Let's bomb Mecca

[LizardPeople]

From cnn.com

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.

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

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

This should win us oodles of friends in the middle east.

 

[Jocko]

From cnn.com



This should win us oodles of friends in the middle east.

Well, here's an equally broad-minded response from a local muslim spokesman:

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.

I didn't realize Rushdie had changed his name to Tancredo. Hmm.

 

[LizardPeople]

Re: Re: Let's bomb Mecca

I didn't realize Rushdie had changed his name to Tancredo.

I happen to agree with Mr. Noorzai on this one. People in Mr. Tancredo's position DO need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts. Did you read some kind of threat into his words?

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Let's bomb Mecca

I happen to agree with Mr. Noorzai on this one. People in Mr. Tancredo's position DO need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts. Did you read some kind of threat into his words?

It's no fatwah, if that's what you mean. I was merely observing the irony of who should be careful speaking about what, on both their parts. Everyone's got stereotypes to debunk, after all.

 

[Manny]

Dumb statement. It should, if the White House has its political ears on, provide an opportunity to make some lemonade from Rep. Tancredo's lemon. The president or an appropriate high-ranking person should seize this opportunity to say that we're not at war with Islam, just with terrorists, and an additional lower-ranking or anonymous person should point out that we could take out Mecca and Medina, or any spot in the world, at will and that demonstrates that what the president said is true. After all, if we were really at war with Islam they'd know it.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Let's bomb Mecca

I didn't realize Rushdie had changed his name to Tancredo. Hmm.

Er, I disagree. He didn't say anybody should not say this. He said, quite rightly, that people in his position--a public political position--should be careful not to make such comments. Nor is there a hint here of any threat if he doesn't.

Tancredo is a public official who made a dumb-@$$ statement that, for a change, really is rather obviously insulting to Muslims, as opposed to the use of "we're insulted" as a politically-correct silencing weapon. The response of the Muslim speaker was quite appropriate.

That said, here is one of the problems that radical Islam causes Muslims: when loony clerics make it a profession to be "insulted" by anybody who dared not to instantly convert to Islam and demand their blood, people are going to viewany Muslim who claims to be insulted for any reason with great suspicion.

 

[ceo_esq]

If it were ever determined that terrorists aided or abetted by the Saudi Arabian state were responsible for exploding nuclear weapons on American territory, Mecca would be an arguably appropriate candidate for a retaliatory strike. Dangling the prospect of its destruction over the heads of all Muslims, though, seems unnecessary.

 

[Orwell]

If it were ever determined that terrorists aided or abetted by the Saudi Arabian state were responsible for exploding nuclear weapons on American territory, Mecca would be an arguably appropriate candidate for a retaliatory strike. Dangling the prospect of its destruction over the heads of all Muslims, though, seems unnecessary.

Why would you bomb Mecca if Saudi Arabia did such a thing? Mecca ain't the capital of Saudi Arabia. The capital is Riyadh.

 

[ceo_esq]

Why would you bomb Mecca if Saudi Arabia did such a thing? Mecca ain't the capital of Saudi Arabia. The capital is Riyadh.

As the third-largest Saudi city, among other things, Mecca would almost necessarily make any shortlist of potential strike targets in the kingdom.

Is there a rule requiring that all retaliation to nuclear aggression must be directed at the aggressor's capital city?

 

[Zep]

And I guess the same people like stirring up hornets' nests with their bare hands...

Whatever.

 

[crimresearch]

From cnn.com

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.

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

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This should win us oodles of friends in the middle east.

And what would the alternative be? After the US has been attacked by nuclear weapons, to refuse to go after anyplace that might happen to have a mosque nearby?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: Let's bomb Mecca

And what would the alternative be? After the US has been attacked by nuclear weapons, to refuse to go after anyplace that might happen to have a mosque nearby?

