Tancredo Announces Plan To Bomb Mecca

[Tsukasa Buddha]

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)

Yeah, because when our city was bombed, we just curled up and ran away :rolleyes: .

Can anyone think of a better way to further motivate terrorists than by bombing their holy sites?

Not to mention the sheer brutality of bombing innocent people simply because they have the same religion as terrorists.

[fuelair]

Just thinking - he said warn them what would happen - why not use carrot and stick - and let them kill off the slime among them instead of us having to get involved.


Keeping in mind that they went after our big symbols.

[RecoveringYuppy]

So, let me get this straight, if terrorists attack us from anywhere on the planet, we respond by dropping bombs on an ostensible ally?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Tancredo's been spewing that crap for two years now. I think he hopes to usher in the End Times.

Crazy talk from a Crazy person - congrats Colorado on electing this guy.

[quixotecoyote]

What if you only bombed one?

[Lonewulf]

Just thinking - he said warn them what would happen - why not use carrot and stick - and let them kill off the slime among them instead of us having to get involved.


Keeping in mind that they went after our big symbols.

"Keeping in mind that they went after our big symbols"? So going after, or threatening to go after, their symbols is in some sense justified?

Wow.

[SteveGrenard]

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)



Can anyone think of a better way to further motivate terrorists than by bombing their holy sites?



No.

The terrorists would now be motivated to attack the Vatican, various religious shrines, St Patrick's Cathedral, Salt Lake City, and other non-Islamic religious symbols and locations in the U.S. and worldwide. This is definitely a hare brained idea.

[corplinx]

More foreign policy brilliance from the non-front runners.

[Thunder]

So if a group of 10 extremists are able to acquire a nuke and explode it in Boston, we therefore take out our anger by snuffing out millions of innocent Muslims and the holiest site in Islam?

Tancredo should be impeached.

[Art Vandelay]

How are they "innocent"? I certainly am not suggesting that they are as guilty as the terrorists, but how exactly is someone who follows an inherently violent religion "innocent" when other members of that religion actually are violent?

[SteveGrenard]

How are they "innocent"? I certainly am not suggesting that they are as guilty as the terrorists, but how exactly is someone who follows an inherently violent religion "innocent" when other members of that religion actually are violent?

I thought all religions were inherently violent, if not now, then historically.Maybe not Buddhism. I don't know enough about it.

This is the problem with religion. Too many people suffer as a result of it ("it" meaning any or all religions) in spite of protests to the contrary. The only thing that saves a non-violent member of a religion from rebuke in my book is their public opposition to their co-religionists who are violent. The problem with Islam is that this kind of protesting often earns the objector an early trip to that great big palace in the sky.

[Lonewulf]

How are they "innocent"? I certainly am not suggesting that they are as guilty as the terrorists, but how exactly is someone who follows an inherently violent religion "innocent" when other members of that religion actually are violent?

Did you post that? Honestly?

So if a Christian bombed an abortion clinic, you would allow me to go around bombing cathedrals and killing priests in the streets? If a handful of bikers cause problems, I could then bomb and kill all the other bikers? You judge MANY by a FEW?

Incivility removed

[KoihimeNakamura]

So am I, but Tancredo is a nut. I mean, come on. That's like me saying "Anti abortion doctors bombed clinics, time to bomb Jerusalm." It's nonsensical.

[Tony]

I agree. **** islam. If a nuke is detonated in the US, Europe or Asia, we should retaliate and against their holy sites with same. Their religion is their greatest weakness, it's about time we attack it, or, at least threaten to attack it.

[UserGoogol]

It's an interesting idea. A phenomenally bad one, but interesting one. There aren't a lot of defenses against nuclear weaponry besides mutually assured destruction, but if nuclear weapons can get into the hands of groups which are not tied to any particular nation, then setting MAD up becomes trickier. If not holy cities, what else do we have to nuke?

I wonder if perhaps a compromise could be made. If, for instance, politicians explicitly said that they would never nuke holy cities because that's retarded but terrorists were aware of the fact that "sometimes countries do silly things when they get nuked" we might be able have our cake and eat it too, by making people afraid but not angry.

[Art Vandelay]

So if a Christian bombed an abortion clinic, you would allow me to go around bombing cathedrals and killing priests in the streets? I thought this would happen. For some reason, the Left seems completely incapable of discussing issues rationally. I say that Islam is inherently violent, and you conclude from that that *I* am encouraging violence. I didn't say anything about it being okay to kill Muslims OR Christians, and you've just shown that it's pointless to try to have a discussion with you.

[RecoveringYuppy]

LW asked you that. You don't have to assume LW concluded it.

And you were undercutting an argument against killing millions so it's not an off the wall question. Just answer "no" if you like.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How are they "innocent"? I certainly am not suggesting that they are as guilty as the terrorists, but how exactly is someone who follows an inherently violent religion "innocent" when other members of that religion actually are violent?

Evidence that it is inherently violent? Oh, but I suppose all the pacifist Muslims I know aren't true Muslims :rolleyes: .

[UnrepentantSinner]

The insanity of using nukes on civilians in response to a terrorist attack aside, have none of the advocates of this assinine grandstanding ever seen a movie from the 1980s called "The Soldier."

I suggest, if you (or Tancredo) have not, you familiarize yourself briefly with the plot and it might point out a glaring problem with detonating nukes in Saudi Arabia.

[latent aaaack]

Just thinking - he said warn them what would happen - why not use carrot and stick - and let them kill off the slime among them instead of us having to get involved.


Keeping in mind that they went after our big symbols.

Please expound on this view, I don't think a sentence or two does justice to what you're saying. If you're saying you support in some way bombing Mecca in retaliation for a major attack here, what do you think would be the reaction of the muslim world particularly those living in Europe? Nuking a few million muslims would really reduce terrorism?

[gnome]

I agree. **** islam. If a nuke is detonated in the US, Europe or Asia, we should retaliate and against their holy sites with same. Their religion is their greatest weakness, it's about time we attack it, or, at least threaten to attack it.

If having what is near and dear to us threatened agitates us to greater and greater violence... what makes you think that TERRORISTS will change their behavior to save their holy sites? Are there a bunch of appeasers among the terrorists, that this would work on?

It would accomplish nothing but to send the message that terrorizing civilians is fine, as long as it's done by us and not to us--and will make sure we are at war simultaneously with multiple islamic nations. Sure, we can win by nuking them all. What a great solution! A nice final one.

[Thunder]

Threatening to nuke Mecca or Medina is EXACTLY what the terrorists and Islamic extremists want. They would LOVE for the USA to do such a horrible act. It would ensure a complete and utter clash between all Muslims and the USA. Tom Tancredo is feeding right into the hands of Muslim extremists when he uses such language. The fact that he does not grasp this shows how stupid and incompetent he is.

Bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We obliged his request. Even considering using a nuclear strike on anyone, as a motivation not to attack us, is the stupidest thing in the world. Tancredo should be impeached..and anyone who agrees with him should be muzzled.

[Hutch]

Parky has the meat of it. Let me add a few more points on why this would be the stupidest thing since the Army of the Potomac attacked Cold Harbor (ask BPSCG for references...)

Point the first: Before the first radioactive clouds settled, Oil production from the Mideast would come to a screeching halt. This would just slightly disconcert Europe, Japan and China, who are much more dependent on that oil than we are. Most of our imports come from Nigeria (which is 50% Muslim and who would drop us like a hot potato to prevent civil war) and Venezula (you think Hugo would like to tear up his contracts to the US and sell every drop to Europe and Asia??). Ever wondered what the US would do if Gas prices reached $20/galllon...this is one sure-fire way to find out.

Point the Second: Consider Egypt,Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Inida, and Indonesia. They contain approximately 850,000,000 Muslims, and to the best of my knowledge we have never been at war with anyof them at any time in our history (despite their prevailing 'inherently violent' religion as Ceme...Art so quaintly puts it). Many there may not like us much, but none have shown any particular desire to do us harm. Blow away Mecca and you just made 850,000,000 new potential terrorists. Now that's a big help in the War on Terror, ain't it?

Point the Third: If you haven't noticed recently, we're a debtor nation in a big way. The only reason we haven't gone tilt is that other nations (including the big cash-rich ones in the Middle East) buy our debt. If they stop doing so, and prevail on China (as the price for getting oil) to do so, times could get very interesting..very interesting indeed.

Point the Fourth: Depending on which source you look at, there are a minimum of 3,000,000 Muslims in the United States. Say 3,000 of them (0.1percent) are incensed enough to take to the streets, and given that as Americans they have the right to keep and bear arms, things could get a little bloody...and the reaction to this against Muslim citizens who have no connection to this would be bloodier still.

Now the above is the MILDEST result I could imagine. It would probably be much worse.

Tancredo is a loonie...and he's not even worth a Canadian Dollar at that.

Here endeth the rant.

[Tony]

If having what is near and dear to us threatened agitates us to greater and greater violence... what makes you think that TERRORISTS will change their behavior to save their holy sites?

Because, unlike the islamists, our holiest sites don't face total destruction. No matter what they do, they can never exact the kind of destruction on us that we can on them. They know this.

It would accomplish nothing but to send the message that terrorizing civilians is fine

How do you know? And so what? A think a nuclear attack is an extremely extraordinary act, it would require an extremely extraordinary retaliation. They need to know that the ultimate price of their religious and political fanaticism and violence is the very destruction of their religious sites.

Sure, we can win by nuking them all. What a great solution! A nice final one.

So, what would you do in the event of a nuclear attack in the US, Europe, or Asia?

[Thunder]

If a nuclear bomb did blow up in American city, it would be a horrible tragedy..but it would not be the end of the world. We would recover.

The way to respond would be to find those responcible and kill them. But threatening to kill other civilians inorder to prevent our civilians from being killed is immoral and insane.

[Tony]

If a nuclear bomb did blow up in American city, it would be a horrible tragedy..but it would not be the end of the world. We would recover.

Who says we wouldn't?

The way to respond would be to find those responcible and kill them.

That hasn't done any thing to stop the islamists since 9/11, why would it do anything after a nuclear attack? And do you think the threat of finding those responsible and killing them would be an adequate deterrent against a nuclear attack?

But threatening to kill other civilians inorder to prevent our civilians from being killed is immoral and insane.

It worked during the Cold War, why wouldn't it work again?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Point the Second: Consider Egypt,Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Inida, and Indonesia. They contain approximately 850,000,000 Muslims, and to the best of my knowledge we have never been at war with anyof them at any time in our history (despite their prevailing 'inherently violent' religion as Ceme...Art so quaintly puts it).

Technically we were at war with the Ottoman Empire as they were part of the Central Powers during WWI, but the modern secular Turkish state created by Ataturk has been an ally of ours ever since.

[Art Vandelay]

LW asked you that. You don't have to assume LW concluded it.Oh, please. When someone asks a rhetorical question, then calls you an idiot, it's just plain doubletalk if they claim that they weren't making an assertion as to what your answer is. He has no argument in support of his childish insult other than his strawman.

Evidence that it is inherently violent? Um... the Quran?

Oh, but I suppose all the pacifist Muslims I know aren't true Muslims :rolleyes: .No, they're not. Or do you think there's a sense in which one is a "Muslim" yet doesn't believe in the core of Islam?

Point the first: Before the first radioactive clouds settled, Oil production from the Mideast would come to a screeching halt. Because once Saudi Arabia is devastated by a nuclear attack, and in desperate need of cash to rebuild, they will cut off their primary source of money?

Most of our imports come from Nigeria (which is 50% Muslim and who would drop us like a hot potato to prevent civil war)But it's not like Muslims are violent or anything...

Point the Second: Consider Egypt,Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Inida, and Indonesia. They contain approximately 850,000,000 Muslims, and to the best of my knowledge we have never been at war with anyof them at any time in our history (despite their prevailing 'inherently violent' religion as Ceme...Art so quaintly puts it).And once again, we see Leftists resorting to childish insults. I guess only American lives matter, huh? Egypt, as part of the Ottoman Empire, was at war with the US. After gaining their independence, they immediately set about killing Jews, and worked to build a Pan-Arabic alliance for that purpose. The other countries you mention also have a bloody history of attacking their neighbors as well as internal strife. But Americans (for the most part) didn't die, so that doesn't count. Nigeria in particular, as you previously alluded, has a history of experiencing violence whenever the Muslim portion of their population finds an event not to its liking, such as when someone has the audacity to hold a beauty pageant or draw cartoons insufficiently worshipful of Muhammed.. And the Turkish slaughter of Armenians? That, of course, never happened.

Many there may not like us much, but none have shown any particular desire to do us harm.Oh, please. That’s crap. Pakistan is rife with Al Qaeda sympathizers. And while Nigerians have found that scamming Americans is more profitable than blowing them up, that hardly fills my heart with glee.

Blow away Mecca and you just made 850,000,000 new potential terrorists. Either our hypothetical involves actions so egregious that people in general will be inspired to be terrorists, or no one will be inspired to become terrorists, or…
Muslims have a special propensity for becoming terrorists.
Which one is it?

Point the Third: If you haven't noticed recently, we're a debtor nation in a big way.Our net debt is so large that it take more than 1% of our GDP to service it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because once Saudi Arabia is devastated by a nuclear attack, and in desperate need of cash to rebuild, they will cut off their primary source of money?

What primary source of money? Glass?

You do know what will happen to the oil fields if Mecca and Medina get nuked right?

[Matteo Martini]

I thought all religions were inherently violent, if not now, then historically.Maybe not Buddhism. I don't know enough about it.

I do not know for sure, but, maybe Japanese buddhists had a role in persecuting Christians in old Japan, and in supporting Japan attack to the U.S. in WWII

http://mll.kenyon.edu/~japanese02/J28sp99/projects/rushton/2/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Edo_Period

[Matteo Martini]

It worked during the Cold War, why wouldn't it work again?

The U.S.S.R. was a clear, identifiable target.
Islamic terrorism is not

[Hutch]

Because once Saudi Arabia is devastated by a nuclear attack, and in desperate need of cash to rebuild, they will cut off their primary source of money?

