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

real smart move.....i can actually hear the AQ volunteer lines growing from were i´m sitting........to say that you will respond to a possible attack from a small radical group with an attack on an entire religion strikes me as a bit nuts...is it just me?

i don´t think he is serious..(let me correct...i hope to god he isn´t serious), but to even say such a thing is shows imense stupidity and can cause serious damage...how does a moron like this get elected?

Quote:

---

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.

"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.

Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration.

Mohammad Noorzai, coordinator of the Colorado Muslim Council and a native of Afghanistan, said Tancredo's remarks were radical and unrepresentative but that people in Tancredo's position need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts.

---

link to story on CNN

Muslim response story also from CNN

So it really is a Crusade (Holy War) now then?

Probably an attention whore.

Especially during summer these kind of fools (and every Parliament has a couple of those) seem to feel the obligation to come up with some really stupid idea or comment just to remind the public that tehy exist.

It almost as good as they idea of asking the terrorist to please blow everything they possibly can.

idiot whacko...hey, there are christian extremists, let's bomb Jerusalem...

Seriously though, I see no point in his comments, just ignore them and restrain the man from such ludicrous ideas in future

Bombing Mecca wouldn't do anything good. Neither does it have any strategic value.

The best weapon against religious fanatism is media. Make sure every little muslim get real news and that daily. Cost less than arms as well.....

Al-Qaeda must love this. They can tell their followers ”this is who we are fighting, and this is why”

Yes, but, didn't the interviewer have some responsibility here? What sort of question is "how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons." That is a pretty extreme and irresponsible scenario.

I mean, if you asked me in the pub "how should Britain respond if terrorists struck several British cities with nuclear weapons" my answer wouild be something like "find out which country gave them the bombs and nuke seven shades of **** out of it so that no bastard EVER does the same thing again" Ok, that's not quite Mecca, and a congressman on the radio needs to exercise more care than me in the pub, but I can basically see where he was coming from.

I doubt America would nuke anyone if they were nuked by terrorists. I suspect they would just annex Arabia and anyone else even remotely related to them.

That option isn't open to Britain or France though. I doubt whoever gave them any terrorists the nukes to blow up Paris or London would still be there the next morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Yes, but, didn't the interviewer have some responsibility here? What sort of question is "how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons." That is a pretty extreme and irresponsible scenario.

---

He is a Congressman - surely he is meant to have some tact and political skill. What a total donut. :furious3:

Congressmen are not senators. They do not represent entire states, but small districts. There are 430+ of them, and more than a few are a little nutty as a result of block voting and apathy in this country.(no real competition.)

I do think that this would be an interesting policy to persue in an alternate universe.

If AQ really love Islam as much as they say, would they risk Mecca if GWB said he would really nuke the place?

Of course in reality its completely off the wall, but at least the guy is thinking out of the box. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Al-Qaeda must love this. They can tell their followers ”this is who we are fighting, and this is why”

---

Spot on. And it isnt the only thing the US did to make Al Qaeda into what it is today...No need to look at Congressment, look at the administration. Once day Al Qaeda will give Dubya a medal for promoting their cause and making the world famous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I doubt America would nuke anyone if they were nuked by terrorists.

---

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation. So if it was tied directly to a specific nation, that nation would get nuked rather soon, and not in any small way. After all, you have to make them unable to strike again, and make an example of them at the same time.

A nuke attack would make it a survival issue for the U.S. At that point it becomes, "Do we stand here and let them kill us piecemeal, or do we kill ALL of those who back/support this attack?" You don't want to put a nuclear superpower into a corner like that.

I just hope that, if, may God forbid, it came to that, we'd have a president who'd have the guts to turn the entire country into glass, and not some sissy one who wouldn't do anything but have town meetings and talk about the need for understanding.

Crazed Rabbit

Turn which entire country into glass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Turn which entire country into glass?

---

Ours apparently. Can't see how that's gutsy though.

