http://www.local10.com/news/4739592/detail.html DENVER -- Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo said he was talking about deterrence when he raised the possibility of bombing Mecca if Muslim terrorists set off nuclear weapons in American cities. On a Florida radio show Friday, Tancredo was asked what the response should be to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities. He answered that if fundamentalist Muslims were to blame, "you could take out their holy sites." When he was asked if he meant bombing Mecca, the congressman said, "Yeah." But in a statement issued Sunday, Tancredo said he was talking about a making a threat that might deter such an attack, insisting: "I do not advocate this." The Council on American-Islamic Relations has asked to meet with the congressman and is urging the Republican Party to repudiate his remarks. This guy seems to have it all backwards right? When asked what the response should be to a nuclear attack on US cities, he said take out their holy cities. I'm ok with that. When whoever applied the heat to get him to revise his stance, he said, only as a deterrence measure as a threat. I'm not at all cool with that. Threats like that are what lead to all the mess that follows. *for those souls with time on their hands, make sure to check out the "woman strips in court" link on that link. The running commentary during the picture slide show is slap hilarious*
Making a public threat will surely piss off all the ragheads in the street, but they are always pissed off about something anyway and they aren't the real problem. It has been rumored that Israel made covert threats to Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian officials in the 1970's and promised them that if Israel ever seemed to be in danger of being overrun by Arab armies they would see mushroom clouds over Mecca and Messina. It didn't make the arabs happy, but they all backed off and Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel that have held. I think this tactic might work with soveriegn nations, but most of the terrorist cells are kooks and would do the obvious just to force us to carry through. They are just not impacted by deterrance measures because they are accountable to no one.
I think bombing Mecca, no matter our reason would swell terrorist training camps. It would drive the moderate more westernized Arabs into that scary extreme. Now, bombing the hell out of Terran....
Amen, Damn, I should've thought of this. Blow these bastards up in their own masques! My heros are Eisenhower Truman, Patton and Mac Arthur, Damn those are real men and real American heros. :usaflagwa Supafan, You may be wrong, maybe these poor bastards would run like people from the movie war of the worlds. People tend to run away from bombs. Let the bastards run home and defend their countries and familes and kill the poor bastards dead! :lol: OR Just maybe after so many bombs the moderates will realize: Damn, maybe God aint on their side after all! :911: Sabanfan, I tried to give u props but the system won't let me! :dis:
I wish I were wrong, but given history I would seiously doubt it. Look at the Palestinians. They will throw rocks at tanks while getting shelled. If you have a tank and I have a rock, I'm gonna shut up and behave. The Arabs aren't that smart. If we bomb Mecca they will be crying bloody murder, and suicide bomb us, our intrests, and our allies. Muslims beleive in what they call the Law of Equality. If we blow up a building they are obligated to blow up a building of ours. If we kill a man's son he is obligated to kill the enemies son. That's the mentality we are dealing with, and these people are indoctrinated into it. I would much rather we seal up our borders and not deal with these folks. Don't let them come over here, don't let the ones here have dealings with the ones there, don't trade with them, and don't help them when they come begging us too. Bottom line, I don't think bombing Mecca will do what the war on terror should do, and that is make America safer.
1) I agree with you on sealing the borders! 2) You said it in your post, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I note that you said muslims and not extremists?? Anyway, now you know why I prefer killing them all if they won't cooperate with us on the war on terror, take no prisoners. We are too Damn soft in this country, that damn W is screwing everything up! :redface:
So why are you so behind what the president is doing. Why are you against dropping a few H-bombs and saying case closed? Do you favor spreading democracy in the middle east, or do you want to kill all the Muslims? I think we are better suited doing covert strikes on known terrorist camps. There were none in Iraq before the war, but there were and are are plenty in Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Phllipenes. I'm all for hitting those and forget the nation building.
In a perfect world I have no problems with "good" imperialism. I think the president is doing the right thing *however* I don't think we have the resources or the man power to succeed around the world. We will be in Iraq for years to come just like Bosnia, Japan, Germany, South Korea and any other places we've been the last 75 years. I don't want to drop H bombs for now but if a nuclear strike or something happens in this country, kills a few million people I might be in favor of it. A dilema that I see is that we may be so spread out one day or right now, if we get bombed by a group out of Iran, Pakistan or Syria for instance we don't have the troops to strike back other than bombing unless you want a draft. I also consider our casualties above all else! Spreading Democracy, not really, for the reasons stated above. I would be for it if the coward democracies of the free world came aboard and helped us. Covert strikes really is only like slapping a band aid on the overall problem. I think its a good idea to address the problem from the source, you have to take out their schools of hate, institutions, etc. I thought we should've joined the British and take Pakistan and let the British occupy it to clean it up. The way I see it is that this is a big dilemma, I would like to imperialize the world and make it a better place, spreading democracy, the world economy along with all these poor countries would be much better off. The problem is that we don't have enough resources to do this and the Democrats would NEVER accept this. They would think we were evil for imperializing countries and making them like us when it would really be a blessing to the less fortunate such as poor countries or countries with monarchs or dictators.