Soooo...we can destroy Islams' two holiest sites, kill millions, but because they need money, they'll sell oil to us anyway...no problem, business before religion...which tend to invalidate everything you say about following their violent religion being so important to Muslims...:rolleyes:



And once again, we see Leftists resorting to childish insults. I guess only American lives matter, huh? Egypt, as part of the Ottoman Empire, was at war with the US. After gaining their independence, they immediately set about killing Jews, and worked to build a Pan-Arabic alliance for that purpose. The other countries you mention also have a bloody history of attacking their neighbors as well as internal strife. But Americans (for the most part) didn't die, so that doesn't count. Nigeria in particular, as you previously alluded, has a history of experiencing violence whenever the Muslim portion of their population finds an event not to its liking, such as when someone has the audacity to hold a beauty pageant or draw cartoons insufficiently worshipful of Muhammed.. And the Turkish slaughter of Armenians? That, of course, never happened.

Childish indeed...it's a damn good insult, original and created especially for you. While you and Unrepentant Sinner are correct regarding the Ottomans, I think you'd be fairly hard-pressed to find any significant number of US troops engaged there. I would note you brought the Jewish issue in where it was not even a topic, the subject being the US and populous Muslim states, not the misconduct within the states.

Oh, please. That’s crap. Pakistan is rife with Al Qaeda sympathizers. And while Nigerians have found that scamming Americans is more profitable than blowing them up, that hardly fills my heart with glee.

But the massive bulk of the population, which may not like us much (as I noted in my first post), are not overtly hostile--bomb Mecca and they will be.


Either our hypothetical involves actions so egregious that people in general will be inspired to be terrorists, or no one will be inspired to become terrorists, or…
Muslims have a special propensity for becoming terrorists.
Which one is it?

What?



Our net debt is so large that it take more than 1% of our GDP to service it.

Not sure if you are debating or bragging here...but cut off foreign funding that is buying our debt and we will be in major trouble.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Question: Did Tancredo say "nuke" or "bomb"?

[Dr Adequate]

If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8774/ghengisgc2.jpg

[corplinx]

We responded to 911 by bombing the hell out of Babylon, it doesn't seem to have made them fear us more.....

[Dr Adequate]

So, let me get this straight, if terrorists attack us from anywhere on the planet, we respond by dropping bombs on an ostensible ally? Well, they all look the same to him.

[Darth Rotor]

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8774/ghengisgc2.jpg
Tancredo of course misses the deeper point. He'd also have to bomb the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the next most holy site in Islam, the Imam Ali Shrine in An Najaf, and a few dozen other significant sites if his intent is to wreak havoc on the symbols of Islam in retaliation.

What's the point in using half measures, Tom the T, which is where your suggestion begins? Tancredo implies that we have up until now used half measures to respond to the problem/threat.

The collecive punishment method rarely does other than create follow on antagonisms (Hutch covered this nicely, I think) which suggests to me the following:

Tancredo does not understand the human element in war. If his opening act is to take out Mecca and Medinah, he'd better be prepared to go on a serious jihad, a holy war, against all of Islam, since that is who he would make an enemy. Each step you take opens new possibilities, Tom, and not all doors open on a lady.

While his suggestion is one way to approach the tensions between the West and Islam in general, I'd have to say it is waaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of options, somewhere near the bottom.

DR

[Phrost]

Wow, that's pretty much the end for the Tancredo '08 campaign.

[Darth Rotor]

Wow, that's pretty much the end for the Tancredo '08 campaign.

Or the beginning. Hard to say.

If a significant terrorist attack occurs in the US in the next six months, I don't know how American voters will react. I'd bet on emotionally, based on the past 10 years of politics here.

DR

[RecoveringYuppy]

Somebody send the Tancredo campaign this link (http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm) and tell them to study the "Other Other Operation". Maybe the Tancredo strategists can skip their next embarrassing refinement to their plan where they threaten to nuke Europe if the terrorists don't attack us.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Because once Saudi Arabia is devastated by a nuclear attack, and in desperate need of cash to rebuild, they will cut off their primary source of money?

So, you're advocating a nuclear attack on an ostensible ally in the event of a terrorist attack no matter where the terrorists are actually based?


But it's not like Muslims are violent or anything...

Most Muslims aren't violent. And, for example, a recent State Department poll found that most Iranians would prefer to have normal relations with the US.

[Tony]

The U.S.S.R. was a clear, identifiable target.

Yep.

Islamic terrorism is not

No, but Islamic holy sites are. Thats the point, try to keep up.

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, but Islamic holy sites are. Thats the point, try to keep up.
But the Islamic holy sites are not the terrorists. Us attacking Islamic Holy sites on the Arabian peninsula probably causes wet dreams for al Qaeda.

[Tony]

Us attacking Islamic Holy sites on the Arabian peninsula probably causes wet dreams for al Qaeda.

Evidence?

But the Islamic holy sites are not the terrorists.

I don't see how this is relevant. In the event of a Soviet nuclear attack, we wouldn't limit our counter-attack to the specific people responsible for the attack, it would have been against the entire USSR.

[RecoveringYuppy]

You need evidence of that? US Military presence on AP has been an issue for aQ all along.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/alqaeda/indictment.html

What kind of evidence do you have that the entire Muslim world won't be radicalized by an attack on Mecca and Medina?

[Tony]

You need evidence of that?

Yes, I want evidence that a US nuclear counter-attack against Islamic holy sites is a desirable outcome for Al Quaida

US Military presence on AP has been an issue for aQ all along.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/alqaeda/indictment.html

Ahhh, so you have no evidence.

What kind of evidence do you have that the entire Muslim world won't be radicalized by an attack on Mecca and Medina.

The onus is on you. I don't have to prove a negative, furthermore, so what if the enire muslim world becomes radicalized? We're talking about a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia. The fact is, it's them who should be worried about us becoming radicalized.

[Art Vandelay]

You do know what will happen to the oil fields if Mecca and Medina get nuked right?They'll be be destroyed. Just as the entirety of Japan was completely destroyed by two atomic bombs.

Soooo...we can destroy Islams' two holiest sites, kill millions, but because they need money, they'll sell oil to us anyway...no problem, business before religion...which tend to invalidate everything you say about following their violent religion being so important to Muslims...:rolleyes: I didn't say anything about the importance of religion to Muslims, and the fact that they would sell oil to ensure their own survival says very little. And they wouldn't have to sell to us; selling it to anyone would lower the global price. So, what, they're going to not sell to anyone just to screw the US, after the US has been attacked and shown itself willing to respond to attacks?

Childish indeed...it's a damn good insult, original and created especially for you.And yet based on nothing but that I have political views that differ from yours. The first time I saw it, I was engaged in a debate with Mephisto in which he repeatedly made idiotic and flagrantly dishonest arguments, yet you sided with him merely because he had similar political views. Which, as far as I'm concerned, makes you the cement head.

I would note you brought the Jewish issue in where it was not even a topic, the subject being the US and populous Muslim states, not the misconduct within the states.Exactly. Only when Americans die does it matter. Good to know where you stand.

But the massive bulk of the population, which may not like us much (as I noted in my first post), are not overtly hostile--bomb Mecca and they will be.That's simply not true. A sizable minority, if not majority, openly supports bin Laden.

[fishbob]

I thought this would happen. For some reason, the Left seems completely incapable of discussing issues rationally. I say that Islam is inherently violent, and you conclude from that that *I* am encouraging violence. I didn't say anything about it being okay to kill Muslims OR Christians, and you've just shown that it's pointless to try to have a discussion with you.

Everyone that disagrees with you is "left" and "incapable of discussing issues rationally". Talk about your pointless discussions.

For rational, not left, and in disagreement with you, see Darth's comments today at 7:17 am.

[Darth Rotor]

For rational, not left, and in disagreement with you, see Darth's comments today at 7:17 am.
*Astronaut on crackly radio voice*

"Houston, we have a problem (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2837033&postcount=37), we came in "rational" in the Politics forum.

Please advise." :)

I'll try to do better in the future. :cool:

DR

[fishbob]

See that you don't let it happen again.

[Art Vandelay]

So, you're advocating a nuclear attack on an ostensible ally in the event of a terrorist attack no matter where the terrorists are actually based?No. Simply pointing out the logical flaws in another person's argument.

Most Muslims aren't violent.I didn't say that they are. Just that they follow an inherently violent religion.

Everyone that disagrees with you is "left" and "incapable of discussing issues rationally".No, just the ones who are irrational Leftists. Isn't it interesting how you're trying to paint it as being my fault that others are deficient in the honesty department?

For rational, not left, and in disagreement with you, see Darth's comments today at 7:17 am.And did I call him an irrational Leftist? And I don't see any such post. Time Zone issues perhaps? It would be better if you were to post a link or give the post number.

[RecoveringYuppy]

How are they "innocent"? I certainly am not suggesting that they are as guilty as the terrorists, but how exactly is someone who follows an inherently violent religion "innocent" when other members of that religion actually are violent?
OK, going back to your original question. They are innocent in the sense that they did not commit the crime. In other words, the most obvious definition and most common use of the word "innocent".

I can only find one poll, but even in radical Saudia Arabia, we'd not only being killing people who are innocent but we'd be killing allies.

This poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/poll.binladen/index.html) isn't directly on point but it shows 40% of Saudi Arabians favor closer ties to the US. 50% agree with bin Laden's rhetoric and sermons, but under 1/3 have favorable opinions of "militant clerics" and only 5% would want bin Laden in charge of Saudi Arabia. I would think from that poll it's safe to assume that under 1/3 of Saudia Arabians would approve of bin Ladens tactics.

[This Guy]

Yes, I want evidence that a US nuclear counter-attack against Islamic holy sites is a desirable outcome for Al Quaida



Ahhh, so you have no evidence.



The onus is on you. I don't have to prove a negative, furthermore, so what if the enire muslim world becomes radicalized? We're talking about a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia. The fact is, it's them who should be worried about us becoming radicalized.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence that a US nuclear counter-attack against Islamic holy sites would have a desirable outcome for the US.

[Art Vandelay]

OK, going back to your original question. They are innocent in the sense that they did not commit the crime. In other words, the most obvious definition and most common use of the word "innocent".According to Google's dictionary, the first definition is:

"Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child."
Are the majority of Muslims uncorrupted by "evil, malice, or wrongdoing"? No. I would say that accepting a book as the Word of God, and simply ignoring the fact that it encourages the violent infringement of others' rights, as rather the opposite of "innocent".

[rtalman]

A threat to nuke either Mecca or Medina is useless.

A) The U.S. does not now and will not ever have the fortitude to nuke either Mecca or Medina, unless those two locations suddenly bloom with outward bound ICBM trails. OBL knows this, everyone (including, I suspect, Tancredo himself) knows this.

B) If A) does not hold true, OBL and AQ will never believe the U.S. would have the will to use nukes, so there is not deterrence factor.

C) If A) and B) do not hold true, the fundamentalists that carry out the terrorist attacks would firmly believe Allah would miracle the nukes away. Or they would reinterpret a nuke attack as part of their religion and carry forward with more terror attacks.

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Art,

OK, if I accept your source you've now shown that I'm wrong about which usage of the word is most common. Which changes nothing about the point.

So what is your point about them not being innocent? Exactly how "not innocent" are they and what should we do about it?

[shuize]

A threat to nuke either Mecca or Medina is useless.

A) The U.S. does not now and will not ever have the fortitude to nuke either Mecca or Medina, unless those two locations suddenly bloom with outward bound ICBM trails. OBL knows this, everyone (including, I suspect, Tancredo himself) knows this.

B) If A) does not hold true, OBL and AQ will never believe the U.S. would have the will to use nukes, so there is not deterrence factor.

C) If A) and B) do not hold true, the fundamentalists that carry out the terrorist attacks would firmly believe Allah would miracle the nukes away. Or they would reinterpret a nuke attack as part of their religion and carry forward with more terror attacks.

As you point out, a public threat to nuke Mecca or Medina is useless. Actually, it's worse that useless in my opinion because if you don't have the fortitude to carry out such a threat, all it does is turn public opinion against you.

Now, if you're actually crazy enough to go through with such an attack, I'd almost think you'd be better off not announcing it in advance and denying responsibility after it happens.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Question: Did Tancredo say "nuke" or "bomb"?

He said nuke. He's been saying this same crap for two years now... that is when he's not raving about the Mexican invasion.

They'll be be destroyed.

Nope. Read what I said again.

Just as the entirety of Japan was completely destroyed by two atomic bombs.

Try thinking about what's being discussed rather than just trying to make a rhetorical jab.

[Art Vandelay]

Try thinking about what's being discussed rather than just trying to make a rhetorical jab.Hmm. You ask a rhetorical question, rather than explicitly presenting a position, then you complain that I posted a rhetorical jab, rather than addressing your position, which you didn't bother elucidating.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because once Saudi Arabia is devastated by a nuclear attack, and in desperate need of cash to rebuild, they will cut off their primary source of money?

Who's going to buy radioactive oil?

[gnome]

Because, unlike the islamists, our holiest sites don't face total destruction. No matter what they do, they can never exact the kind of destruction on us that we can on them. They know this.

What is the evidence that they would respond to intimidation?

How do you know? And so what? A think a nuclear attack is an extremely extraordinary act, it would require an extremely extraordinary retaliation. They need to know that the ultimate price of their religious and political fanaticism and violence is the very destruction of their religious sites.See above.

So, what would you do in the event of a nuclear attack in the US, Europe, or Asia?A nuclear warhead is a strategic weapon, used against a nation... preferably as a raise that they can't afford to call. They know they can't afford it because they know we're holding, so to call would be pointless.

A terrorist group is simply a different animal. The entire strategic factor is mucked because they don't hold land and don't have anyone to defend.

I would respond by using our anti-terrorist tools to find and kill anyone we could find that was definitely involved.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm staggered at the heedlessness of some posters on this thread. I honestly cannot believe what I am seeing.

[Dr Adequate]

Look, the Vandelay creature's troll is simple. Someone posted that it would be wrong to bomb the citizens of Mecca for an attack by fellow-Muslims on the US because the Meccan civilians would be innocent of the attacks.

Art Vandelay argued that they would not be "innocent", 'cos they're Muslims.

Of course, he can then preen himself on "not advocating violence", 'cos while he denied that they were "innocent", in response to a post that said that they shouldn't be bombed 'cos they were "innocent", he never actually said that they'd be non-"innocent" enough to bomb.

RecoveringYuppys' question seems apt:

So what is your point about them not being innocent? Exactly how "not innocent" are they and what should we do about it?

[Undesired Walrus]

Art, you are quite simply, just as bad as the Cartoon-Mohammed protesters last year.

