Food for thought

[markd_nscr986 0]

A horrendous idea,but I understand his viewpoint

Tom Tancredo states that we shouldn't rule out any scenario when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism.........including retaliation on muslim sacred sites

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[waltappel 1]

Quote

A horrendous idea,but I understand his viewpoint

Tom Tancredo states that we shouldn't rule out any scenario when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism.........including retaliation on muslim sacred sites

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only language those idiots understand.

Walt

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

A horrendous idea,but I understand his viewpoint

Tom Tancredo states that we shouldn't rule out any scenario when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism.........including retaliation on muslim sacred sites

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only language those idiots understand.

Walt

I think bombing a Muslim Holy site or Mecca would be an incredibly dumb idea and would touch off a religious war that would last for generations. We would completely alienate any Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who have been allies in stopping terrorism.

[pajarito 0]

The rules of war should be followed. That would be against the rules of war. We're better than that and must hold to our principals. Holy sites are off limits unless the enemy decides to use them for protection, fighting positions, of storage of munitions, etc.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A horrendous idea,but I understand his viewpoint

Tom Tancredo states that we shouldn't rule out any scenario when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism.........including retaliation on muslim sacred sites

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only language those idiots understand.

Walt

I think bombing a Muslim Holy site or Mecca would be an incredibly dumb idea and would touch off a religious war that would last for generations. We would completely alienate any Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who have been allies in stopping terrorism.

I think the benefit would be from the *threat* of that type of retaliation.

Walt

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I think the benefit would be from the *threat* of that type of retaliation.

They would then be justified in making a preemptive strike against us. Remember, Bush said those were allowed now where there was a credible threat.

I think we ought not stoop to that sort of level. Not to do it, nor to threaten it.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Tancredo states the retaliatory strike would be used only in the event of a nuclear attack on a US city.....if that did indeed occur,our way of life as we know it we come to a screeching halt........I suspect in the aftermath,it would boil to down to some sort of "holy war" anyway

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A horrendous idea,but I understand his viewpoint

Tom Tancredo states that we shouldn't rule out any scenario when it comes to dealing with Islamic extremism.........including retaliation on muslim sacred sites

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2869419

I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only language those idiots understand.

Walt

I think bombing a Muslim Holy site or Mecca would be an incredibly dumb idea and would touch off a religious war that would last for generations. We would completely alienate any Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who have been allies in stopping terrorism.

I think the benefit would be from the *threat* of that type of retaliation.

Walt

Which is exactly what OBL and Zarqawi want. In order for them to gain power, the Democratic Govts. in the M.E. must be in turmoil and the people must be united against the West. What better way than to attack the US and Britian and have us retaliate against their Religious sites?

[Ron 10]

Quote

I think the benefit would be from the *threat* of that type of retaliation.

There would be no benefit to even making the threat.

If you make the threat you just bolster the rolls of the terrorists.

If you actually do the deed you will have a rise in the rolls of the terrorists just like US citizens enlisted after 9/11.

Maybe the dumbest idea ever

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

It was a stupid thing to say to begin with. In the eyes of a muslim extremist, the threat has now been made. They will just use it as further ammunition with their spin on it to recruit and motivate their "soldiers".

It also shows that extremists who have no hesitation to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people live on both sides of this supposed war on terror.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It was a stupid thing to say to begin with. In the eyes of a muslim extremist, the threat has now been made. They will just use it as further ammunition with their spin on it to recruit and motivate their "soldiers".

Didn't I say that?

Quote

It also shows that extremists who have no hesitation to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people live on both sides of this supposed war on terror.

The difference is...They do it, some on the other side just talk about it. AQ flew planes into buildings. So far the US has not bombed Mecca, and most likely would never.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,175]

Deliberate destruction of cultural sites is a crime against humanity and would make us no better than the Taliban destroying the Buddha statues of Bamiyan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,132]

>I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only
>language those idiots understand.

So bomb a civilian site to get to them? Sounds more like we are _becoming_ them.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>I think it's a great idea for a retaliatory strike. Seems to be the only
>language those idiots understand.

So bomb a civilian site to get to them? Sounds more like we are _becoming_ them.

Very much so. They are exploiting the fact that there are some lines that we, as a country, are not willing to cross.

I think no matter how it is done, hunting down these people and killing them will be a very dirty business. Tactics will need to change and that *may* include threatening the entire Muslim population with something that nobody, including us, wants, so that nobody will be willing to tolerate, conceal, or aid, the murderous extremists among them.

We desperately need to generate intolerance of the terrorists among the Muslim community worldwide, and what we are doing now has clearly not been effective. Will doomsday scenario threats work better? Nobody can really know, but what we are doing now doesn't seem to be working at all.