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

Crazed Rabbit

---

we were talking about a terrorist attack......so in the majority of ocasions there is no country to "turn into a parking lot" so to speak.....

Obviously, the country that attacked us.
Or possibly some other country that you don't like , that would make an easy target and you could sell the idea to the public about ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obviously, the country that attacked us.

---

Now let's pray that Blair isn't gutsy enough to turn the entire country where the London terrorists came from into glass. Or even Leeds. ~:)

As some people apparently cannot get over how clever they are for taking my quote out of context, I feel it is necessary to show what I was originally responding to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation. So if it was tied directly to a specific nation, that nation would get nuked rather soon, and not in any small way. After all, you have to make them unable to strike again, and make an example of them at the same time.

A nuke attack would make it a survival issue for the U.S. At that point it becomes, "Do we stand here and let them kill us piecemeal, or do we kill ALL of those who back/support this attack?" You don't want to put a nuclear superpower into a corner like that.

---

Crazed Rabbit

We're just taking the piss ~:)

It's more aimed at people like that gun-toting 'let's nuke Mecca' congressmember.

Yes, but it gets old after a while. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yes, but it gets old after a while. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

---

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.
But Idaho , isn't your statement macho sounding bull spouted of the top of your head ?
Or did you put lots of thought into it and really mean it from the depths of your heart ? ~D

Nuke the country of the nuker.

Therefore:

Iff Timothy McVeigh had used a nuke you would nuke the country he came from.

Or if the British Terrorists had used Nukes on London, the response from the UK government would be a nuclear strike on the UK. Now that would be taking the stiff upper lip to a whole new level. :toff:

Quote:

---

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation.

---

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

IMHO we have been lead astray by the slightly random nature of the congressman's target.

IF no nation could be firmly linked to the terrorist nuke, then obviously nuclear relatiation is out of the question. If the nuke comes with "a gift from pakistan" stenciled on the side then IMHO nuclear retaliation is perfectly sensible (although I admit I personally wouldn't have the, whatever you call it, to order the deaths of 100,000s of people even if I do think in the long run it would save lives. If I was PM and they ever opened the box with the secret nuclear orders in it all they would find would be a stale cheese sandwich and an old copy of the Beano.)

I'm just curious what Louis would do if he was Emperor of France & they nuked Paris, or if Idaho was made King of England, pre-magna carta limitations and the terrorists nuked London? What's more, let's say your intelligence chief came to you and said "One can never be 100% certain about these things, but we are as sure as we can be that the terrorists received the bomb, the training, and safe passage from the Iranian Intelligence Service". Make some glib jokes at your citizens that want a retaliation, as you have here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

---

Isn't that a bit like saying we had everything we needed to make a campfire, except the wood? The control of the Uranium is how the international community attempts to restrict the access to the nuclear bomb. The general premise is actually rather simple. Take two piles of Uranium, each at less slightly less than critical mass, then at the key moment, mix them so they are now well beyond critical mass. Voila. The details aren't even all that hard to work out, and I'm not sure if this is an urban myth (i've never looked) but I've heard there's working blueprints available on the web. The big thing is getting yourself some fissable Uranium.

Ahaha!

If terrorist ever get a nuke, chances are they will have stolen it from Russia, or an ex-CCCP country...

No country will give terrorist a nuke, the most likely scenario is that they'll take it from someone rather unwilling to give it to them.

So you feel like bombing Russia? I am not sure they'll take it kindly, and they can still wipe you and everyone on Earth pretty fast...

In the VERY UNLIKELY SCENARIO that someone will have been dumb enough to give terrorist a nuke (but given how countries are paranoid about that, the chance they'd give it to an uncontrolled organisation is pretty nihil), then it's not a terrorist attack, it's a State attack... And then well, normal retaliation in case of State attack would happen. But that's not what we're talking about; state sponsored terrorism is a thing of the past, or a convenient excuse to invade a country ~D

(and in case you wonder, Iran is one of AQ worst ennemy... Evil Persian Shia...)