By this I mean holding placards going 'Kill those who call Islam a violent religion'.

The shame is, while they stain an entire religion (An entire religion you have absolutely no clue about), you stain the entire human race with your backward, anti-intellectual, heedless views.

The sooner both of you radicals are off this planet the better.

[Oliver]

An entire religion you have absolutely no clue about


I'm sure you have that clue - with all your fancy Jihadists-pocketbooks, don't you? :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

I'd be interested in seeing evidence that a US nuclear counter-attack against Islamic holy sites would have a desirable outcome for the US.
Can you all please get off this "Nuke" jag? Tancredo is being a bit of a fool.

There is sufficient destructive power in a whole menu of non nuclear weapons to, in a single raid or a set of tightly sequenced raids, turn the black stone, and the entire surrounding mosque and holy buildings (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca%2C_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg/800px-Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca%2C_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg)into rubble. With that would come the collateral slaughter of some thousands of Allah's faithful who happen to be walking around in circles within the holy of holies at the time.

Like I sad about a month ago, if you gave me a couple of days, the aircrews, the tankers, the planes from Whiteman AFB, and access to any in-stock conventional munitions, I could put together an operation that would take that holy site off of the map, at least for a while. (I suspect a New Mecca would be arranged in short order.) As I also pointed out, that raid would not be good for world peace as we know it, so it is just as well I do not have that authority and access.

It is likely that after such a raid, fragments of the Black Stone would be on eBay within 48 hours, or at least available in the underground antiquities market.

DR

[This Guy]

Can you all please get off this "Nuke" jag? Tancredo is being a bit of a fool.

SNIP


DR

I'm guessing you picked on me because I used the word nuke, and the word was the reason I was quoted, not the post content in general.

If that is the case, that's cool.

But in case you misunderstood the motive behind my post, I'll explain :)

I was speaking in reply to an earlier post from someone who appears to think making holy sites glow would be a good thing to do in response to a nuke attack on the US.

If you compare my post to the one I quoted it should be clear that I was asking for evidence that nuking Mecca would be a good thing for the US. I'm of the opinion that it would be a bad thing, and I'm truly interested in any evidence that would prove me wrong.

And no offense DR, but it seems that the thread is somewhat centered around the use of nukes by someone, which really makes using the word nuke in a post...somewhat appropriate, I think.

Perhaps if you want to talk about conventional attacks on Mecca, another thread would be in order? Just saying ;)



(as one ex-Sailor to another, I hope you take this in the friendly, and light hearted way I meant it :))

[Cain]

Well, any thread where Art accuses others -- repeatedly!! -- of being "irrational" is always amusing, but the novelty has long worn off by around page five.

I am disappointed with you, Tony. Remember, you were once the most extreme of the extreme, and the only two time winner of the GDFM award through its illustrious history. After seemingly making sense on a range of issues in recent months (years?) you are again not too concerned about killing millions of Muslims. Remember when you favored genocide against Palestinians?

The demented nutters get all the attention, along with idiotic threads -- whaaaaaaaat, naked mannequins in a store window? What about the brilliant, brilliant thread "Iraqis out of Iraq"?

[Darth Rotor]

I'm guessing you picked on me because I used the word nuke, and the word was the reason I was quoted, not the post content in general.
You are correct, yours was the last post, the tipping point on the nuke issue that got me to get up on my box of washing powder.
And no offense DR, but it seems that the thread is somewhat centered around the use of nukes by someone, which really makes using the word nuke in a post...somewhat appropriate, I think.
I see, I wanted to take the chance to point to Tancredo's line as a bad one, and to point out that it doesn't take a nuke the make Mecca a ruin.
(as one ex-Sailor to another, I hope you take this in the friendly, and light hearted way I meant it :))
Aye, shipmate, all friendly and not an intended slam on This Guy. My frustration was more with the initial premise of Tancredo's and how casually the "nuke" option gets discussed as a result.

DR

[Gurdur]

Well, any thread where Art accuses others -- repeatedly!! -- of being "irrational" is ....
... is simply another thread Art is involved in. It's behaviour sterotypical enough to the point of suspecting a bot.
________

.....(as one ex-Sailor to another, I hope you take this in the friendly, and light hearted way I meant it :))You are correct, .....Aye, shipmate, all friendly....

I just hope there's not too much prejudice against ex-infantry round here, after all the Navy have the better missiles.
:boxedin:
_________


Who's going to buy radioactive oil?


Try the Russians, they'll drink practically anything, even American beer*

____

* which, to be fair, is a distinct improvement on Russian beer ++

++ which isn't saying much

[Tony]

What is the evidence that they would respond to intimidation?

What evidence do you have that they'll risk the utter destruction of their holiest sites?

A nuclear warhead is a strategic weapon, used against a nation... preferably as a raise that they can't afford to call. They know they can't afford it because they know we're holding, so to call would be pointless.

A terrorist group is simply a different animal. The entire strategic factor is mucked because they don't hold land and don't have anyone to defend.

Stop beating around the bush.

I would respond by using our anti-terrorist tools to find and kill anyone we could find that was definitely involved.

Wow. This is a non-answer on par with something GW Bush would say. Furthermore, didn't you just ask for evidence that they'll be intimidated (something I never really claimed)? What evidence do you have that "using our anti-terrorist tools to find and kill anyone we could find that was definitely involved" would deter them from attacking? This strategy hasn't done anything to stop islamists from continuing of their same path since 9/11, why do you think this strategy would work in the case of a nuclear attack?

[Gurdur]

What evidence do you have that they'll risk the utter destruction of their holiest sites?


Actually destroy Medina and Mecca, and you will find you won't have stopped the Islamists -- but you would in all likelihood find that you've suddenly managed to turn a couple million more ordinary Moslems into vengeful, committed Islamists, you've lost all bargaining points, and lost all allies in toto. What would you do then? How would your laptop warrioring help with that scenario?

But why let facts stop your rant? Irresponsible venting is just so much fun, after all.

Stop beating around the bush.

Nuke it instead, eh?

What evidence

Just out of mild interest -- do you have any evidence of your own to share, or are you somehow immune to such mundane demands you make of others?

[Tony]

I am disappointed with you, Tony.

And that's how I feel about the so-called "liberals" who are posting in this thread. We're talking about a nuclear attack here people, I don't think anyone on this thread has fully tried to understand the implications of what such an attack would have on the world. If a single assassins bullet could start WW1, what do you think a nuclear attack against the world's superpower would have? It's pathetic that they would, seemingly, allow a nuclear attack by a rabble of ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists against that very liberalism to effectively go unanswered, but, like I said, I don't think they've tried to fully comprehend the situation.

You're a smart guy Cain, and I've come to respect your opinion. Yes, I have changed my mind on a lot of things over the past couple of years. But, when it comes down to it, I will not tolerate nuclear weapons being used against any secular or liberal country by religious fanatics. In such a situation, any morality I might have vis-a-vis the treatment of those religious fanatics gets put aside. Is your morality absolute?

After seemingly making sense on a range of issues in recent months (years?) you are again not too concerned about killing millions of Muslims.

Of course I am, but I'm more concerned with the defeat of religious fanaticism should that fanaticism get such strength that it would be able carry out a nuclear attack. In such a case, I would have no qualms whatsoever about waging a full-scale war of conquest against the Middle East.

[Gurdur]

And that's how I feel about the so-called "liberals" who are posting in this thread. ..... It's pathetic that they would, seemingly, allow a nuclear attack by a rabble of ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists against that very liberalism to effectively go unanswered, ....


Tony, stop hyper-ventilating for a moment, and consider the following:

the "so-called liberals" against who you are railing here are NOT in favour of allowing such a nuclear attack to go ahead, they simply think YOUR idea of a response is the wrong one, and they would respond differently.

Clear enough, I hope.
P.S. I am not a liberal, merely a mildly conservative social democrat.

Of course I am, but I'm more concerned with the defeat of religious fanaticism ...

And you want to ..... "stop" religious fanaticism by blowing up Mecca and Medina?

Uh huh. Just out of interest, did the British stop the USA by burning down Washington in 1812? Just wondering.

In such a case, I would have no qualms whatsoever about waging a full-scale war of conquest against the Middle East.

Good luck with that, it's been tried before, several times by lots of people, never succeeded, send us a pic of you in uniform when you enlist, 'k?

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's pathetic that they would, seemingly, allow a nuclear attack by a rabble of ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists against that very liberalism to effectively go unanswered, but, like I said, I don't think they've tried to fully comprehend the situation.

Pathetic is thinking that nuking an ally (granted, not one of the best) is a good response.

No one has said we should let it go unanswered. You'd have to be really stupid to think anyone would want it to go unanswered.

[Tony]

Actually destroy Medina and Mecca, and you will find you won't have stopped the Islamists --

The destruction of Mecca and Medina would be just the beginning of a larger war.

but you would in all likelihood find that you've suddenly managed to turn a couple million more ordinary Moslems into vengeful, committed Islamists,

So? They would have turned a couple million Americans against them.

you've lost all bargaining points, and lost all allies in toto.

Evidence? It's likely they would destroy any sympathy they might have in the world with their initial strike. Countries would line up behind America.

What would you do then?

Ad hom noted.

How would your laptop warrioring help with that scenario?

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US? And since you started with the Ad homs, how would your pussified morality and sympathy for religious fanatics help with that scenario?


But why let facts stop your rant?

You haven't presented any facts.

Irresponsible venting is just so much fun, after all.

Indeed, you seem to be having a blast.

Nuke it instead, eh?

You words betray your irrationality. I hate nukes, but in the case of one being used against the US, I wouldn't care if a nuke were used against Mecca or not. In lieu of a nuke, I'd be perfectly willing to support an initial counter-attack of 100,000 cruise missiles followed by a massive invasion by the militaries of US, China, Japan and Europe.

Just out of mild interest -- do you have any evidence of your own to share, or are you somehow immune to such mundane demands you make of others?

So, I take it you have no evidence either eh?

[Tony]

Pathetic is thinking that nuking an ally (granted, not one of the best) is a good response.


They're not my ally, if anything, they're GW Bush's ally. And I'm not committed to a nuke, but I do think we should move against Mecca and Medina.

No one has said we should let it go unanswered.

You're right. They've offered GW Bush style ******** non-answers.

You'd have to be really stupid to think anyone would want it to go unanswered.

Indeed, thats what I though until I read this thread. So, what would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US?

[Tony]

Tony, stop hyper-ventilating for a moment, and consider the following:


Another Ad hom. It's telling that you were the first to use ad homs and then claim that I am the one being irrational.

the "so-called liberals" against who you are railing here are NOT in favour of allowing such a nuclear attack to go ahead

Duh. That was my point. You're the one who needs to stop hyper-ventilating.

they simply think YOUR idea of a response is the wrong one, and they would respond differently.

I know they do, and when I ask what they would do, none of them have been specific as to how they would respond. Again, if you would actually read what I wrote instead of frothing at the mouth, you would have noticed that.

And you want to ..... "stop" religious fanaticism by blowing up Mecca and Medina?

Uh huh. Just out of interest, did the British stop the USA by burning down Washington in 1812? Just wondering.

Sophistry. Like I said, the initial attack against Mecca and Medina would be the begining of a larger conflict. The British attack during 1812 wasn't massive or sustained for a long time.

Good luck with that, it's been tried before, several times by lots of people, never succeeded

More sophistry. You're another who hasn't thought this out very much.

send us a pic of you in uniform when you enlist, 'k?

Keep digging. Your childishness and faux moral outrage is funny.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Indeed, thats what I though until I read this thread. So, what would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US?
LOL. Care to tell me who is responsible for this hypothetical attack?

What would be the point of nuking an ally if the terrorist network that carried it out was entirely based in Pakistan? Or based in Indonesia with allies from the former Soviet Union or North Korea providing the nukes?

We should stop making stupid threats of commiting atrocities against our allies and innocent people in the event of an enemy attack.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Evidence? It's likely they would destroy any sympathy they might have in the world with their initial strike. Countries would line up behind America.

Yeah, just liked they lined up behind our invasion of Iraq. The situation you are proposing is very analogous to what's happened over the past six years. We had plenty of sympathy and support for an invasion of Afghanistan. Then we squandered all that sympathy by invading Iraq.

And what you are proposing is far worse since there could be no possible beneficial side effect to the people of Mecca and Medina. We're not going to keep any sympathy by turning around and committing a bigger atrocity.

[Tony]

LOL. Care to tell me who is responsible for this hypothetical attack?


Jeez dude, if you won't even read the OP, you might as well not even discuss. From the article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

What would be the point of nuking an ally if the terrorist network that carried it out was entirely based in Pakistan?

It's telling that you sympathize more with Saudi Arabia than the US or Europe when it comes to nuclear weapons. What would be the point? The immediate point would be to strike at the very heart of what Islamic fundamentalists hold dear, then ultimate point would be to completely destroy Islam, or at least, poltical/fundamentalist islam.

We should stop making stupid threats of commiting atrocities against our allies and innocent people in the event of an enemy attack.

Why?

This is more evidence that this isn't being thought out. Why do you seek to minimize the impact of a nuke attack against the US or Europe (calling it simply "an enemy attack") but seek to maximize the impact of an attack, nuclear or otherwise, against Islamic holy sites (calling attention to the innocent people dying while ignoring same in the US or Europe)?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thanks, I know we're talking about Islamic Fundamentalists. That would be why I chose the countries I did in my example. That is hardly specific enough information to plan a response. Should we have invaded Bosnia in retaliation for 9/11?

It's telling that you sympathize more with Saudi Arabia than the US or Europe when it comes to nuclear weapons.

WTF do you get that?

Why do you seek to minimize the impact of a nuke attack against the US or Europe (calling it simply "an enemy attack")

I haven't tried to minimize it at all. Who's posts are you reading?

[Tony]

Yeah, just liked they lined up behind our invasion of Iraq.

Your glibness betrays your unwillingness to approach this with an open mind.

The situation you are proposing is very analogous to what's happened over the past six years.

No, it's not. It's totally different. 9/11 wasn't an attack of massive destruction like a nuke. Furthermore, the world, for the most part, did line up behind america. It was GW Bush who threw away that goodwill away, not by going after the islamists who carried out 9/11, but by going to war against a soverign, secular country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

We had plenty of sympathy and support for an invasion of Afghanistan. Then we squandered all that sympathy by invading Iraq.

