Congressman "throws out idea" for possible nuclear retaliation..why not bomb mecca?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

I don't think Samson quite qualifies... He was wanted by the Philistines as a mass murderer.

---

"Mass murderer?" I'm trying to remember specifics, but Samson was supposed to have killed Philistine soldiers in various forms of combat. That doesn't fit the definition at all...

I don't think Samson quite qualifies... He was wanted by the Philistines as a mass murderer.
No of course not , after all he mass murdred the very people that God had put in place to punish the peole who had turned away from God in the first place .
So I repeat......

Religeous texts eh ? so reliable :help:

I'm still trying to see how killing soldiers in combat = mass murderer. Tribesman is working on milking it for all its worth...but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Tribesman's point was that Samson was a mass murderer because he was a Jew killing Philisitines. Apparently repelling invading armies qualifies as mass murder in Tribesman's book, at least it does if you're a Jew or a Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It makes a lot of sense. Tribesman's point was that Samson was a mass murderer because he was a Jew killing Philisitines. Apparently repelling invading armies qualifies as mass murder in Tribesman's book, at least it does if you're a Jew or a Christian.

---

Well when you are vementing anti-religion, anti-establishment, anti-everything - you have a tendency to have completely contradicting idealogical viewpoints.

However this particlur instance falls more inline with his normal attempts of being caustic and sarcastic instead of attempting to have a rational discussion on an issue when faced with an opposing viewpoint. Its really rather childish and is nothing but an attempt to be a bully in the discussion. Best ignored - or ridiculed for what it is.

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

---

Yet your rhetoric is strikingly similar to that of the entity labelled ‘Al-Qaeda’. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

---

Get this man away from any sharp objects.. or busy roads ~:eek:

I'm still trying to see how killing soldiers in combat = mass murderer. Tribesman is working on milking it for all its worth...but it doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes a lot of sense. Tribesman's point was that Samson was a mass murderer because he was a Jew killing Philisitines. Apparently repelling invading armies qualifies as mass murder in Tribesman's book, at least it does if you're a Jew or a Christian.
However this particlur instance falls more inline with his normal attempts of being caustic and sarcastic instead of attempting to have a rational discussion on an issue when faced with an opposing viewpoint. Its really rather childish and is nothing but an attempt to be a bully in the discussion. Best ignored - or ridiculed for what it is.

Well Red , Don and Harvest .

you ever heard of martyrs? Someone who goes off and gets killed for his religion,
what you mean like Samson ?
So do I call him a "massmurdering Jew" or do I call him a religeous martyr ?

No of course not , after all he mass murdred the very people that God had put in place to punish the peole who had turned away from God in the first place .
That second post is a response using the words that Roark had used .

But if you want to debate mass-murder then answer me , if someone goes to town and kills 30 men so that he can steal their clothes and give them to people who he lost a bet to , doesn't that not only make him a murderer but a thief aswell.

Religeous texts eh ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

---

So lets destroy any country and kill all people because some ppl there might want to destroy us....


....it makes perfect sence....


....now just sit down and relax and wait for those nice people in a white van, with white clothes, come and help you wear a nice white shirt with no buttons in front so they can take you to a nice biiiig building and give you free accomodation in a nice white room with no doorknob on the inside....

...you are plain crazy.


And, by accepting nuclean anihilation on billions as a precautionary measure , as a legitimate post, this forum has reached a new level of tollerance towars intollerant people ~D yay....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

They care about all their religous places like mecca. They are fighting for Their religion doesn't it defeat their whole purpose if they let it be destroyed.

---

You are reasoning, this is not a good method of thinking if you try to imagine what a fanatic has in mind.

If you menace to nuke the mecca, then it is obvious that god, that is the only true one, will protect it's holly place and that you will not be able to nuke it.

And, of course, if you still manage to nuke, then it will be god's will, so what's wrong with it?

That assumes a totally fatalistic attitude to their religion. The fanatics would argue that if they allowed Mecca to be nuked then they would have failed Allah on Earth.

If you nuke Mecca they'll probably start believing that Allah himself will resurrect it when every last infidel is cleansed from the earth. The only way you can fight a religion is by offering benefits associated with another 'ideology'.

The best way to stop fanaticism is imho to create a large, moderatly wealthy middle class. The lower class is too angry at the world, the upper class is bored and looking for a purpose in life, the middle class people mostly care about themselves, religion becomes secondary to consumerism.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

That assumes a totally fatalistic attitude to their religion. The fanatics would argue that if they allowed Mecca to be nuked then they would have failed Allah on Earth.

---

Fatalism is a trait of personality i have met in almost every muslim i know, it seems to be a caracteristic of islam.

Isn't inch ' halla one of the most used expressions for muslims?

Although this interview is stupid, i think it probably correspond to the truth.

How could a nuclear superpower such as the usa not react this way in case of a nuclear attack?

If you look at the events of the last four years, you can notice that after the attacks of september 2001 in north america, an invasion of Irak was planned.

It was a brutal and bloody dictatorship, but at the difference of most other regional countries, it was a non-religious regime without any direct nor indirect links to islamic terrorism.

But the terrorist attacks justified the invasion of this country.

My point is not to debate upon Irak, but i think the situation would be almost the same : when attacked, a country nourishing a very active nationalist feeling will necessary over react.

In the case of Irak, it seems to have been used as a show of power mainly directed towards the american population, to demonstrate the ability of this country to face and punish any threat it is confronted to.

In the case of a nuclear strike, i do not think there is a single politician that could afford not to strike back, wathever the target.

Quote:

---

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

---

There is absolutely nothing wrong in this thought process, dont worry.

The left will appease and turn a blind eye to the growing threat no matter how many people are killed in the process.

...and extreme problems call for extreme solutions... no matter how many people are killed in the process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

...and extreme problems call for extreme solutions... no matter how many people are killed in the process?

---

This is a derivation of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) theory prevalent during the Cold War, and, whether it truly was the cause for not incinerating the planet during that time-frame many believe the effect was to tame the Hawks on both sides. Perhaps this is what the Congressman was attempting to say, however tactlessly.