There is nowhere to nuke bomb AQ, if they ever get a nuke, it won't be given by a State, but stolen from it. Who are you going to bomb?

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Ahaha!

If terrorist ever get a nuke, chances are they will have stolen it from Russia, or an ex-CCCP country...

No country will give terrorist a nuke, the most likely scenario is that they'll take it from someone rather unwilling to give it to them.

So you feel like bombing Russia? I am not sure they'll take it kindly, and they can still wipe you and everyone on Earth pretty fast...

In the VERY UNLIKELY SCENARIO that someone will have been dumb enough to give terrorist a nuke (but given how countries are paranoid about that, the chance they'd give it to an uncontrolled organisation is pretty nihil), then it's not a terrorist attack, it's a State attack... And then well, normal retaliation in case of State attack would happen. But that's not what we're talking about; state sponsored terrorism is a thing of the past, or a convenient excuse to invade a country ~D

(and in case you wonder, Iran is one of AQ worst ennemy... Evil Persian Shia...)

There is nowhere to nuke bomb AQ, if they ever get a nuke, it won't be given by a State, but stolen from it. Who are you going to bomb?

Louis,

---

I never said Iran would give Al Queda nukes. But can't you just picture them sending their own henchmen, Hizbollah, out there to do their deeds? Do you really honestly believe state-sponsored terrorism no longer exists? Have you been paying attention to what's been going on in Lebanon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm just curious what Louis would do if he was Emperor of France & they nuked Paris, or if Idaho was made King of England, pre-magna carta limitations and the terrorists nuked London? What's more, let's say your intelligence chief came to you and said "One can never be 100% certain about these things, but we are as sure as we can be that the terrorists received the bomb, the training, and safe passage from the Iranian Intelligence Service". Make some glib jokes at your citizens that want a retaliation, as you have here?

---

In this case, I'd bomb the nation back to the stone age and hunt down and personally torture every single person involved to death.

No nukes though, what's the point in killing millions of civilians?

It would be as pointless as the bombing of Dresden in 1945 was. Nazi Germany had to be stopped by any means, and I wouldn't be a pansy about it. But a mindless carnage? Nope.

the stories I've heard suggest that Chechens may have been/are most likely to be the source of any AQ nukes.

If anything happened then everyone could just join the Russians in flattening the Caucasus even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Isn't that a bit like saying we had everything we needed to make a campfire, except the wood? The control of the Uranium is how the international community attempts to restrict the access to the nuclear bomb. The general premise is actually rather simple. Take two piles of Uranium, each at less slightly less than critical mass, then at the key moment, mix them so they are now well beyond critical mass. Voila. The details aren't even all that hard to work out, and I'm not sure if this is an urban myth (i've never looked) but I've heard there's working blueprints available on the web. The big thing is getting yourself some fissable Uranium.

---

yeah....but them you start hearing about some ex-eastern block countries that go like "ups...we´re missing some uranium, i wonder were it could have gone"......and it gets a bit more worrying

Heh when I say that I"m joking...this guy seems serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

yeah....but them you start hearing about some ex-eastern block countries that go like "ups...we´re missing some uranium, i wonder were it could have gone"......and it gets a bit more worrying

---

Aye, and therein lies the rub. That's when I freak out, not when people claim to know how to make an atom bomb. I know how to build a combustion engine, but I seriously doubt Ford or GM view me as competition. ~D

Coincidentally enough, I caught parts of a local AM radio show this morning where they were interviewing a local author Paul Williams
He said himself and many others believe that there are already many tactical nuclear devices in terrorist hands in the US that have been smuggled across the US/Mexico border. Going from memory, I believe he said they got the weapons via the pakistani nuclear scientist who was recently arrested for selling nuclear secrets to Iran (I think). He also said Al-Qaeda's main funding source was from the drug trade- particularly heroin from Afghanistan and that theyre using their money, among other things, to train and hire technicians and buying materials to maintain and eventually build more nukes.