Yep, see above.

And what you are proposing is far worse since there could be no possible beneficial side effect to the people of Mecca and Medina.

So? In the event of a nuclear attack against the US or Europe, my support is behind them and the forces of secualism and liberalism, not Saudi Arabia.

We're not going to keep any sympathy by turning around and committing a bigger atrocity.

This is a bumper sticker, not an argument. Do you have any evidence that Europe, China, Japan or Russia would support islamic fundamentalists in the context of a nuclear attack?

[RecoveringYuppy]

It was GW Bush who threw away that goodwill away, not by going after the islamists who carried out 9/11, but by going to war against a soverign, secular country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

How can you write this? What if Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this hypothetical nuclear attack?

[Cleon]

Your glibness betrays your unwillingness to approach this with an open mind.

Glibness? Open mind?

You're advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion.

No, that doesn't warrant an "open mind"--it warrants disgust.

[Tony]

What if Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this hypothetical nuclear attack?

Again, why are you sympathizing with Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia bears much blame for the proliferation of islamic fundamentalism throughout the world:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2005/PR41490.VAIslamicSchool.022305.html

http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/alqaandsaars.html

If you're really interested, and I'm skeptical that you are, there is much to be read on the web about the Saudi's support of religious fundamenalism.

[Tony]

...

[Tony]

Glibness? Open mind?


Yes and yes.

You're advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion.


No I'm not. This is a strawman. If there are people in the middle east willing to renounce fundamentalism and reform their religion, come on with it.

No, that doesn't warrant an "open mind"--it warrants disgust.

And I note that you exhibit more disgust at the nuclear attack of theocracy than you do to a secular country. I also note that you fear to think about the full implications of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia. You're another smart guy whose opinion I respect Cleon. What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?

[Gurdur]

Dude, dude, Randy Newman said it all for you before.

No one likes us-I don't know why,
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try;
But all around, even our old friends put us down;
Let's drop the big one and see what happens....

.....
They don't respect us -- so let's surprise them,
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us....

[Cleon]

No I'm not.

You most certainly are. You favor an attack on Mecca and Medina if Al-Qaeda attacks.

The crimes of the residents of Mecca and Medina? Well, nothing, except the fact that they're Muslims.

You can try to spin it if you like. But at the end of the day, you're advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion.

And no amount of spin will change that.


This is a strawman. If there are people in the middle east willing to renounce fundamentalism and reform their religion, come on with it.
And if they happen to live in Mecca when Al-Qaeda attacks, in Tony-world they deserve what's coming to them, right?


And I note that you exhibit more disgust at the nuclear attack of theocracy than you do to a secular country. I also note that you fear to think about the full implications of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia.This is called "lying."


You're another smart guy whose opinion I respect Cleon.


Frankly, if you take this sort of position, I don't want your respect.

[Tony]

Thanks, I know we're talking about Islamic Fundamentalists.

Ok.

That is hardly specific enough information to plan a response.

In your opinion. I think it is, that is why I support making Mecca and Medina targets in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia.

Should we have invaded Bosnia in retaliation for 9/11?

What a stupid question.

WTF do you get that?

From you kneejerk defense of Saudi Arabia in the face of a nuclear attack against the US.

I haven't tried to minimize it at all.

So when you whine about "atrocities" (nuclear attack) carried out by the US in response to an "enemy attack" (nuclear attack) you're doing what exactly?

[Tony]

You most certainly are. You favor an attack on Mecca and Medina if Al-Qaeda attacks.


Now this is called lying. That I favor attacks against mecca and medina in no way follows that I'm "advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion."

You can try to spin it if you like. But at the end of the day, you're advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion.

You can try to spin it if you like, at the end of the day, you're lying.

And if they happen to live in Mecca when Al-Qaeda attacks, in Tony-world they deserve what's coming to them, right?

More frothing at the mouth. I was explaining how I am not "advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion". If you were a rational being, you would have comprehended that.

This is called "lying."

No, it isn't. It is spot on.

Frankly, if you take this sort of position, I don't [I]want your respect.

Well, I never took you for a close-minded goosestepping coward. In that case, you don't deserve my respect.


I note how you also dodged my question about what you'd do in the event of a nuclear attack. I suspect it's because, like the rest of the people defending religious fundamenalism in this thread, you've abandoned rationality in the face of the word "nuclear".


Here is the difference between you and I. I think of the US, Europe or Asia getting attacked and I get outraged. Outraged to the point that I abandon my morality and advocate something I know is wrong but think is necessary in the face of a nuclear armed religious group. You're indifferent to the prospect of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia, and instead get outraged when you think of a nuclear attack against muslims holy sites as a retaliation for the initial nuclear attack (to which you've shown indifference). I elevate secularism, liberalism and freedom over morality in the face of nuclear war, you elevate jesus style morality (turn the other cheek, love thy enemy) over secularism, liberalism and freedom in the face of nuclear war. In short, my morality is not absolute, but my support of secularism, liberalism and freedom are. Is your morality absolute? Do you even have the balls to consider these concepts?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Nobody is defending religious fundamentalism.

Are you in favor of nuking Mecca and Medina right now? If not, are you defending religious fundamentalism. How about if I ask if you're in favor of nuking Alabama?

[Tony]

Nobody is defending religious fundamentalism.

It sure does come across like they are.

Are you in favor of nuking Mecca and Medina right now?

No, I hate nuclear weapons and am against their use as an offensive weapon.

If not, are you defending religious fundamentalism.

No.

How about if I ask if you're in favor of nuking Alabama?

Why would I?

Now can you answer my question?

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?

Unlike Cleon, my mind is open. I would consider a nuclear attack against the US by islamic fundamentalists a turning point, a line in the sand, a point at which the West and the secular world must stop being a moral agent and start working to totally defeat the fanatics. If you can provide a viable atlernative to totally defeating the fanatics by an all out conquest of, and a radical change in, the middle east, I'm listening.

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, I can't answer your question. Your question lacks absolutely every detail needed to provide an answer.

[Darth Rotor]

That I favor attacks against mecca and medina in no way follows that I'm "advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion."
A bit of a quibble, given that most people who live in Mecca and Medinah happen to be Muslim, and happen to be where the bombs will unite them with the cosmos, and all Muslims on the Hajj for religious reasons alone, wandering about that rock, will also become cosmic debris. I think your protest is ignoring the general condition of the fleshy collateral damage.

No matter, that isn't the point of substance in this thread anyway.

What is the point of substance is the matter of credible deterrence. Since we are not dealing with a nation state here, when the problem is terrorist/extra national cells, Tancredo's idea isn't completely whack: threaten something those whack jobs hold dear as a deterrent, but do so credibly. It's MAD in a new form.

As I read your position, there is a point, a Pearl Harbor sort of moment, past which the West must rise up in wrath and the War of Civilizations (not Kenedy's clash, but a no-fooling total war) will be waged.

This is an option, to be sure. I do not know where the political will for that resides, outside the Jacksonian strain in America and the Nationalist strains in Europe, but it may be there in abundance with a good enough sales job. If so, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, nuke or otherwise.

The slaughter will be horrific. Global warming might be slowed due to population loss for a few decades. Hell, the posited nuclear winter might also show up.
Well, I never took you for a close-minded goosestepping coward. In that case, you don't deserve my respect.
I wrinkled my nose in humor there, given Cleon as a Jew juxtaposed with goosestepping. It just didn't fit.
I note how you also dodged my question about what you'd do in the event of a nuclear attack. I suspect it's because, like the rest of the people defending religious fundamenalism in this thread, you've abandoned rationality in the face of the word "nuclear".
It is a hell of a boogie man, since it's barely being kept in the bottle at the moment. Leaving the bottle again, in its current forms, would do global damage, economic and physical, orders of magnitude greater than Hiroshima. That scares the piss out of people, and heck, it scared enough piss out of Nixon that he got involved in the SALT talks with people he hated: the Soviets.
Here is the difference between you and I. I think of the US, Europe or Asia getting attacked and I get outraged. Outraged to the point that I abandon my morality and advocate something I know is wrong but think is necessary in the face of a nuclear armed religious group.
See above, World War III, a horrific blood letting. It could happen, and I don't want to be on the Muslim side of that one. Too big a chance of dying. I am all too familiar with how destructive our conventional, let alone nuke, forces are when let loose with abandon, to want to be on any side facing them. The restraint our people use day in and day out masks a devastating capability for raw destruction. Glad it's on my side.
You're indifferent to the prospect of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia, and instead get outraged when you think of a nuclear attack against muslims holy sites as a retaliation for the initial nuclear attack (to which you've shown indifference).
If someone nukes the US, I want some one's ass, and if melting a few places down in the best option for that end, so be it. One cannot allow attacks to go unanswered. Something about "who draws first blood better stand the hell by for the payback."
I elevate secularism, liberalism and freedom over morality in the face of nuclear war, you elevate jesus style morality (turn the other cheek, love thy enemy) over secularism, liberalism and freedom in the face of nuclear war.
Which if true is odd, given that Cleon has advised us that he is a Jew.
In short, my morality is not absolute, but my support of secularism, liberalism and freedom are. Is your morality absolute? Do you even have the balls to consider these concepts?
The "line in the sand" approach isn't invalid, the question that stands is where to draw it. Khadaffi tried it in the Gulf of Sidra, in 1986, and could not back it up. We, the US, and Europe, if the will is there, can draw such a line, and can back it up.

Maybe a few knuckleheads need to be reminded of that now and again, as a deterrent. Using conventional means to so remind them is to me a smarter method that letting the genie out of the bottle. The risk of casual nuke use, a la Tancredo, is that the loss of political and trade benefits that come with not using nukes will cause economic pain. I remember the 1973 oil embargo. Pain, economic, one each.

How many people are willing to tighten the belt, Tony, to keep that deterrent up in order to avoid a nuke in the US?

I don't know. I wish I could say the whole country was with you, Tony, but I am at a loss to capture any consensus on this.

DR

[Tony]

No, I can't answer your question. Your question lacks absolutely every detail needed to provide an answer.

Like what? If you don't have the vision and knowledge to come-up with an solution of your own, then how can you pretend to speculate whether a counter attack against Mecca or Medina followed by a war or conquest will be successful or not? Or, is your objected purely based on moral indignation?

[fishbob]

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?


Simple.
Same thing that should have been done when the WTC was attacked.
Track down and wipe out those responsible.

You may have noticed that invading the wrong country and killing many thousands of those not in any way involved has only created a bigger mess. I don't think you really want to repeat that mistake on a larger scale.

[Darth Rotor]

No, I can't answer your question. Your question lacks absolutely every detail needed to provide an answer.
No, it does not so lack.

Tony offers an open ended question framed to allow you enough rope to hang yourself, but also enough rope to make a lovely macrame hammock.

You have room to work, few bounds, have at it. Tell us all a better idea, rather than "not that, anything but that." It takes a bit of imagination, but I think you are up to it. :)

DR

[RecoveringYuppy]

What's wrong with moral indignation? It's completely wrong to threaten to kill a million people for the actions of other people beyond their control.

The only basis for threatening Mecca and Medina is when Mecca and Medina threaten us.

[Darth Rotor]

Simple.
Same thing that should have been done when the WTC was attacked.
Track down and wipe out those responsible.

You may have noticed that invading the wrong country and killing many thousands of those not in any way involved has only created a bigger mess. I don't think you really want to repeat that mistake on a larger scale.

Fishbob, Tony's position is a bit like the US taking on Japan to the point of unconditional surrender after Pearl harbor. Before then, the US and Japan screwed with one another in Asia. After that "line in the sand" it was a matter of "take it to the source and stamp them out."

The challenge in re "Muslim World/Muslim Fundamentalism" is that it is a far more complext target than "Imperial Japan." Just because something is hard to do is no reason to give up on it. It calls for working harder and smarter.

Or, wiping it out, dumping the chess table, so to speak, that sits on the table called "The Persian Gulf."

ETA: I had to LOL just now. It seems that Tony's take on this, for the moment, aligns somewhat with neocon ideology/geo strategy of the past ten years, (but with a "slaughter them, rather than convert them" theme) and if Tony is a neocon, I am a radish.

DR

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Darth,
Then read fishbobs response. If we don't prevent such an attack we respond against the people responsible for the attack.

[Darth Rotor]

@Darth,
Then read fishbobs response. If we don't prevent such an attack we respond against the people responsible for the attack.

That is an option, but not the only option. It also points to a recurring failure in deterrence, and deterrence, if we go back to Tancredo's inflammatory opening remark in this thread, is the point. Failed deterrence can argue for a change in policy, see my note above with how Japan was treated.

DR

[Tony]

Simple.
Same thing that should have been done when the WTC was attacked.
Track down and wipe out those responsible.


You didn't answer the whole question. How will that threat act as deterrence? How will that prevent others from doing same?

Also,

How many American cities have to be obliterated before you conclude that your policy of tracking people down, instead of attacking the ideology, is a failure?

You may have noticed that invading the wrong country and killing many thousands of those not in any way involved has only created a bigger mess. I don't think you really want to repeat that mistake on a larger scale.

This is a shallow retort, want to try again?



And DR, thanks for your rational post. You’re the first one who gets what I’m saying (for the most part). I’ll try to address it tonight or tomorrow.

[Tony]

What's wrong with moral indignation?

It's useless in the face of a nuclear attack.

[Cain]

And that's how I feel about the so-called "liberals" who are posting in this thread. We're talking about a nuclear attack here people, I don't think anyone on this thread has fully tried to understand the implications of what such an attack would have on the world. If a single assassins bullet could start WW1, what do you think a nuclear attack against the world's superpower would have?

World War I is a bit more complicated. Countries were locked into alliances and a stupid assassination started one of the more (excuse the pleonastic phrasing) pointless wars. If anything we want a nuclear weapon to put an end to hostilities, not to get the body count started.

But, when it comes down to it, I will not tolerate nuclear weapons being used against any secular or liberal country by religious fanatics. In such a situation, any morality I might have vis-a-vis the treatment of those religious fanatics gets put aside. Is your morality absolute?

How is attacking Medina or Mecca going to deter any more attacks? It's just obtuse.

Of course I am, but I'm more concerned with the defeat of religious fanaticism should that fanaticism get such strength that it would be able carry out a nuclear attack. In such a case, I would have no qualms whatsoever about waging a full-scale war of conquest against the Middle East.

