I think I missed some really good topics. Being a “newbie” is a drag.

I heard a rumor that someone had mentioned bombing Mecca, but I thought it was only a crazy rumor. But no, it was not a rumor. :(

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html

Monday, July 18, 2005

DENVER—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.

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 Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The only reason people think this is a shocking idea is because they have oil. The middle-east is a cesspool of dictatorships and extremist reactionaries, and our new "war on terror" is only exacerbating it because we put up with it and encouraged it for so long. There really is no answer.

The only reason people think this is a shocking idea is because they have oil. The middle-east is a cesspool of dictatorships and extremist reactionaries, and our new "war on terror" is only exacerbating it because we put up with it and encouraged it for so long. There really is no answer.

It is shocking to me because he is talking about mass genocide.

I agree with you: We put with it…for so long.

But Ras, I respectfully disagree with you about our President. I cast no blame on Bush #1, Clinton, or Bush #2. You must remember that they know things that we do not know, and it is simply ludicrous to expect them to tell us everything. Presidents have never told the American public “everything.”

They must make decisions under remarkable stress based upon the information they have. Have all 3 of them made bad decisions? Absolutely. But have they also made good decisions? Yes.

Back to the topic: A Senator mentioning bombing Mecca is outrageous, IMO. :not:

See, that's ironic, because as much as I opposed the Iraq war for many reasons, I'm not sure I would have opposed a war against Saudi Arabia.

In fact, if there had to be a war against any nation for 9/11, Saudi Arabia obviously was the most logical choice.

A lot of people whom I talked to in the military on this issue agreed with that, incidentally. Many higher personnel I talked to about the war, even senior officers, agreed. A lot of them thought the war with Iraq was a bad idea. It was mainly the lower enlisted ranks who were gung-ho about war with Iraq, just because they liked the idea of war with anybody, or so it seemed to me.

I guess that's why civilians run the military, to make the objective decisions :hmm:

Back to the topic: A Senator mentioning bombing Mecca is outrageous, IMO. :not:
Utterly outrageous, yes!

Not smart Tancredo.

I feel like I've stepped into an alternate dimension, because as one of the most vocally anti-war people on the board I'm here to tell you guys that if a nuclear weapon is detonated in the US the vast majority of Americans will support such an act instantly. Maybe Tancredo shouldn't have said it, but everyone will agree if it happens.

I agree with Tancredo.
I agree with RAS about Saudi Arabia, in as much it should have been them after Afghanistan. Iraq could have been dealt with later.

Iraq could have been dealt with later.


If we showed the middle-east that we have the balls to stand up to the head of their oil cartel and we wouldn't need to deal with anybody afterwards.

Of course the rest of the world would **** their pants at the thought of us getting control of that oil so it would basically turn into armageddon, as Russia, China, Europe, etc. joined forces to stop us.

Good thing the Bush admin has made us so many friends in the world. Maybe John Bolton can pull some strings.

Maybe John Bolton can pull some strings.

I'm sure you mean 'If John Bolton can piss of enough people to alienate us further.' It's really intersting the mentality of those involved to think they can send one man into a corrput organization the size of the UN and think he will clean it up. :rolleyes: If the UN members were really interested in cleaning themselves up, it would have happened by now without the US's Crowned Prince Bolton.

The 9/11 links to the Saudi's were far stronger than to Iraq. S/A should have been dealt with first. Instead of kissing him, GWB should have grabbed the crown prince by his head and head butted the hell out of him, and told him to play catch with the inbound Tomahawks.

I personally doubt it would ever come to it, though. We've been kissing Saudi ass to far too long for that to change over the loss of 3000 people and the WTC.

If that first paragraph was directed at me, then you're pretty much pummeling a straw man. The UN is a worthless a-hole of an institution in my opinion. But that still doesn't mean we should send a worthless a-hole of a "diplomat" as our representative there. Why stoop to their level? No matter how bad the UN is, our representative is the face of American diplomacy to the world.

I guess it's just more playground mentality from Bush- "the UN are poopyheads, so we'll send a complete jackass there to show them how much we hate them". Real classy.

So someone detonates a nuke in the US, and In retaliation, you go an attack someone Completely different. Can someone explain the logic in this course of action please? It's a bit lost on me.

Hugs

lilnymph

So someone detonates a nuke in the US, and In retaliation, you go an attack someone Completely different. Can someone explain the logic in this course of action please? It's a bit lost on me.