Walt

[Hermerdoo 0]

My opinion is, since they use the holy sites like mosques for weapons storage and a recruiting post that they sould already be fair game for a few dozen bombs.
Humans as a whole should stop killing over the word of some invisible man, if you look back in history, all religions have killed millions of people in the name of god. More so than that have been killed in war itself. So it makes me question religion istself.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I wonder if somewhere in the Islamic world some time ago a group of Muslims had the same thought.

Arab 1: "They wont stop sticking their noses into Palestine no matter what we do."
Arab 2: "Maybe we should threaten their entire population, maybe then they will not support or aid the politicians among them who want to meddle in the Middle East?"
Arab 1: "Yes, what we've been doing now has clearly not been effective."
Arab 2: "Doomsday scenario threats must work better. Who in their right mind would dig in their heels and fight to defend themselves when threatened with violence against their people and their holy sites?"

Now I'm not saying its all the West's fault that we are attacked by Muslim extremists, I'm merely using that as an example. Why on earth would we think they would simply say "ok, we'd best do as they say" when threatened with violence when that is far from our minds when we are threatened with violence?

It is human nature to stand up to that kind of tyranny. It would merely recruit millions of people in a war against the West.

Besides, where do you propose to bomb them to? Most of the countries we'd target are already in the Stone Age.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Didn't I say that?

yeah you did, you were just the last person in the thread when I hit reply....

[Steel 0]

Quote

I wonder if somewhere in the Islamic world some time ago a group of Muslims had the same thought.

Arab 1: "They wont stop sticking their noses into Palestine no matter what we do."
Arab 2: "Maybe we should threaten their entire population, maybe then they will not support or aid the politicians among them who want to meddle in the Middle East?"
Arab 1: "Yes, what we've been doing now has clearly not been effective."
Arab 2: "Doomsday scenario threats must work better. Who in their right mind would dig in their heels and fight to defend themselves when threatened with violence against their people and their holy sites?"

.

{sarcasm} Yeah about 5 minutes after this psycho faith was invented in the 6th century. I guess around that time they started praying to Allah that Spain would just submit and offer themselves. But since that didn't work they decided to invade. {/sarcasm}

Now seriously I am not sure if this would be the best thing to do or not. I say that because, I do believe we are morally superior to Muslim extremists and this would be bringing us down their level. However, on news outlets through the Middle East we are already thought of as not morally superior. Hell, even Bill Von here thinks we are no different and that the terrorists are justified. He says if we were in the same position we would act no different. In that case, I think we should act the same. After all taking the high road in meaningless if lefties in our own back yards are going to make up lies about us or equade torture to teasing. (as was done with Abu Graib)

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,132]

>We desperately need to generate intolerance of the terrorists among
> the Muslim community worldwide, and what we are doing now has
> clearly not been effective.

You have hit the nail on the head. If most people in the world won't tolerate terrorists, then they will no longer be able to function.

> Will doomsday scenario threats work better?

Arabs/Muslims are, in the end, pretty much like everyone else. They want to be able to raise their families, work, come home etc without being killed or threatened. So ask yourself the same question - if someone threatened to blow up your neighborhood church, would you start supporting the people who threatened to blow it up, or their enemies? If someone came to you with a plan, saying "I know how to stop them from blowing up your church" would you be inclined to help them? If the answer is yes, then the threats will have the opposite effect intended.

In the end, arabs and muslims hate the people who are killing them. Right now that's us. (We still kill more innocent arabs than the terrorists do.) Hopefully it won't always be us, and then we will start making some headway towards a world that will not tolerate terrorism of any form.

[wmw999 2,600]

This is a vile posting.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Steel 0]

Quote

This is a vile posting.

Wendy W.

Please explain, did they or they did they not invade Spain practically immediately after this faith was started? And are you, as a proud lefty, not like the rest who claim that we (the U.S.) are no different than the terrorists?
I find it hilarious when I hear the same lefties who were quick to put us at the same level as terrorists suddenly change there story and say now you don't want to go to their level, now do you?

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[billvon 3,132]

>Hell, even Bill Von here thinks we are no different . . .

It took centuries, but finally most people have come to realize that people throughout the world, no matter what their skin color, religion, nationality, language or accent, are pretty much equal. A few people will continue to insist that blacks are inferior, or muslims are evil, or all russians are godless murderers or whatever, but they are now (thankfully!) in the minority.

>and that the terrorists are justified.

Never said that.

>He says if we were in the same position we would act no different. In
>that case, I think we should act the same.

QED.

>or equade torture to teasing.

Lotta people being teased to death lately!

[AlexCrowley 0]

Someone may have touched on this, but this is an extremely bad idea for a simple reason.

The extremists are an incredibly small percentage of the Muslim population.