It would encourage fanaticism, not defeat it. You're dealing with transnational non-state actors; nuclear deterrence simply does not apply. The more and the bigger booms, the more Muslims persecuted for being Muslim (or in this case killed en mass for being Muslim) the stronger and, quite frankly, more respectable, terrorism becomes.

In the event of a nuclear attack it makes no sense to punish pilgrims. Maybe, possibly, you might want to nuke the state responsible for proliferation (most likely Pakistan), in order to deter more bombs coming off the line, but that would still be immoral, unnecessary and stupid.

Also, Cleon's characterizations and arguments are exactly correct.

[fishbob]

Deterrence is not simple.
There are so many conflicting Islamic interests that what deters one group will likely encourage another. The simplistic idea of nuking holy sites very much falls into this category.

Maybe this is too simple, but a nice deterrent would already be established if we had diligently tracked down and dealt with Osama.

[Tony]

World War I is a bit more complicated. Countries were locked into alliances and a stupid assassination started one of the more (excuse the pleonastic phrasing) pointless wars.

True, but my point stands.

If anything we want a nuclear weapon to put an end to hostilities, not to get the body count started.I agree.

How is attacking Medina or Mecca going to deter any more attacks? It's just obtuse.Already explained.

It would encourage fanaticism, not defeat it.Uh, what? How are corpses going to be encouraged?

You're dealing with transnational non-state actors; nuclear deterrence simply does not apply.You're not paying attention are you. Yes, tradition nuclear deterrence does not apply, that's exactly why you make mecca and medina a target.

The more and the bigger booms, the more Muslims persecuted for being Muslim (or in this case killed en mass for being Muslim) the stronger and, quite frankly, more respectable, terrorism becomes.I'm not talking about, nor am I suggesting we persecute muslims. That aside, the above is a bumper sticker argument that fails to consider the implications of a total war waged against the middle east.

Maybe, possibly, you might want to nuke the state responsible for proliferation (most likely Pakistan), in order to deter more bombs coming off the line, but that would still be immoral, unnecessary and stupid.I agree, Pakistan isn't the seat of the holiest site in islam.

Also, Cleon's characterizations and arguments are exactly correct.Incivility removed

[Corsair 115]

Most of our imports come from Nigeria (which is 50% Muslim and who would drop us like a hot potato to prevent civil war) and Venezula... This is incorrect. Here is the breakdown of U.S. crude oil imports by rank, nation, and percentage for 2006:

1 - Canada (17.66%)
2 - Mexico (15.61%)
3 - Saudi Arabia (14.08%)
4 - Venezuela (11.28%)
5 - Nigeria (10.33%)

Canada and Mexico together supplied 33.27% of all U.S. crude oil imports in 2006; the top five nations combined supplied 68.96%; the top ten nations 87.52%.

Tancredo is a loonie...and he's not even worth a Canadian Dollar at that.Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the exchange rate in the last year. The Canadian dollar closed today at a value of $0.9488 U.S., or in other words $1.00 U.S. equals $1.054 Canadian.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm sure you have that clue - with all your fancy Jihadists-pocketbooks, don't you? :rolleyes:

What's Oliver talking about?

Someone?

[Cleon]

Now this is called lying.

Wrong.


That I favor attacks against mecca and medina in no way follows that I'm "advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion."

Er, yes, yes it does.


More frothing at the mouth. I was explaining how I am not "advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion". If you were a rational being, you would have comprehended that.


"Rational beings" do not advocate mass murder.


No, it isn't. It is spot on.


Calling a lie "spot on" doesn't make it any less of a lie, Tony. Let's review your claim:


And I note that you exhibit more disgust at the nuclear attack of theocracy than you do to a secular country.

At no point have I indicated "more disgust at the nuclear attack of theocracy than you do to a secular country."

I indicated disgust at the concept of bombing innocent people into oblivion because they happen to be Muslim. As should any decent human being. (If you can poison the well, then so can I.)


I also note that you fear to think about the full implications of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia.


Any evidence that I "fear to think" about anything? No? Didn't think so.


Well, I never took you for a close-minded goosestepping coward. In that case, you don't deserve my respect.

Odd. I keep reading this and all I see is "waaaah! Cleon won't agree with my stance on bombing Muslims!"


I note how you also dodged my question about what you'd do in the event of a nuclear attack.

Dodge? No. I didn't answer it, because I don't answer loaded questions. I'm weird like that.


I suspect it's because, like the rest of the people defending religious fundamenalism in this thread, you've abandoned rationality in the face of the word "nuclear".

"Rationality." You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You're indifferent to the prospect of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia,

This is a lie.

I'm horrified by the concept of a nuclear attack anywhere. Doubly so if my elected representatives were responsible for it.


and instead get outraged when you think of a nuclear attack against muslims holy sites as a retaliation for the initial nuclear attack (to which you've shown indifference).

"Retaliation." Yeah. Right up there with invading Iraq as "retaliation" for 9/11.

Retaliation means striking back at the guys who attacked you. Bombing cities that are holy to Muslims after an Al-Qaeda attack is like bombing the Vatican in "retaliation" for an IRA attack.

[fishbob]

How many American cities have to be obliterated before you conclude that your policy of tracking people down, instead of attacking the ideology, is a failure?

This is a shallow retort, want to try again?

You can not physically attack an ideology. You can't nuke an ideology. Ideologies have to be changed or attacked with ideas.

You can physically attack people, so that is where application of force makes sense.

Also, you are a poopie head.

[Art Vandelay]

... is simply another thread Art is involved in. It's behaviour sterotypical enough to the point of suspecting a bot.More typical than you posting personal attacks me, but not posting anything of substance? Or how Dr A's arguments seem so often to come down to repeating his mindless phrase "lying half-wit"?

You're advocating the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion.A religion which itself advocates the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion. What's wrong with killing someone for their religion? Hmmm? Do people somehow get a free pass for supporting homicidal ideals if those ideals are part of a religion?

Nobody is defending religious fundamentalism.Really? I'd really like that explained to me. Which of the following describes your position:
1. I do not defend religious fundamentalism.
2. Islam is fundamentally violent.
3. "Fundamentalism" is just a word, and the grammatical connection between it and "fundamentally" does not mean that, just because Islamic fundamentalists are violent, that means that Islam is fundamentally violent.
4. "Fundamentally" is sufficiently different from "inherent" that, while Islam is fundamentally violent, it is not inherently violent.
5. Islam is inherently violent, and all those criticizing Art Vandelay for saying so are unjustified.

Art, you are quite simply, just as bad as the Cartoon-Mohammed protesters last year.

By this I mean holding placards going 'Kill those who call Islam a violent religion'. Well, I think those that solicit murder should be put in prison. What, exactly, have I said that in your mind makes me eligible for imprisonment?

Do you not have a problem with murdering homosexuals?

The shame is, while they stain an entire religion (An entire religion you have absolutely no clue about), you stain the entire human race with your backward, anti-intellectual, heedless views.Anti-intellectual? I'm not the person comparing my opponent to murderers simply because they have a view that differs from mine. I'm not the one who insults my opponents, as has absolutely nothing of substance to address their arguments. What are you doing here? I mean, seriously, what is the point? Do you really think that your foaming at the mouth, everyone who disagrees with me is a subhuman savage, ***holery is going to accomplish anything useful?

Isn't it weird how people tell me, over and over again, that I have no clue about Islam, yet they REFUSE to offer anything more than the knee-jerk, Leftist, we-refuse-to-listen-to-any-criticism-of-Islam-even-though-they-oppose-almost-everything-we-stand-for BS?

The sooner both of you radicals are off this planet the better.Gee, that looks an AWEFUL lot like wishing death on someone. So, Cleon, any particular reason you didn't say anything about that? Isn't there a rule against that sort of thing?

Just what is "radical" about me? That I refuse to pretend that religion isn't a psychosis which fails to produce violence only when its followers possess great cognitive dissonance?

[Tony]

Wrong.


Right

Er, yes, yes it does.

You're lying again.

"Rational beings" do not advocate mass murder.

Another lie, I never advocated mass murder.

At no point have I indicated "more disgust at the nuclear attack of theocracy than you do to a secular country."

Yes you did.

I indicated disgust at the concept of bombing innocent people into oblivion because they happen to be Muslim.

Something that was never advocated for.

As should any decent human being.

You're not being decent, you're being foolish, cowardly, and pro-fundy.

Any evidence that I "fear to think" about anything? No? Didn't think so.

Yep, you dodged my question.

Odd. I keep reading this and all I see is "waaaah! Cleon won't agree with my stance on bombing Muslims!"

Another lie.

Dodge? No. I didn't answer it, because I don't answer loaded questions. I'm weird like that.

Dodge noted again. C'mon coward, think about the question and answer it.

"Rationality." You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Right, you think it means to show indifference to the US or Europe getting attacked while crying when someone advocates a counte-attack to said attack. I think it means:

Main Entry: 1ra·tio·nal
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&l, 'ra-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English racional, from Anglo-French racionel, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
- ra·tio·nal·ly adverb
- ra·tio·nal·ness noun

I'm horrified by the concept of a nuclear attack anywhere. Doubly so if my elected representatives were responsible for it.

I thought you said it was a lie? YOU JUST CONFIRMED WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING. You show more outrage at the prospect of nuclear weapons being used against another country, in the context of a counter attack, than against you own, secular country, as a first strike.

"Retaliation." Yeah. Right up there with invading Iraq as "retaliation" for 9/11.

I see your mind is nice and closed. You make a good goosestepper, burn any books lately fundy?

Retaliation means striking back at the guys who attacked you.

Right, in this scenario, it would be fundy muslims that would be attacking us. I'm glad you're catching on.

Bombing cities that are holy to Muslims after an Al-Qaeda attack is like bombing the Vatican in "retaliation" for an IRA attack.

No it isn't. You're lying again, and you're also minimizing the fact that it would be a nuclear attack that would cause a US lead counter attack against Mecca and Medina. But please, keep up with those lies, they do nothing but undermine your "arguments".

[Tony]

You can not physically attack an ideology. You can't nuke an ideology.

LOL. In this case, we clearly can.

Ideologies have to be changed or attacked with ideas.

I know. Lets hope we can before it comes to them attacking the US with nuclear weapons.

Also, you are a poopie head.

I bet that turns you on huh?


I also noticed you dodged the question. So, how many american cities have to be destroyed before you conclude your policy is a failure?

[Tony]

A religion which itself advocates the mass-murder of people whose only crime is that they belong to the "wrong" religion. What's wrong with killing someone for their religion? Hmmm? Do people somehow get a free pass for supporting homicidal ideals if those ideals are part of a religion?


From Cleon you do. Just wrap a diaper around your head, say it's for "allah", nuke an american or european city, and Cleon will rush to your defense.

[prewitt81]

General advisory: Keep it civil. Attack the argument, not the person making it.

[RecoveringYuppy]

[I said no one is defending religious fundamentalism and you responded]
Really? I'd really like that explained to me. Which of the following describes your position:
1. I do not defend religious fundamentalism.
2. Islam is fundamentally violent.
3. "Fundamentalism" is just a word, and the grammatical connection between it and "fundamentally" does not mean that, just because Islamic fundamentalists are violent, that means that Islam is fundamentally violent.
4. "Fundamentally" is sufficiently different from "inherent" that, while Islam is fundamentally violent, it is not inherently violent.
5. Islam is inherently violent, and all those criticizing Art Vandelay for saying so are unjustified.
Well, I guess if your brain is only big enough for 5 bits, turn bit 1 off and try to grow some extra brain cells until you can resolve enough bits to get in the game on the others.

Most Muslims are peaceful. It's a good thing. Take advantage of it. More Muslims are opponents of al Qaeda than sympathizers. Take advantage of that.

If we could just set our hormones aside and use our brains we could win this war by selling iPods rather than dropping bombs.

[RecoveringYuppy]

So, how many american cities have to be destroyed before you conclude your policy is a failure?
Could you decide your policy is a failure right now? We have, after all, gone after an country that wasn't directly related to our problems and completely botched it. Why not turn on your brain now, rather than wait from some hypothetical situation where the smart people turn out to be wrong?

[Tony]

Could you decide your policy is a failure right now?

My policy hasn't been implemented. I hope it never is.

We have, after all, gone after an country that wasn't directly related to our problems and completely botched it.

Irrelevant.

Why not turn on your brain now

Another ad hom. While we're talking about brain power. How about you use yours, if there is any, which I doubt, to answer my question:

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?

It should be easy, right? After all, your brain is on? Or do you only have empty and pathetic ad homs?

rather than wait from some hypothetical situation where the smart people turn out to be wrong?

Hahaha, it doesn't look good when you talk about "turning on your brain" while making so little sense.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, I guess if your brain is only big enough for 5 bits, I originally planned to put in a "none of the above" option, but I forgot to put it in. I hardly think that your snippiness is called for. If you don't think that those options are comprehensive, what do you think that I'm leaving out?

I'm not talking about the preponderance of Muslims. While I suppose that a billion people saying that they follow a book that calls for mass murder, but don't actually support mass murder, is a bit better than a billion people who actually do support mass murder, it hardly puts my mind at ease. The issue at hand is not whether the majority of people who claim to be Muslims actually follow Islam, the question is what Islam is. Islam is, among other things, a belief system that justifies violence, including murder. It is inherent to the religion. As opposed to things like FGM, which are associated with Islam, but aren't actually part of the core of the religion.

Yet people have a problem with me pointing this fact out. Apparently, sparing people's feelings trumps everything, even recognizing deadly threats. You said that this insistence on burying our head in the sand is not "defending religious fundamentalism". So, what did you mean by that? Were you using the term "fundamentalism", in the sense of "people who have been tagged with the label 'fundamentalist', regardless of whether they follow the fundamentals of the religion"? Did mean to draw a distinction between the fundamentals of a religion and the inherent characteristics? What, exactly, were you saying? Because I see your statement, taken literally, as being flagrantly wrong. I went to the trouble of giving you an opportunity to clarify what you meant, and you just spat in my face. So I don't have much patience left for you.

[Tony]

A bit of a quibble, given that most people who live in Mecca and Medinah happen to be Muslim, and happen to be where the bombs will unite them with the cosmos, and all Muslims on the Hajj for religious reasons alone, wandering about that rock, will also become cosmic debris. I think your protest is ignoring the general condition of the fleshy collateral damage.


