Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation

As much as I like Tom Tancredo I agree with your post except they would enjoy their holy sites being bombed.
I do like the idea of doing something else similar but I would rather send a shock and awe message after warning the people to stay out of a certain area, take out infrastructure and government facilities.

I really don't understand your line of thinking here.
It is already open season on America and Allies, London bombings, Spain bombings, etc.
I believe Iran has already threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth at least twice the last year and a half.
Muslim Radicals have already declared a jihad against 10 years ago?

Afghanistan didn't attack us Al Qaeda did.

Was Afghanistan a misguided revenge fantasy?
The point being is TT saying if we are attacked again like 9/11 that we would do something like this.
There is NO easy solution to this problem.

You mean like the Clinton Administration did on their war on terror?
Didn't work, American facilities were still bombed all over the world, then the USS Cole and 9/11.

Yet again, this was the policy of the Clinton Administration.
It didn't work, you can bring back your long list of what he did and you will help me make my point.

We didn't need to eliminate Japan, Germany or Islam.
Destroying cities in fact did break the will of Imperial Japan which led to the end of the war.
Although Radical Islam and Japan are different they are also similar.
Imperial Japan also used the same tactics as Radical Islam and both had a god of sort to fight for.

The only way this war will ever end is most likely after we do some heavy damage to infrastructure or bomb their cities.
I'm not hell bent on killing these people but if you can damage their cities enough they will have no choice but to stop and rebuild them, infrastructure, etc or die.
Maybe some will turn and say Allah is sending them a message because they won't believe that Allah would allow it to happen in the first place!

 

I wasn't talking about nuclear weapons.
You clearly stated in your post that attacking a country that didn't attack us is absurd then you stated that it is a revenge fantasy not strategy.
I just responded and asked if the same could be said for Afghanistan.
There is nothing in that entire post that says anything about nukes other than the point about Russia versus USA.

Ok, so whats the point?
Like I said Clinton's policies did nothing to stop the war on terrorism so therefore it is a mute point on whether Bush responded or not.
The point is that whatever Clinton did didn't work since we were attacked numerous times.

I guess thats all you can say since you lost the argument?
Just like my comment on Japan or Germany, no comments from you.
I guess that says plenty.

I wasn't talking about Iraq but I understand the point you are trying to make.
Nope, anything that I state to end this war has to be much worse than any destruction that happened in Iraq.
Iraq isn't a good example but Japan was much better.
We didn't do half the damage in Iraq that we did in Japan.
Truman knew what it would take to get the job done unlike most wimps today, hell, we'd rather give our enemies rights and try them in a court of law today like they are Americans versus fighting them on a battle field, interrogation instead of actually winning a war because we are Americans and Americans are always right.

 

What are you talking about?
I said you made my point because you support the way the Clinton administration ran the war on terror.
I also said that you proved my point by assuming that Clinton did just the things you pointed out time and time again and yet it didn't stop the bombing of the Cole, 9/11 or any other bombings of that time.
Boy, you are running around circles aren't you?
What a waste of time!:dis:

 

yep.

oh, and you forgot one--"bombs"

i know. the next time a muslim kills a nonmuslim, we (the US of A) draw and quarter every muslim we can get our hands on. thatll show em.