Hugs

lilnymph

It's a direct threat to the Saudis to stop funding terrorism.

The house of Saud made a deal with the devil long ago, and assumed that if they threw money at terrorist groups, they would leave them alone. Well, it hasn't worked. They have helped to create a global monster by providing billions of dollars to extremist Muslim groups, and their holiest sites are the two most effective and symbolic taregets for an attack against the Muslim world.

So, The US has funded terrorist groups, including the Al Quida and the IRA. I take it you support the UK nuking washington in retaliation for the terrorist attacks on London, by your logic here?

Hugs

lilnymph

So, The US has funded terrorist groups, including the Al Quida and the IRA. I take it you support the UK nuking washington in retaliation for the terrorist attacks on London, by your logic here?

Hugs

lilnymph

I never said I supported it. I'm just stating the logic behind it.
I hope nobody ever gets nuked again anywhere.

And I hope you see my point, how its a completely crazy idea, since my example is just as valid as the bomb mecca one ;)

Also, why do America counter terrorism or counter insurgent strategies allways seem to involve pissing off the "native" population, and therefore making it easier for the terrorists? I have never understood that. It didn't work in vietnam, it hasn't worked in Iraq, and now you want to do it over the middle east in general? You might want to take a look at other ways of doings things. British history for a start will give you some more successful ways of dealing with things, the 'Malayan Emergency' springs to mind.

hugs

lilnymph

We covered this topic in the thread I started called "One solution to global Islamic terrorism".

I think Tancredo, as a sitting senator, should not verbalize this. He does not set policy. Only the executive branch should make such statements publically. However, I honestly think making a known consequence for terrorist attacks is a good strategy. If you choose a target the terrorists simply can't afford to lose, they have a dillemma on their hands. What happens next is totally up to them.

We need to play hardball with these people.

Why can't the terrorists afford to lose this? Seems to be they can, as who do you think the people will blaim for the destruction caused, the terrorists, or the US who bombed Mecca? All you are doing is pissing off the people in the middle east who either are against the terrorists, or are neutral. You are doing the Terrorists recruiting for them. How many times do you need to do this sort of thing before you will work out it doesn't work?

Hugs

lilnymph

I think they can't afford to lose it because they claim to be muslim...and it is Islam's holiest site.

Who do I think they will blame? Well, if our government publically announced that the direct consequence of a terrorist attack would be the destruction of Mecca, who do you think should be blamed?

Maybe you are right. Maybe we should just let Osama screw us in the ass and kill as many ppl as he wants and we should just do nothing.:rolleyes:

No, I think you should find the terrorists, turn the people agaisnt the terrorists. Don't do big easy things, that make you feel good, but are counter productive

hugs

lilnymph

I feel like I've stepped into an alternate dimension, because as one of the most vocally anti-war people on the board I'm here to tell you guys that if a nuclear weapon is detonated in the US the vast majority of Americans will support such an act instantly. Maybe Tancredo shouldn't have said it, but everyone will agree if it happens.
Ras, I think you were once anti-war, as you were once in sympathy with Palestine. But you've changed and for some reason, you can't see it.
If we showed the middle-east that we have the balls to stand up to the head of their oil cartel and we wouldn't need to deal with anybody afterwards.

Of course the rest of the world would **** their pants at the thought of us getting control of that oil so it would basically turn into armageddon, as Russia, China, Europe, etc. joined forces to stop us.

Good thing the Bush admin has made us so many friends in the world. Maybe John Bolton can pull some strings.
I find this assertion just weird.

So someone detonates a nuke in the US, and In retaliation, you go an attack someone Completely different. Can someone explain the logic in this course of action please? It's a bit lost on me.

Hugs

lilnymph
There is no logic to it, lilnymph. So no one will be able to tell you.

No, I think you should find the terrorists, turn the people agaisnt the terrorists. Don't do big easy things, that make you feel good, but are counter productive

hugs

lilnymph
That's too hard and takes patience - so they'll never do it.

So someone detonates a nuke in the US, and In retaliation, you go an attack someone Completely different. Can someone explain the logic in this course of action please? It's a bit lost on me.



Maybe you should talk to your own Prime Minister about that, because I'd assume it's the same "logic" that has 5,000 British troops (or whatever the number) sitting in Iraq right now. Did I somehow miss the Iraqi invasion of Britain?

Ras, I think you were once anti-war, as you were once in sympathy with Palestine. But you've changed and for some reason, you can't see it.