I'm not ignoring it, I just don't really think it would be a relevant concern after a nuclear attack against the US.

No matter, that isn't the point of substance in this thread anyway.

No, it isn't.

What is the point of substance is the matter of credible deterrence. Since we are not dealing with a nation state here, when the problem is terrorist/extra national cells, Tancredo's idea isn't completely whack: threaten something those whack jobs hold dear as a deterrent, but do so credibly. It's MAD in a new form.

Indeed. Tancredo is a nut, but he makes a good point. Furthermore, I submit that any president, republican or democrat, would attack Mecca and/or Medina in the case of a nuclear attack, the country would demand it, and it would be dangerous for a president to resist. I think a lot of the people on this thread whining about attacking mecca and medina aren't taking the time to think about the effect a nuclear attack would have on the country. I think I'm safe in saying that chaos and calls for blood, from all relevant political sectors, would ensue on scale unprecedented in American history.

As I read your position, there is a point, a Pearl Harbor sort of moment, past which the West must rise up in wrath and the War of Civilizations (not Kenedy's clash, but a no-fooling total war) will be waged.

You are right. You and I have talked about the Iraq war before. You know that I think the terrorist threat, as it currently exists, has been overblown by the administration for political reasons. The US and the West has faced much larger, much more powerful and much more dangerous enemies in the past. Islamic fundamentalists are a weak rag-tag bunch of fundies. However, I draw the line at their use of nuclear weapons. When and if that happens, we need to attack their religion with the same tenacity and brutality that we attacked fascism in WW2.

This is an option, to be sure. I do not know where the political will for that resides, outside the Jacksonian strain in America and the Nationalist strains in Europe, but it may be there in abundance with a good enough sales job. If so, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, nuke or otherwise.

You don't think a nuclear attack would galvanize public opinion, in both europe and the USA, against islam? I do. Of course we're speculating here, but a successful nuclear attack by the islamists would symbolize that they have become a credible existential threat. I've no doubt that, although he may be anti-war, anti-nuke, and generally peaceful (like me), the typical man on the street in the US and Europe doesn't want to die, and he doesn't want to see large areas of his country destroyed by nuclear weapons at the hands of religious fanatics.

The slaughter will be horrific.

Yes, it would. :( But frankly, if it's between islam and liberalism, which it will be, I know where I stand.

I wrinkled my nose in humor there, given Cleon as a Jew juxtaposed with goosestepping. It just didn't fit.

I don't see how being a jew precludes anyone from being a conformist robot.

It is a hell of a boogie man, since it's barely being kept in the bottle at the moment. Leaving the bottle again, in its current forms, would do global damage, economic and physical, orders of magnitude greater than Hiroshima. That scares the piss out of people,

I agree, it scares the piss outta me, that is why I am against nuclear weapons. This is why I think a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia would require an extraordinary response. I note that other posters gloss over the fact that, for mecca and medina to be attacked, the US would first have to be attacked. I guess it's ok if the US gets nuked, after all, the USA is full of christians, white people, infidels, queers, liberals, capitalists, feminists and environmentalists. The middle east is full of followers of the one true god. They make it perfectly clear who they think is expendable.

See above, World War III, a horrific blood letting. It could happen, and I don't want to be on the Muslim side of that one. Too big a chance of dying. I am all too familiar with how destructive our conventional, let alone nuke, forces are when let loose with abandon, to want to be on any side facing them. The restraint our people use day in and day out masks a devastating capability for raw destruction. Glad it's on my side.

I've long maintained that the islamists are fighting a loosing battle. They are virtually guaranteed to fail. The stupidest thing they could do is continue to raise the bar of violence, and, if they will raise it to the point, such as a nuclear attack, where the West will no longer tolerate them, they're good as dead.

If someone nukes the US, I want some one's ass, and if melting a few places down in the best option for that end, so be it. One cannot allow attacks to go unanswered. Something about "who draws first blood better stand the hell by for the payback."

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack?

Which if true is odd, given that Cleon has advised us that he is a Jew.

You took what I said way too literally dude. Furthermore, isn't Cleon an atheist?

The "line in the sand" approach isn't invalid, the question that stands is where to draw it.

I draw it at a nuclear attack against the US, Europe, or Asia. Others draw it in much less severe circumstances. Other don't draw it at all, allowing themselves and their nation to be destroyed out of a misplaced and absolutist sense of faux morality.

Using conventional means to so remind them is to me a smarter method that letting the genie out of the bottle.

I agree. Like I said, I'm not committed to a nuclear counter-attack.

The risk of casual nuke use, a la Tancredo, is that the loss of political and trade benefits that come with not using nukes will cause economic pain. I remember the 1973 oil embargo. Pain, economic, one each.

I think this point is moot. I think the initial nuclear attack by the islamists will destroy that paradigm before our counter-attack.

How many people are willing to tighten the belt, Tony, to keep that deterrent up in order to avoid a nuke in the US?

Keep it an unspoken deterrent. The islamists know we have nukes and the ability to muster a massive conventional force should the need arise.

I don't know. I wish I could say the whole country was with you, Tony, but I am at a loss to capture any consensus on this.

Explain.

[a_unique_person]

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)

Yeah, because when our city was bombed, we just curled up and ran away :rolleyes: .

Can anyone think of a better way to further motivate terrorists than by bombing their holy sites?

Not to mention the sheer brutality of bombing innocent people simply because they have the same religion as terrorists.

People like this just play right in Osama's twisted hands. He can now go out and say "See, I was right, the American Infidels are barbarous animals who deserve to die".

[Undesired Walrus]

It's remarkable how any person who wishes to call Islam backward or anti-intellectual and violent at its core, simply have never said this to any Muslim person on this planet, instead, injecting their dislike into an internet forum.

Remarkable.

[Art Vandelay]

It's remarkable how many Leftists are apparently psychic, prone to ridiculous generalizations, in love with strawmen, and downright hateful people while accusing other people of being intolerant. And have trouble with subject-verb agreement to boot.

[Undesired Walrus]

It's remarkable how many Leftists are apparently psychic, prone to ridiculous generalizations, in love with strawmen, and downright hateful people while accusing other people of being intolerant. And have trouble with subject-verb agreement to boot.

Psss..I'm not left wing.

I interviewed a Muslim called Mohammed Abbase the other day. I'm a case worker, so I found out he was homeless for years, with mental health problems, before he clawed his way back up and is currently attempting to become reunited with his son.

Another Muslim used to come in who read the poetry of Rumi, with his small poetry book. He was a silent man who shared these words with all of us.

At the thought of them being killed for following the 'wrong' religion, which you believe so badly to be against liberalism, fills me with rage.

The fact you would not swallow enough 'Stiffen Up TM' to voice these opinions to them in person...

Your ignorance is shocking.

[fishbob]

I also noticed you dodged the question. So, how many american cities have to be destroyed before you conclude your policy is a failure?

Dodged the question? I answered the question and you called it a shallow retort.

My policy has yet to be iimplemented. My policy can not fail until it has actually been tried.

Your policy, Tancredo's policy, is a variation of the Bush adventure in Iraq. This HAS been tried. Extensively. Some of us have noticed a few less-than-desirable results with that policy.

[fishbob]

It's remarkable how many Leftists are apparently psychic, prone to ridiculous generalizations, in love with strawmen, and downright hateful people while accusing other people of being intolerant. And have trouble with subject-verb agreement to boot.

I would never ever characterize Art as a Leftist.

[Cain]

Uh, what? How are corpses going to be encouraged?

Uh, because even if you managed to kill several million Muslims who did nothing to you, including American citizens, there will be hundreds of millions left over... that is, unless you want to kill them as well for being Muslim, which sounds like a grand idea.

You're not paying attention are you. Yes, tradition nuclear deterrence does not apply, that's exactly why you make mecca and medina a target.

Oh noes, how could I fail to grapple the "logic" of it all. :rolleyes: How again is threatening to bomb the holiest sites in Islam, along with lots and lots of innocent people, going to deter members of terrorist organizations? These loons are hankering for a Day of Judgment.

I'm not talking about, nor am I suggesting we persecute muslims. That aside, the above is a bumper sticker argument that fails to consider the implications of a total war waged against the middle east.

How is that a bumper sticker argument? You keep relying on a certain type of language, describing arguments as "bumper sticker" invoking the omni-present "straw man," accusing others of being irrational and close-minded, but none of it fits. It's all an act. A bumper sticker argument is snappier and more cliched (e.g., eye for an eye makes the whole world blind; bombing for peace is like *********** for virginity). You are decidedly in favor of killing Muslims for being Muslim. Also, can you explain how my (non) bumper sticker argument fails to "consider the implications of a total war waged against the middle east." I'm not sure what you're arguing for there.

All this stuff about nuking innocents is as unhinged as it is slimy, but what makes it so insulting -- libelous even -- is that you want to visit murder, chaos, and destruction upon people who did you no harm in the name of civilization and secular values. Get a grip, man.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't really think it would be a relevant concern after a nuclear attack against the US.
It is plausible that blood lust could be harnessed for a strike on a critical pillar of Islam as a retaliation, and that "sucks to be you, you being fleshy collateral damage" would be an acceptable position (domestically.)
I think a lot of the people on this thread whining about attacking mecca and medina aren't taking the time to think about the effect a nuclear attack would have on the country. I think I'm safe in saying that chaos and calls for blood, from all relevant political sectors, would ensue on scale unprecedented in American history.
Could be, depends on the political buttons pushed by the various proponents and opponents.
The US and the West has faced much larger, much more powerful and much more dangerous enemies in the past. Islamic fundamentalists are a weak rag-tag bunch of fundies. However, I draw the line at their use of nuclear weapons.
Deterring that is of course a multi faceted challenge, which cannot alone be solved by threatening Mecca as a deterrent. I gather you agree that the MAD of Mecca threat, an open one, is a part of, not the whole of, the deterrent strategy aimed at preventing a nuke in America.
When and if that happens, we need to attack their religion with the same tenacity and brutality that we attacked fascism in WW2.
Yes, all the while risking that the religion isn't the real root cause, but is being used as an excuse, a rallying symbol, for far more practical and secular purpose, namely a raw grasp at power.
You don't think a nuclear attack would galvanize public opinion, in both europe and the USA, against islam? I do.
I think it would, but I don't know how far the emotional energy would carry into action.
Of course we're speculating here, but a successful nuclear attack by the islamists would symbolize that they have become a credible existential threat.
Yes.
I've no doubt that, although he may be anti-war, anti-nuke, and generally peaceful (like me), the typical man on the street in the US and Europe doesn't want to die, and he doesn't want to see large areas of his country destroyed by nuclear weapons at the hands of religious fanatics.
Yes.
Yes, it would. :( But frankly, if it's between islam and liberalism, which it will be, I know where I stand.
Yep. For all the arguments, liberalism (I think you mean classical liberalism here) and Christianity seem to have been able to co-exist without a great deal of killing, over the past century or so: since about the day Garibaldi PWNED the Pope.
I don't see how being a jew precludes anyone from being a conformist robot.
The giggle was from the mixing of metaphors.
I note that other posters gloss over the fact that, for mecca and medina to be attacked, the US would first have to be attacked.
Yes, the "how can you even think that?" response is a disturbing weakness in some sectors. When one takes options completely off the table, one opens loopholes for one's enemy to take advantage of.
I've long maintained that the islamists are fighting a loosing battle. They are virtually guaranteed to fail. The stupidest thing they could do is continue to raise the bar of violence, and, if they will raise it to the point, such as a nuclear attack, where the West will no longer tolerate them, they're good as dead.
Could be, but the True Believer will tend to kill for, and die for, his cause. The Salafists and Islamists seem to have a lot of True Believers in their group. (Hoffer is the ref.)
What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack?
Before I answer that, am I me, citizen, or me, President Darth (bad idea, really) or me, advisor to President X?
I draw it at a nuclear attack against the US, Europe, or Asia. Others draw it in much less severe circumstances. Other don't draw it at all, allowing themselves and their nation to be destroyed out of a misplaced and absolutist sense of faux morality.
My line is to undertake policies that prevent the attack, but failing that, to lash out in bloody revenge. I realize that Jesus suggests turning the other cheek, and that "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" but I'm practical enough to know that people who don't ascribe to that philosophy are completely unimpressed by its implementation. So, lay on MacDuff, put SAC on alert.
I agree. Like I said, I'm not committed to a nuclear counter-attack.Aye, it is an option, and all options need to be on the table. Reagan did this very effectively in never ruling out first use during the 80's. Keep your opponent guessing.
I think the initial nuclear attack by the islamists will destroy that paradigm before our counter-attack.
Could be. As you noted above we are speculating a bit here.
Keep it an unspoken deterrent. The islamists know we have nukes and the ability to muster a massive conventional force should the need arise.I think it needs to be either spoken, or a threat that has some sort of credibility to it, otherwise it's a paper tiger. An empty threat is no deterrent, ask any kid. :D
Explain.
This goes back to your noting that we are speculating. I don't know how heavily the "you mess with me, you are messing with the wrong guy" sentiment can sustain over time. If you use the response to 9-11 as a data point, I'd tend to agree that a violent and bloody reaction to a nuke attack could be expected, even though a few of the usual useful idiots would still "blame the victim" and claim that Americ had it coming, etc, ad nauseum.

@ Cain

How again is threatening to bomb the holiest sites in Islam, along with lots and lots of innocent people, going to deter members of terrorist organizations? These loons are hankering for a Day of Judgment.
(Reply not just to you, but to the general readership, as I think you grasp most of these points already.)

The idea of deterrence is to hold in threat something of value to the one threatened. In the case of the old MAD, that would be simple existence, which is what made it so effective. In the multi polar, asymmetrical, extra national model of political conflict, the idea being proposed is to hold hostage, via a MAD sort of trigger, a cultural/political thing, or symbol, as a way to deter a culturally based attack on the cultural/political enemy of the extra national player: "Islamists." (That the Islamists are a varied bunch with many points not in common other than Islam is both a pro and a con to this approach.)

The proposal to use the MAD template in a different arena than the Cold War, where national is dealing with extra national, is at best an uneven fit, at worst a distinctly counter productive one (At the info/symbological/political level.)

