Well Saudi Arabia does seem like it's going to be a fair-weather friend.
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.
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.
+You don't think that the loss of Islam's holiest sites would hurt them? Millions of people make the trip to Mecca every year. They conduct prayer, facing that direction. However, as I said, I would strike Medina first. You then follow that up with an broadcast stating that any further attacks on us, on such a large scale, will result in the destruction of Mecca, next.
I think that the logic, for Tom, is that if we threaten to destroy Mecca then there will be many Muslims who will turn in anybody plotting to use WMD against the US, if they ever even try that.
No, man. Fudge that fudging crap! If we're attacked with nukes, bioweapons, or chem-weapons, then the time to hesitate is through. If we start losing Americans, a hundred thousand at a time, then YES, I am willing to commit genocide against Muslims to prevent the genocide of Americans.
+
Why do you think they wouldn't reason the same way you do? When you are attacked, you impulse response is: destroy em all! Why do you think that when you attack them their impulse will be: Oh Shoot! Better turn in those who warned us they would attack us?
John, and what about when Isreal stands in our way, because we'd be destabilizing the entire region?
I still don't see why you blame the actions of a few on an entire populace and religion. Yes, Islam does have its own significant problems, and yes, a lot of people in the Arab world do hate us, but destroying things they hold dear is not going to make the world a better or safer place. Do you also think we should round up all the American citizens who are Muslim and send them off to gas chambers to be killed as part of your final solution?
No. Not the people you expect to turn in those who plot against the US.Apparently they already do have that thought if they are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans at a time.
You don't think that the loss of Islam's holiest sites would hurt them? Millions of people make the trip to Mecca every year. They conduct prayer, facing that direction. However, as I said, I would strike Medina first. You then follow that up with an broadcast stating that any further attacks on us, on such a large scale, will result in the destruction of Mecca, next.

No. Not the people you expect to turn in those who plot against the US.
Just a hypothetical situation: Al Quaeda nukes New York, and threatens to nuke D.C. or LA, Chicaco, or whatever if you don't pull all your forced from the middle east. What would you do? Say: all right, I give up, just don't hurt us? I think that highly unlikely...and it would be the same for the muslims
edit: oh shoot: ziggy has already gone there![]()
What?
tdfngjhz
ThatI think that the logic, for Tom, is that if we threaten to destroy Mecca then there will be many Muslims who will turn in anybody plotting to use WMD against the US, if they ever even try that.

Were do people get they idea that terrorist are planning to kill mass numbers of civilians? They don't have that capability. They are like barbarians in civilization. They are an annoyance at most. They aren't nearly as big a threat as are other nations that actually do have the means to wipe out entire cities.
That
two three four.
So, if terrorists would threaten to briefcase-nuke New York if the troops aren't pulled out of Iraq, you would want the troop being pulled out of Iraq?They might hate us, but never underestimate the willingness of people to do what is in their own best interest, even if that interest coincides with ours.
I would immediately destroy Medina and announce that any follow-up nuclear (WMD) attack on the US would result in the destruction of Mecca. I thought I had already covered this. If they go forth and destroy another city, then I would go forth and destroy Islam. Believe me, I don't want it to come to this, but if that is what is going to stop our people from being wiped out, then so be it. I will make that decision. Deep down, in your heart of hearts, you know that the majority of Americans will be right behind me, and probably some of you, too. Well, not The Yankee, he'd be dead.

that's what I thought, so what makes you think the muslim world will react differently to the destruction of Medina and threat to destroy Mecca?![]()