Last year, during the military actions in iraq which threatened one of the holiest shrines of Shia muslims I had a number of debates with a co-worker, a lebanese muslim. This person was highly educated (A Masters in Comp Sci from MIT, and two degrees, one from a US college and another from a college near his home town). He explained to me that the desecration of a holy site would be a call to action for Muslims around the world *even if they disagreed with the initial reasons for the war, and the fact that Iraq militants were using it as a military stronghold - something he thought was an affront to God* (he supported the removal of Saddam).

Let me just rephrase that for those of you with a 'bomb them all' attitude:

1. My friend a moderate muslim thought Saddam was a bad man and needed removal.

2. My friend, a moderate muslim thought it was against god that militants would use holy buildings as cover.

3. My friend, a moderate muslim, felt very strongly that to destroy a holy muslim shrine would be reason enough to join the fight against the aggressor.

Perhaps we should remember that while we consider it all fair game, the average muslim in the street would not. A couple of other threads have talked about radicalizing the population of Iraq and other Mid eastern countries - but we should remember that there are 1.1 Billion muslims on the planet.

Considering we've seen a lot of military action from the US in the last couple of years and have *not* seen puposeful damage to religious buildings and shrines you have to consider that perhaps someone out there controlling the troops is using their brains properly.

Perhaps some of that brain usage may trickle down to the gung ho 'blow em to hell' contingent present on the board

Lets try another example:

In the country USerica, where all liberals live in Liberonia - Maine, NH and MA, and the rest of the mainland is Bushland (conservative), the liberals have been using terrorism tactics in Euranada to enforce [health care|environmental concerns|moral relativism]. In retaliation the army of Euranada have decided to (in their godless socialist heathen ways) to burn every Christian church and every USerican flag it can find in public. They broadcast these burnings on TV and everyone in the world can watch them.

So, once the right wingers get over the wet dreams caused by the concept of Liberonia/Bushland, how long before Bushland starts taking the concept of flag and church burning personally, and even tho they idealogically disagree with Liberonia they start, at first quietly, and over time more openly - supporting the terrorists?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Steel 0]

Quote

>It took centuries, but finally most people have come to realize that people throughout the world, no matter what their skin color, religion, nationality, language or accent, are pretty much equal. A few people will continue to insist that blacks are inferior, or muslims are evil, or all russians are godless murderers or whatever, but they are now (thankfully!) in the minority.
reply]
When I see read or hear statement like this, I begin to doubt over all human intelligence. Then I realize that people can not be that clueless to believe such jibberish. Perhaps they are actually smarter than me because even though they know this statement is total bogus, it may serve their purpose, to be avoid being shut out for saying the obvious truth.
In any case since I am not good at fluffing, I will continue to analyze things objectively. Skin color generalizations will always be challened with annecdotes. Kind of like the Irish wolfhound is the tallest breed but people who know dogs know they can always find a great dane that is taller. That doesn't change the fact that the average Irish Wolfhound is taller than the average great dane. When Bill Von finds one town in the entire U.S. that is populated 90% black that is not a slum, then we can think this statement might hold a couple of drops of water. Oh but wait that is the American's fault so lets see if he can find one country in the entire world that is populated 90% black that is was not built by Europeans, that is not in 3rd world living conditions. I think the idea that people from all religions are equal has been disproven so many times, that if someone doesn't get it yet they are not going to. Nationality, language or accent are just curve balls thrown in there to confuse the ignorant. All of these are clearly taught If you take a Chinese baby and raise him/her in a German family, he will speak German without an accent and identify with the German nationality. Nobody is argueing about that. As I said, its just is just a curve ball thrown in to confuse the ignorant.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

• Quote

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I wonder if somewhere in the Islamic world some time ago a group of Muslims had the same thought.

Arab 1: "They wont stop sticking their noses into Palestine no matter what we do."
Arab 2: "Maybe we should threaten their entire population, maybe then they will not support or aid the politicians among them who want to meddle in the Middle East?"
Arab 1: "Yes, what we've been doing now has clearly not been effective."
Arab 2: "Doomsday scenario threats must work better. Who in their right mind would dig in their heels and fight to defend themselves when threatened with violence against their people and their holy sites?"

Now I'm not saying its all the West's fault that we are attacked by Muslim extremists, I'm merely using that as an example. Why on earth would we think they would simply say "ok, we'd best do as they say" when threatened with violence when that is far from our minds when we are threatened with violence?

It is human nature to stand up to that kind of tyranny. It would merely recruit millions of people in a war against the West.

Besides, where do you propose to bomb them to? Most of the countries we'd target are already in the Stone Age.

My thinking comes from the Cold War era when the Soviet Union and the United States were at a nuclear standoff. It wasn't the ideal situation, but it did work in a very weird sort of way because NOBODY wanted nuclear war.

Walt