As I noted above, the risk is that this threat does not deter, and indeed is either held as an empty threat, or the symbol and its (threatened) destruction itself is used as a means of political leverage by the very people it is being used to deter. (Sound byte: "See, the West hates you all, since they will target Mecca. Allahu Akhbar!," and so on.)

Since one is dealing with symbols here, and not simple physical destruction, the hope for a fit is both risky, and possibly a counter productive strategy to adopt. Does that mean it need be taken off of the table? No, but it cannot be assumed to be as effective as Cold War era MAD was.

A threat like that to Mecca (and other sites) might, or might not, deter one or more of the Islamist / extra nationals from striking. It would certainly not deter at all a Serbian extra national terrorist cell, who want to get payback at the US for its support of Bosnian Muslims and the bombing of Serbia. How are they deterred? Would they use this posture to frame up Muslims? Don't know, but it's a possible branch to the strategy. Law of unintended outcomes, anyone?

The other thorny problem is the question, or assumption, that Islamists are solely, or mainly, motivated by religion. I think the answer to that is "maybe" or "no," since religion is often used as a fig leaf, or as an excuse, for more mundane goals and aims: political power being what is at hand here.

Can MAD be tailored to the current Islamist geopolitical problem? Maybe, and also, maybe not in a nasty way.

I think Tancredo is playing cookie cutter, and not considering the complexities of the matter. His point that the bar needs to be raised isn't a bad one, since the asymmetrical "who has what to lose" game board at present seems to leave the Islamist with an advantage.

His position, if it is limited to this MAD cookie cutter, ought to be a concern to anyone, regardless of how little they care for Islamists, or religionists, versus West/Secular culture.

Needs more depth.

DR

[RecoveringYuppy]

My policy hasn't been implemented. I hope it never is.

Going back to your first post in this thread.
I agree. **** islam. If a nuke is detonated in the US, Europe or Asia, we should retaliate and against their holy sites with same. Their religion is their greatest weakness, it's about time we attack it, or, at least threaten to attack it.

That's your policy right? The implementation of your policy is to make the threat now. Therefore your policy will begin damaging us immediately and continue damaging us until an attack on the actually happens. At the point the attack actually happens you may get a brief period of sympathy and ability to say "I told you so" but it will immediately evaporate when we attack an innocent, even allied, country.

Irrelevant.

Iraq is very relevant and you even explained why. We squandered the worlds sympathy by going after the wrong country.

Another ad hom. While we're talking about brain power. How about you use yours, if there is any, which I doubt, to answer my question:

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?

I already answered this. It's stupid to think there is a specific answer to this vague question. The vague answer is that we would go aftere the perpertrators in a manner appropriate to whoever they are.

And we don't have to wait for a nuclear terrorist attack. We've already been attacked and the world is still behind us when we attack terrorists. We don't need to be threatening innocent people with death, we've got permission to kill a lot of the people who'd like to nuke us already. We've got free reign to do it several countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, A few horn of Africa countries). In Pakistan and Saudia Arabia we defer to the local governments to fight aQ (and they do, but a reasonable person could argue about whether such deferal is a good idea). And we can certainly go after cells in our own countries and Europe.

Threatening innocent people with death would undercut the moral authority we have for the pre-emption we are already doing and cost us a lot of cooperation that we are currently getting.

[RecoveringYuppy]

... So I don't have much patience left for you.
As if I'm not tired of reading about bombing people for having the wrong religion while hearing you denying that's what you're doing.

If Russian Christian terrorists steal a nuke and bomb a Muslim Pakistani city would it be fair to nuke New York in retaliation? Pick a more heavily or symbolic Christian city if you like (Jerusalem?, the Vatican?)

And you've repeated your opinions about Islam a number of times, you've yet to establish them as fact.

[Undesired Walrus]

The problem with people like Art and Tony, is that they are consistently grasping behind their back, in the dark, for an iron bar of reality. They think they find it, and they bring it down on anyone they think intellectually inferior, calling them 'leftists!', 'Chomsky-lovers', smashing away with no remorse.

Then the lights come on, the moral police come in, and Tony and Art see they are holding an Iron bar of Ignorance. Being too intellectually lazy to look for the lightswitch in the place, they see the Iron bar of reality was on the other side of the room, and was not within their grasp.

At work we have a system called 'Ecomaps', in which you draw a spider diagram of things that were important to you. I went on a course in Elephant and Castle in which we originally learnt this. A Mohammed there drew a thick line to something he had circled 'Religion', being one of the closet things he had going. But Mohammed also drew a line just as thick, and just as close. It ended with a circle called 'Job'. Mohammed worked at a Hostel in central London called St Mungo's, in which he helped one boy in particular overcome a lifetime of sexual abuse from his father. Oh, but devout Muslims dont do liberal stuff like that, do they?

Having the image of him going to Mecca to learn more about himself, and then having people like Tony and Art destroying the complex, and Mohammed as well, without even having the balls to voice their dislike of Islam toward him, sickens me. Face it, neither of you have the guts or brains to discuss this with a single Muslim, do you?

Reminding myself of that, and seeing Art and Tony say Islam is fighting against modernity and liberalism, makes me feel ashamed I exist at the same time in history as people like you.

[Katana]

This serves as a general reminder to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks.

[Undesired Walrus]

This serves as a general reminder to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks.

The foriegn policy decisions of Tony and co would put an end to this.

[Darth Rotor]

This serves as a general reminder to attack arguments rather than people. Thanks.
Obviously, this is sufficient provocation to nuke Japan -- didn't we do that once before? :confused: So much for getting it right the first time. :p

DR

[Tony]

The problem with people like Art and Tony, is that they are consistently grasping behind their back, in the dark, for an iron bar of reality. They think they find it, and they bring it down on anyone they think intellectually inferior, calling them 'leftists!', 'Chomsky-lovers', smashing away with no remorse.

Then the lights come on, the moral police come in, and Tony and Art see they are holding an Iron bar of Ignorance. Being too intellectually lazy to look for the lightswitch in the place, they see the Iron bar of reality was on the other side of the room, and was not within their grasp.

At work we have a system called 'Ecomaps', in which you draw a spider diagram of things that were important to you. I went on a course in Elephant and Castle in which we originally learnt this. A Mohammed there drew a thick line to something he had circled 'Religion', being one of the closet things he had going. But Mohammed also drew a line just as thick, and just as close. It ended with a circle called 'Job'. Mohammed worked at a Hostel in central London called St Mungo's, in which he helped one boy in particular overcome a lifetime of sexual abuse from his father. Oh, but devout Muslims dont do liberal stuff like that, do they?

Having the image of him going to Mecca to learn more about himself, and then having people like Tony and Art destroying the complex, and Mohammed as well, without even having the balls to voice their dislike of Islam toward him, sickens me. Face it, neither of you have the guts or brains to discuss this with a single Muslim, do you?


LOL

You're another one who thinks a string of emotionally laden ad homs is a viable substitute for argument. Also, I haven't called anyone a leftist, indeed, I consider myself somewhat of a leftist. You're the one who is ignorant.

Reminding myself of that, and seeing Art and Tony say Islam is fighting against modernity and liberalism, makes me feel ashamed I exist at the same time in history as people like you.

Jesus christ, what a crybaby. :v:

[Tony]

Dodged the question? I answered the question and you called it a shallow retort.


No you didn't, you're not paying attention. The shallow retort was your attempt to address this question:

What would you do in the event of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia? Be specific. How would the threat of it deter said attack? And how would the implementation of your idea after a nuclear attack against the US, Europe or Asia prevent others from attacking?

My policy has yet to be iimplemented. My policy can not fail until it has actually been tried.

So answer the question. How many american cities have to be destroyed before you conclude that your policy is a failure?

Your policy, Tancredo's policy, is a variation of the Bush adventure in Iraq.

No, it isn't. This is a lie. Bush has not launched nuclear weapons, nor has he waged a total war against a country.

[Tony]

That's your policy right?

Nope. That was a statement of principle.

The implementation of your policy is to make the threat now.

Therefore your policy will begin damaging us immediately and continue damaging us until an attack on the actually happens.


I'm sensitive to this concern, which is why I suggested to Darth that the threat remain an unspoken one. Also, this policy didn't damage us during the Cold War, why would it damage us now?

Therefore your policy will begin damaging us immediately and continue damaging us until an attack on the actually happens. At the point the attack actually happens you may get a brief period of sympathy and ability to say "I told you so" but it will immediately evaporate when we attack an innocent, even allied, country.

Are you using a magic 8 ball, or the services of Silvia Brown to divine these outcomes?

Iraq is very relevant

No, it isn't

and you even explained why.

Where?

We squandered the worlds sympathy by going after the wrong country.

Yes, we did. It's still irrellevant.

I already answered this.

No, you didn't.

It's stupid to think there is a specific answer to this vague question.

It is? You sure seem to be confident about what will happen after a policy you disagree with is implemented, why don't you have that same confidence about a policy you do agree with?

The vague answer is that we would go aftere the perpertrators in a manner appropriate to whoever they are.

GW Bush, is that you?

And we don't have to wait for a nuclear terrorist attack. We've already been attacked and the world is still behind us when we attack terrorists. We don't need to be threatening innocent people with death, we've got permission to kill a lot of the people who'd like to nuke us already. We've got free reign to do it several countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, A few horn of Africa countries). In Pakistan and Saudia Arabia we defer to the local governments to fight aQ (and they do, but a reasonable person could argue about whether such deferal is a good idea). And we can certainly go after cells in our own countries and Europe.

Finally!! Something approaching a rational argument. Thank you.

Threatening innocent people with death would undercut the moral authority we have for the pre-emption we are already doing and cost us a lot of cooperation that we are currently getting.

It would? Do you have any evidence of this? It should be easy to find. When did the EU, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, China or Russia say that they would cease giving us support if we threatened to attack Mecca or Medina in the event of the US or one the their countries getting attacked by a nuke?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Also, this policy didn't damage us during the Cold War, why would it damage us now?

You think our cold war policy was to respond to a Russian nuke attack by bombing the gravesite of Marx in London? Our policy was to attack Russia when Russia attacked.

It is? You sure seem to be confident about what will happen after a policy you disagree with is implemented, why don't you have that same confidence about a policy you do agree with?

What policy are you talking about that I agree with?

It would? Do you have any evidence of this? It should be easy to find. When did the EU, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, China or Russia say that they would cease giving us support if we threatened to attack Mecca or Medina in the event of the US or one the their countries getting attacked by a nuke?
I doubt they've issued such a statement unless it's recently in response to Tancredo's remarks. Do you think those countries anticipated we could be that stupid?

Tancredo's remarks have been condemned by our own State Department. Other countries would condemn it too if they bothered to take it seriously.

[rtalman]

I heard an interesting take on bombing Mecca and Medina...

Since devout Muslims are required to face the Black Stone in prayer and make a Hajj to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes, and Medina is the burial place of Muhammad, if both places were turned to rubble, would it effectively end Islam?

[Art Vandelay]

Psss..I'm not left wing.In this issue, you are.

The fact you would not swallow enough 'Stiffen Up TM' to voice these opinions to them in person...Your English is hard enough to follow without adding nonsensical phrases such as "Stiffen Up TM". And, again, if you really are psychic enough to know what I have and haven't done, there's a million dollars waiting for you.

Your ignorance is shocking."Ignorance" means that there is something I don't know. So, tell me, what is it that I don't know? You keep avoiding that question.

I would never ever characterize Art as a Leftist.Which is somewhat odd, because I am the one here saying that it's not okay to murder homosexuals, while you and your cohort are suggesting that it is. Normally, the idea that it's okay to murder homosexuals is a far-right idea, but when it comes to "tolerance" of Islam, suddenly it's a Leftist idea.

As if I'm not tired of reading about bombing people for having the wrong religion while hearing you denying that's what you're doing.Your continued insistence in engaging in blatant dishonesty is completely unacceptable.

If Russian Christian terrorists steal a nuke and bomb a Muslim Pakistani city would it be fair to nuke New York in retaliation?That's simply not analogous. The level of support for terrorism that is endemic in the Muslim community has induced in that community a special responsibility to combat it, a responsibility for which there is no comparable one in the Christian community. For your analogy to even be close to making sense, there would have to be posters throughout New York lionizing Russian Christian terrorists, babies commonly being named after Russian Christian terrorists, frequent rallies in support of Russian Christians, assassinations of people who didn't support Russian Christian terrorists, etc., etc., etc.

And you've repeated your opinions about Islam a number of times, you've yet to establish them as fact.That it is an inherently violent religion is not an opinion, it is a fact. I have made it clear on what basis I am making that claim. No one, NO ONE, has addressed my argument, WHATSOEVER. No one has offered even the tiniest SLIVER of a counterargument. Instead it's been personal attack after personal attack.

Does the Quran encourage violence? Yes or no? Is the Quran the fundamental document of Islam? Yes or no? You people REFUSE to address these questions because you have no leg to stand on. You just keep pounding away with the insults to draw attention away from the real issue.

They think they find it, and they bring it down on anyone they think intellectually inferior, calling them 'leftists!', 'Chomsky-lovers', smashing away with no remorse.What a load of hypocritical crap. You basically called me scum of the earth. Now you're accusing ME of calling YOU inferior? You're accusing ME of being vicious?

A Mohammed there drew a thick line to something he had circled 'Religion', being one of the closet things he had going.BTW, you ought to be careful with your language. In American culture, referring to a Muslim as "a Mohammed" is considered offensive (even if that's actually his name).

Oh, but devout Muslims dont do liberal stuff like that, do they? Who said that?

Having the image of him going to Mecca to learn more about himself, and then having people like Tony and Art destroying the complex, and Mohammed as well, without even having the balls to voice their dislike of Islam toward him, sickens me. Somehow, me pointing out that Islam is inherently violent is the same as killing thousands of Muslims. I guess I'm so ignorant that I can't follow the logic.

Face it, neither of you have the guts or brains to discuss this with a single Muslim, do you?If that were the case, wouldn't we first take some steps to ensure that no one in this thread is Muslim? For all I know, the people I have discussing this are Muslims. And if there are any Muslims reading this who want to try to dispute my position, have at it

Reminding myself of that, and seeing Art and Tony say Islam is fighting against modernity and liberalism, makes me feel ashamed I exist at the same time in history as people like you.I didn't say that Islam is fighting against modernity and liberalism. I said that inherent in Islam are principles which are inimical to liberalism. Once again you show yourself unwilling to address the actual argument.