Among other things, he referenced how Ridge and Bush regularly referenced nuclear terrorism as their 'greatest fear' as evidence that the administration is aware of it. He also referenced this article by Time magazine, which unfortunately, I can't read since I don't subscribe.

I quick google search also shows things like this Washington Post story, which seems to support him. Personally, I'd like to think that its all a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage, but if any of this is true we are in serious trouble. And are porous borders are definitely criminally negligent.

Huh. No one had any thoughts on that?

When I think of it, bin Laden would most probably been a congressman if he was born in US......... ~;)

Bomb Mecca? He's crazy. Bomb Mecca, and you're declaring war on 1 billion angry people.

If they nuke. we should put a small (nuke) bomb in a middle eastern country set it off. then tell em if they do that again the rest of the region will be destroyed.

These people arent trying to apease every one and not hurt feelings... we shouldnt either... we should win at all cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

If they nuke. we should put a small (nuke) bomb in a middle eastern country set it off. then tell em if they do that again the rest of the region will be destroyed.

These people arent trying to apease every one and not hurt feelings... we shouldnt either... we should win at all cost.

---

I believe this has been tried before. Genocide and massmurder have through history failed and rendered the initiator to lose everything.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

If they nuke. we should put a small (nuke) bomb in a middle eastern country set it off. then tell em if they do that again the rest of the region will be destroyed.

These people arent trying to apease every one and not hurt feelings... we shouldnt either... we should win at all cost.

---

Yeah, that’ll show them. ~:rolleyes:

If they know their whole land will be destroyed it WILL stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

If they know their whole land will be destroyed it WILL stop them.

---

Why should it? Obviously they neither care for their own nor any other person's life.

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.

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.

---

if you really did that you´d stop being against a few misguided radicals....then you´d really be up against the entire muslim population of the planet.....and since after that they´d have nothing really important to lose....... :help:

then we´d really be crewed

Many muslims are not violent BUT the religion is.

I was reading a translated version of the koran once and it said this."And Allah said to kill all of the infidels." :dizzy2:

And according to them I am an infidel so i dont want to be near any muslims. :help:


Just like I wouldn't want to be near an IRA member.

It is also that in the bible is the book were the most poeple get killed, so now you don't want to be near any christians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

And according to them I am an infidel so i dont want to be near any muslims. :help:


Just like I wouldn't want to be near an IRA member.

---

So in your opinion every muslim = terrorist?

You are some charming kid :dizzy2:

NO. Its best to just stay away though. Because their religion says to kill me.


I am sure most dont want too. but its better not to risk it.

I am not going to go looking to pick a fight with them or anything. I will just not socialize with them. I am not going to be mean, but i am not going to go up to them and try and be best friends.

Where in the bible does it say to hate black people.. No where but in the koran it says to kill infedels.

Sense this was a translation i read. It may be wrong


if some one can point that out i will gladly take everything i said back.

I will look for that translation there was more to it but thats all i remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I will look for that translation there was more to it but thats all i remember.

---

I am not sure what you are quoting here.


But if you indeed are quoting the Qur’an, it sounds like “Kill the unbeliever where ever you find them.” From the Surah Taubah.

It is from a battle. The next chapter says that prisoners should be well treated and escorted to safety.

Ok then i was wrong. I Take back every thing i said a bout nuking the middle east.


I was reading an english translation of the koran i saw online.

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.

---

Have you ever heard of martyrs? Someone who goes off and gets killed for his religion, inspiring others to worship. Bombing the holy places would only give moderates a reason to turn radical.

It is from a battle. The next chapter says that prisoners should be well treated and escorted to safety.
So different from the bible where it says kill them all and sell their women into slavery , unless you rape the women first in which case it would be dishonourable to sell soiled goods ~:confused:

you ever heard of martyrs? Someone who goes off and gets killed for his religion,
what you mean like Samson ?

Religeous texts eh ? so reliable :embarassed:

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

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.