Of course not. Nuking the holiest of holies for hundreds of millions of Muslems (be they moderate or fanatic) is clearly the best solution to winning hearts and minds. Hell, the 99% of Muslims who aren't fanatics today would surely see the gesture as the appropriate limited warning that it is, and go about their daily lives as they have.

And if anyone disagreed, well, they were ripe for nuking anyway.

Definitly seems like a plan to me.

 

[crimresearch]

So it would be an appropriate response in a scenario based after America is attacked by nuclear weapons, to rule out retaliation that might offend religious believers.

How very....faith based.

 

[Manny]

So it would be an appropriate response in a scenario based after America is attacked by nuclear weapons, to rule out retaliation that might offend religious believers.

How about neither rule in nor rule out? That's the way we've handled every security threat since we the end of WWII except for the Soviets, where MAD was the agreed upon protocol. China's nukes? Neither rule in nor rule out. Pakistan nukes? India nukes? Same. Iraq hits Israel with chemical or biological SCUDS? Neither rule in nor rule out.

Either way, Tancredo is a) in a high enough position that his views will be taken seriously by those who don't know the ins and outs of our government and b) not the freaking defense secretary. He should not be using the n-word. He should have kept his yap shut.

 

[crimresearch]

I took the OP to mean something like that...Tancredo wasn't advocating ruling anything either in or out.

Upon reading the link, we can also see:
"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."

Now that seems like a far cry from
"...Nuking the holiest of holies for hundreds of millions of Muslems (be they moderate or fanatic) is clearly the best solution to winning hearts and minds. Hell, the 99% of Muslims who aren't fanatics today would surely see the gesture as the appropriate limited warning that it is, and go about their daily lives as they have.

And if anyone disagreed, well, they were ripe for nuking anyway.

Definitly seems like a plan to me."

Apparently it means exactly the same thing to others.


And it still leaves the question, why respect religious icons in self defense scenarios?

Did the destruction of Japanese shrines at the end of WWII force millions of moderate Asians to take up arms against the infidel desecrators?

Were the followers of Shinto and Buddhism somehow innately less faithful than Muslims?

I'm not seeing it, but perhaps those who are of a religious mindset can explain it to me.

 

[Manny]

And it still leaves the question, why respect religious icons in self defense scenarios?

Did the destruction of Japanese shrines at the end of WWII force millions of moderate Asians to take up arms against the infidel desecrators?

Were the followers of Shinto and Buddhism somehow innately less faithful than Muslims?

Well, for one thing there weren't ~50 MM newly liberated Shintoists who thought we were the good guys who also revered those shrines.

For another, we didn't intentionally target the shrines. You're aware that there's literally no military or even industrial use in Mecca, right? It's just the Mosque. The third largest city in Saudi Arabia is basically nothing but a big honking infrastructure for pilgrims from places which are mostly friendly to us like Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, India, etc.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Threatining to pee on the quaran didnt make them reveal the locaton of Osama and the WMD's. I guess they are just kicking it up a notch BAM!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see now that the Troubles in Ireland could have been ended much sooner if the government of the UK had threatened to bomb the Vatican in retaliation for any Catholic-linked atrocities.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So it would be an appropriate response in a scenario based after America is attacked by nuclear weapons, to rule out retaliation that might offend religious believers.

How very....faith based.

Not at all. Haven't you be listening?

An appropriate response would be the nuking of a site that many, many people hold as sacred. That would teach them and show them who is boss!

As history shows, denigrating a people always rewards you many times over.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And it still leaves the question, why respect religious icons in self defense scenarios?´

Exactly.

Did the destruction of Japanese shrines at the end of WWII force millions of moderate Asians to take up arms against the infidel desecrators?´

NO. Of course not. And the parallel is obvious!

Were the followers of Shinto and Buddhism somehow innately less faithful than Muslims?

Again, you ask the obvious!

I'm not seeing it, but perhaps those who are of a religious mindset can explain it to me.

Your clear vision is an example for all of us!