[Darth Rotor]

I heard an interesting take on bombing Mecca and Medina...

Since devout Muslims are required to face the Black Stone in prayer and make a Hajj to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes, and Medina is the burial place of Muhammad, if both places were turned to rubble, would it effectively end Islam?
No. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is purportedly the site of the rock upon which Abraham (Ibrahim) laid Isaac out for sacrifice to God/Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh. It would become the next site for the Hajj, or I completely miss my guess on how Islam would adapt.

Islam has adapted, considerably, since the Prophet died to include the various strains arising -- Sunnah, Shia, Sufi, Wahabi, and so on -- and I see no reason that Islam would not again adapt.

If you want to give Mr Olmert a sphincter puckering moment, advise him that the new Hajj is coming to Jerusalem, soon, to the Dome of the Rock.

You think Jerusalem is a friction spot now? You ain't seen nothing yet, baby.

Oy vey doesn't begin to cover it. "WTF is a start" and "OMFG, this is gonna be a wild ride" is more of the tone.

I ask our variously affiliated Jewish members to comment (and even rip apart) that "back of the napkin" analysis, since the idea is rife with weird permutations, and a whole lot of killing if handled badly.

DR

[Cleon]

No. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is purportedly the site of the rock upon which Abraham (Ibrahim) laid Isaac out for sacrifice to God/Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh. It would become the next site for the Hajj, or I completely miss my guess on how Islam would adapt.

It is also the site where, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammed ascended into heaven with the angel Gabriel.


I ask our variously affiliated Jewish members to comment (and even rip apart) that "back of the napkin" analysis, since the idea is rife with weird permutations, and a whole lot of killing if handled badly.

Hajj is very central to Islam--one of the five pillars. Islam has no central authority, so changing the location of the Hajj would take a wee bit more than some guy just declaring it to be so.

But in the offhand change it were so...Israel wouldn't let it happen. Simple as that. If they're not going to let Palestinian refugees return to their own homes, they're definitely not going to allow millions of Muslims to visit every year.

[Tony]

You think our cold war policy was to respond to a Russian nuke attack by bombing the gravesite of Marx in London?

Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand what I'm saying? Or are you this stupid by nature?

What policy are you talking about that I agree with?

Answer the question.

I doubt they've issued such a statement unless it's recently in response to Tancredo's remarks. Do you think those countries anticipated we could be that stupid?

Tancredo's remarks have been condemned by our own State Department. Other countries would condemn it too if they bothered to take it seriously.

So then you have no evidence, thanks.

Given that this and post #137 both followed my last request for civility, I felt justified in issuing a "yellow card", Tony.

Please remember your Membership Agreement.

[Tony]

In this issue, you are.


Why is he left wing in regards to this issue?

[Tony]

At the thought of them being killed for following the 'wrong' religion, which you believe so badly to be against liberalism, fills me with rage.


Are you contending that islam is compatible with liberalism? If so, please provide evidence that the Koran permits freedom of religion, individual rights, gay rights, women's rights, capitalism, and free expression.

[fishbob]

No, it isn't. This is a lie. Bush has not launched nuclear weapons, nor has he waged a total war against a country.

Sigh. This is really simple.
Your policy, Tancredo's policy, is a variation of Bush in Iraq. Bush in Iraq has expended massive military force against a target that had nothing to do with the terror attacks on New York. This did nothing to retaliate against Al Queda, and now Al Queda and insurgents are attacking us in Iraq. Your policy would expend massive military force against a target that will not weaken our opponents, and may strenghten them.

Parse words and weasel if you want, support Tancredo if you want, but be aware that Tancredo's idea is stupid and no parsing or weaseling is going to change that.

[Tony]

Sigh. This is really simple.


You're right, it's overly simplistic to the point of being false.

Your policy, Tancredo's policy, is a variation of Bush in Iraq.

You can, and you did, spin any military policy as "a variation of Bush in Iraq". That doesn't make it so, it makes it spin. You just don't want to recognize your own spin.

Your policy would expend massive military force against a target that will not weaken our opponents, and may strenghten them.

This platitude is getting tired. Do you have any evidence that our opponents would be strengthened by an overwhelming war of conquest?

[Darth Rotor]

It is also the site where, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammed ascended into heaven with the angel Gabriel.
Ah yes, I forgot that one, thanks. :)
Hajj is very central to Islam--one of the five pillars. Islam has no central authority, so changing the location of the Hajj would take a wee bit more than some guy just declaring it to be so.
Agreed, they might even start killing each other over it, and a lot of other people, it is very hard to see all the permutations.

I can see the choice being Jerusalem for a combination of Political, Religious, and mercantile reasons, don't you? Islam has, in practice, since its beginning, tended to fuse the three.
But in the offhand change it were so...Israel wouldn't let it happen. Simple as that. If they're not going to let Palestinian refugees return to their own homes, they're definitely not going to allow millions of Muslims to visit every year.
Not sure if you are right, but I'll bet the over with you.

There is a huge potential for tourist/pilgrim revenue, a chance to build a massive cultural bridge with all of the various parts of Islam throughout the world. This "sunny side" is also rife with the chance for Islamic factions to unite in a move to cleanse Jerusalem of all unholy/unIslamic influence in Jerusalem, and so on). There is also the massive problem of small spaces, lodging, transport, and the mundane tasks of keeping order. Other considerations, such as terrorists infiltrating into various spots of Israel using the Hajj as cover also apply, hence my "sphincter puckering" remark regarding the PM in Israel.

I suspect some of our more soft hearted friends looking at such a situation would leap on the old "Jerusalem as an International City" deal(whatever the heck that means) and of course more headaches for Israel tied to that.

DR

[fishbob]

Which is somewhat odd, because I am the one here saying that it's not okay to murder homosexuals, while you and your cohort are suggesting that it is. Normally, the idea that it's okay to murder homosexuals is a far-right idea, but when it comes to "tolerance" of Islam, suddenly it's a Leftist idea.

Ever see a cat fall in the toilet? Trying to get a drink, and falling in?
It comes out mad and wet and slipping and sliding and flailing around and lashing out at anything within reach. The cat has obviously decided that falling in was not his fault, it is YOUR FAULT for not making the water in the water dish taste more like toilet water.

Sorry, Art. Some of us don't like toilet water.

[fishbob]

This platitude is getting tired. Do you have any evidence that our opponents would be strengthened by an overwhelming war of conquest?
I got your platitude right here: "Overwhelming war of conquest".
Very reminiscent of "shock and awe" and "bring it on".

Have you paid much attention lately to the condition of our military? How thin it is stretched, and how far short of recruitment goals we are? Back in the real world an 'overwhelming war of conquest' is a hollow and laughable deterrent. How much more in taxes are YOU willing to pay to build our military up to the level at which we could project a believable deterrent?

[Gurdur]

.....I can see the choice being Jerusalem for a combination of Political, Religious, and mercantile reasons, don't you? Islam has, in practice, since its beginning, tended to fuse the three. .....
There is a huge potential for tourist/pilgrim revenue, ....

Just wondering if Disneylandification is worse than nuking it or not. Mulling it over.

[Darth Rotor]

Just wondering if Disneylandification is worse than nuking it or not. Mulling it over.

I can just see Mickey Mohamed, and rides like "Ali's Last Stand" being huge tourist draws. :D We'd then get a CT arising that the Rothschild's financed the whole thing and are stealing the cultural heritage of Islam's prophet for the sake of a Jew's profit . . . Jihad!

DR

[Gurdur]

I can just see Mickey Mohamed, and rides like "Ali's Last Stand" being huge tourist draws. :D We'd then get a CT arising that the Rothschild's financed the whole thing and are stealing the cultural heritage of Islam's prophet for the sake of a Jew's profit . . . Jihad!

DR

I can just see the Teacup Party Of The Twelve Apostles, the Spinning Minarets, the Mogen Doved pastries tasting of cardboard, The Bris Of Death ride attraction, the Mohammed figure to greet incomers, the Parade Of The Righteous Goyem In Cute Ethnic Clothing, all now.

Ugh. Nuke the whole Rule8 planet.

[Art Vandelay]

Why is he left wing in regards to this issue?Because he's so opposed to criticizing another culture that he refuses to admit that Islam is inherently violent.

Ever see a cat fall in the toilet? Trying to get a drink, and falling in?
It comes out mad and wet and slipping and sliding and flailing around and lashing out at anything within reach. The cat has obviously decided that falling in was not his fault, it is YOUR FAULT for not making the water in the water dish taste more like toilet water.

Sorry, Art. Some of us don't like toilet water. Non sequiturs aside, you people have given every indication that you think it's okay to murder homosexuals. Unless you can present a counterargument to that conclusion, I will consider you to have conceded the point.

[Tony]

I got your platitude right here: "Overwhelming war of conquest".
Very reminiscent of "shock and awe" and "bring it on".


So no, you have no evidence.

Have you paid much attention lately to the condition of our military? How thin it is stretched, and how far short of recruitment goals we are? Back in the real world an 'overwhelming war of conquest' is a hollow and laughable deterrent. How much more in taxes are YOU willing to pay to build our military up to the level at which we could project a believable deterrent?

You're STILL not getting it. Sorry, I'm finished with you. Until you demonstrate that you have the foresight to consider how a nuclear attack would change the political, military and cultural dynamic in America, anything discussed will pass right over your head.

[Tony]

Because he's so opposed to criticizing another culture that he refuses to admit that Islam is inherently violent.


I wouldn't call that left. I'm left and you don't see me whining about you labeling islam violent. Hell, I agree. I think any religion/ideology that claims to have exclusive domain over truth is inherently disposed to violence.

The behavior we're witnessing is political/religious correctness, hypersensitivity and anti-intellectualism. Those things aren't exclusive to the left, but they are exclusive to small minds.

[fishbob]

Because he's so opposed to criticizing another culture that he refuses to admit that Islam is inherently violent.

Non sequiturs aside, you people have given every indication that you think it's okay to murder homosexuals. Unless you can present a counterargument to that conclusion, I will consider you to have conceded the point.

Let me be perfectly clear. Besides being the most non sequiturish non sequitur yet posted in this discussion, your accusation that I think it's okay to murder homosexuals is the most stupid, most egregious, most blatant lie that I have ever seen posted on this forum. That is the only point I concede to you.

Except for this one: your point is vague, muddled, lost and unclear. I concede that too.

Whatever this has to do with the recent Tancredo wackiness is beyond me.

ETA: That was a parable, not a non sequitur.

[fishbob]

You're STILL not getting it. Sorry, I'm finished with you. Until you demonstrate that you have the foresight to consider how a nuclear attack would change the political, military and cultural dynamic in America, anything discussed will pass right over your head.

Did you change the discussion from Tancredo's pre-emptive nuking of Islamic religious sites to a sneak nuclear attack by some Islamic group on the US? Is that what you intended to say somewhere in your vitriol?

If you did state that clearly somewhere, let me know. Otherwise, I think you might be seriously moving some goalposts.

[gnome]

Ok, something new to consider.

Let's say we adopt this policy. Tony, Art, your ideas have prevailed and any nuclear attack by islamic terrorists will result in nuclear retaliation against Mecca and Medina.

Please explain why China, or some other unscrupulous rival, would not immediately see to it that a nuclear bomb made its way to some nutbag terrorist cell? Wouldn't that result in the very best thing that China could hope for? Why on earth would we want to be so easily manipulated into disaster?

[Darth Rotor]

Did you change the discussion from Tancredo's pre-emptive nuking of Islamic religious sites to a sneak nuclear attack by some Islamic group on the US? Is that what you intended to say somewhere in your vitriol?

If you did state that clearly somewhere, let me know. Otherwise, I think you might be seriously moving some goalposts.
I think not, and you may have gotten lost during the course of the thread's various drifts. It is easy to do.

Back to the OP, is appears that Tom Tancredo considers a threat to nuke Mecca/Medinah a suitable deterrent to a sneak attack nuke on the US, because he (incorrectly, IMO) seems to presume that he can apply a US USSR cold war deterrence model to a multi party problem.

Tony didn't move the goal posts. He took Tancredo's position and followed it into its logical sequel. Tancredo's, deterrent doesn't work, do you actually nuke Mecca and Medinah (Tony suggested a yes on that) and if not, what do you, or anyone else, do? Tony's position on religionists colors his reply, but as far as I can tell nowhere did Tony advocate (nor did Tancredo) a pre emptive nuke on either holy city. Retaliation when the deterrent fails is a response, but how effective is that?

Tony has, among other things, been generating discussion on what response other than Tancredo's "tit for tat nuke Mecca-Medinah" is appropriate, and politically realistic, assuming the successful sneak attack nuke attack on the US.

That focus seems to have been lost in some of the intramural mud slinging.

DR

[Thunder]

Threatening to nuke Mecca and Medina would not prevent a terrorist attack. If anything, it would provoke one, or enhance the drive for one already in the works.

The only way to stop terrorist attacks is good police work, informants, plants, moles, and intelligence.

[Darth Rotor]

Threatening to nuke Mecca and Medina would not prevent a terrorist attack. If anything, it would provoke one, or enhance the drive for one already in the works.

The only way to stop terrorist attacks is good police work, informants, plants, moles, and intelligence.
A war of conquest against the Islamic World in general, the real clash of civilizations that is much talked about, would also tend to do that, however, it's cost and risks hardly make it a first choice strategy. There is a lot of downside to that, of course.

By the way, your "the only way" is actually "one way" and you seemed to leave out "hunt down and kill them" in your list. You don't give them a forum for information war, you kill them where you find them.

DR

[fishbob]

Tony didn't move the goal posts. He took Tancredo's position and followed it into its logical sequel. Tancredo's, deterrent doesn't work, do you actually nuke Mecca and Medinah (Tony suggested a yes on that) and if not, what do you, or anyone else, do? Tony's position on religionists colors his reply, but as far as I can tell nowhere did Tony advocate (nor did Tancredo) a pre emptive nuke on either holy city. Retaliation when the deterrent fails is a response, but how effective is that?

Upon reflection and re-reading, I have concluded that you are right.
Dammit, this means that I owe Tony an apology.

Escalation is what 'retaliation when the deterrent fails' is called. From a practical viewpoint, this is not a good position to be in. You have two choices - escalate or be viewed as a weenie. Not effective at all.