sides on the fence.

What you're doing is not only going to cause deaths but also nuclear warfare(to what scale we can't possibly know) and tactical and political suicide.

 

[The Yankee]

Why not simply boycott Arab oil instead of all those extreme retaliations?

Maybe you could change your sig to something like that instead. After all, killing inncoent people may be OK in moderation (as long as you give back 10 times more than you receive, just to show them who is boss) but a TV show about swinging is simply abominable, is it not?

You can't fight a proper War on Terror if you know the enemy implanted swingers on your TV back home. You just won't have the heart for it, knowing how badly things are at home.

But more on-topic, even boycotting oil from the Middle East wouldn't have a huge impact against the terrorist groups. Many would-be terrorists come from countries that aren't oil powers.