plarq
Crazy forever
Even a whole scale crusade, mass occupation, and mass force-convert could fare better than "Nuke 'em" methods.
Tancredo: If attacked, bomb Mecca!
- Thread starter JohnRM
- Start date
Actually, I meant based on our current policies; in this case, most of the civilian casualties are either intentionally inflicted by the other side or accidentally inflicted by ours. And my whole point was that people will not all respond the same way.
Accidental deaths in a war is one thing, and purposefully targeting civilians is quite another. Are you really trying to say that there would be enough people who weren't filled with rage and anger than bombing Mecca would be a positive thing? Ignoring evil nature of the mass murder involved, of course. If you aren't saying that, then what are you trying to say?
-Drachasor
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Should we try to force people to stop committing acts of terrorism, living in the past with antiquated ideals, and end the turmoil in the Middle East? Yes, we should. That makes sense, whether you agree or not.
We could try to implement change to the degree that other Muslims fight the terrorists. That would be a big help. That is what we're trying to do with Iraq and Afghanistan; prop up democratic regimes friendly to the West who will fight terrorists instead of harbor them.
So, which it is? Are the terrorists stronger because of the Iraq War or because they moved into Pakistan? You people can't have it both ways. Make up your mind and get back to me.
Now, you're just going into semantics and wasting my time. The point is, again, that he is saying that if terrorist activity increases and we are attacked on a larger scale, we will do what must be done to protect ourselves, even if that includes taking out Mecca. If you want to argue every little nuance, then do it with someone else.
To me it seems more like you are arguing silly points and the like. The large part of discussion is not "Should we take out Mecca if it ends terrorism", but "Are retaliatory strikes on Mecca a bad idea?" (the answer to the latter is "yes").
Now it seems like the pro-mecca-bombing people are retreating to a very hypothetical what-if scenario, compared to how this thread started (or even was 8 pages ago). Certainly no one has give the smallest shred of evidence to make bombing Mecca look like a good idea.
-Drachasor
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
For the record, I started this thread and I set the points and angles to be discussed. If you don't like the points and angles that I want to discuss, then shake it off or stop posting. The ball is in your court, now, Slick.
So you agree that those points have changed since your first post? Even that your points have changed? You think I am out of line for pointing out that you've changed the court? I have no problem talking about the changed points, but I did want to make clear that the premise of the discussion has changed from what it started as.
It makes sense, but fighting fire with fire, as VX said, isn't going to be solution.
And one of the two states now harbors terrorists? Mission Accomplished?
It's not black or white, it's a combination of both. If you're still thinking on that level, then boy oh boy, you need to grow up a little.
I think you need reminding of what he said.
Slaughter
Paladin
If you can't defeat 'em, nuke 'em.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
i just can't believe someone didn't think of this earlier.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh, someone did think of this earlier. Some bearded dude with a funny name. Someone even carried out the plan. They named the event after a date. I forgot the specifics.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
we should name a street after him.. like the muslims do for suicide bombers.
Actually I think there was a small shred of evidence (that a similar tactic worked for the Romans and Babylonians) which was quickly shredded.
this rests on the false premise that attacking muslim holy sites will make our lives safer or somehow even the score when in fact, it won't. it'll just make america feel like theyre doing something to strike back at someone to soothe a bruised ego.
tell me how strategically this would insure the safety of the united states both short and long term? it seems like a purely reactionary idea proposed by reactionary politicians, who think more about appearing tough, than actually being tough and getting results.
Well, I am trying to say that as it stands now it is neither inevitable nor necessary for the average Arab Muslim to hate us, even if they have seen tragedy as the result of the US occupation of their homeland. It will happen in many cases, but as history has shown, not all.
I probably should have been more clear, though; obviously if we were to attack Mecca and Medina all bets would be off.
I'm drawing a blank. All I can think of is Santa Claus.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I know how you feel. I also have those days where all I can think of is Santa Clause. To make things more puzzling
p) there was also a feller with a tiny little moustache planning to do the same. And it wasn't Super Mario.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually I think there was a small shred of evidence (that a similar tactic worked for the Romans and Babylonians) which was quickly shredded.
Oh please. Give me a break.
Threads over apparently. Its now officially troll time.
BirraImperial
Pura Vida!
You guys do know Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, right? -A key US ally in the war against terror. No one has mentioned that the Saudi Royal family has strong ties with the Bushies. So Bombing Saudi Arabia will only cause a lot more trouble than you already have. Even in the event of a nuclear strike on US soil, that would be such a bad idea.
Besides, this war on terror cannot be fought like you would fight against a State or nation, because the enemy is invisible and does not represent any nationality. The root causes of terror have to be found and fought, retaliation will only result in... more violence, and the vicious circle would go on.
Besides, this war on terror cannot be fought like you would fight against a State or nation, because the enemy is invisible and does not represent any nationality. The root causes of terror have to be found and fought, retaliation will only result in... more violence, and the vicious circle would go on.