Thanks for your input, but I think you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, and I'm not the subject of this thread.

British history for a start will give you some more successful ways of dealing with things, the 'Malayan Emergency' springs to mind.

Yes, let us follow the British example. Maybe we can make concentration camps on Cyprus for the Jews who want to return to Israel like the Brits did after WW2. :( :(

Thanks, but no thanks. The USA is fully capable of making Her own blunders, as history reveals. :) :)

It's a direct threat to the Saudis to stop funding terrorism.

I think there is a simple explanation for his statement. I think Tancredo let his emotions get in the way and he said something stupid. Who on the message board has not done that? :confused:

Everyone has done that........ :eek3:

Thanks, but no thanks. The USA is fully capable of making Her own blunders, as history reveals. :) :)

Strange, you seem to be making all the same blunders we did, and not learning from them.

Hugs

lilnymph

Yes, let us follow the British example. Maybe we can make concentration camps on Cyprus for the Jews who want to return to Israel like the Brits did after WW2. :( :(

Oh, and you are of course fully for illegal immigration (the reason the jews where put in camps then ;) ) and fully support all those mexicans flooding over your border and think nothing should be done about them :)

hugs

lilnymph

Strange, you seem to be making all the same blunders we did, and not learning from them.

We are slow learners. :)

...and fully support all those mexicans flooding over your border and think nothing should be done about them...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. :)

Oh, and you are of course fully for illegal immigration (the reason the jews where put in camps then) and fully support all those mexicans flooding over your border and think nothing should be done about them.

I am not for illegal immigration. I am against it. I think something should be done about it (like stop it). I believe most Americans are against it and think something should be done about it (like stop it).

But this only proves that We The People are stupid and surely wrong, for our brilliant politicians—both Republicans and Democrats—either ignore the problem or seem to never actually address it. We The People, therefore, are stupid and surely wrong, for who could argue with our brilliant politicians? :)

I am not for illegal immigration. I am against it. I think something should be done about it (like stop it). I believe most Americans are against it and think something should be done about it (like stop it).


And yet you just critised the UK for stopping illegal immigration. Nothing like consitency is there ;)

hugs

lilnymph

Maybe you should talk to your own Prime Minister about that, because I'd assume it's the same "logic" that has 5,000 British troops (or whatever the number) sitting in Iraq right now. Did I somehow miss the Iraqi invasion of Britain?

That was nothing to do with terror attacks. That was about removing a Brutal dictator, and removing WMD that all the world thought he had at that time (and please don't turn this into another thread about how he didn't have any.)

You may have noticed that after the london attacks the UK hasn't randomly gone to war with anyone, or arrested the first few people it found that could have been responsible, even if they are innocent, or bombed random Cities. We are hunting for the actual bombers, and getting the world to agree on anti-terror measures. That is the strategy you should compare to the random bombing of Mecca.

Hugs

lilnymph

Maybe you should talk to your own Prime Minister about that, because I'd assume it's the same "logic" that has 5,000 British troops (or whatever the number) sitting in Iraq right now. Did I somehow miss the Iraqi invasion of Britain?



Thanks for your input, but I think you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, and I'm not the subject of this thread.
Ras, I am sorry, I truly didn't wanna do this, but I don't have the patience. You remind me inescapably of some of the scarier people on a certain other board. You are from now on, on the ignore list...

That was nothing to do with terror attacks. That was about removing a Brutal dictator, and removing WMD that all the world thought he had at that time (and please don't turn this into another thread about how he didn't have any.)


LOL, okay I won't bring up the facts which prove your assertion to be ridiculous. I know it must make you uncomfortable to think that your own country is just as bloodthirsty and irrational as us Big Bad Americans, and since very few who aren't British citizens would even argue the point then neither will I :)

Hugs

Oh course I wont argue the point. My own country past makes Americas current attempt at empire building look rather pathetic ;) Remember, Britian once owned about 1/4 of the planet, and its only since world war 2 you have been the big boy on the block ;)

However which facts are you going to bring up that prove why we went to war to be rediculous? Britian was always honest about it not being to stop terror.

hugs

lilnymph

Well despite your pre-emptive assertion to the contrary, the "whole world" was not convinced that Saddam Hussein still had WMD's. Don't try to re-write history, I was on deployment during the run-up to the war and many people, including ignorant civilians such as myself, considered the claim specious at best.

most of the worlds intelligence services, including those of countries that opposed the war, thought he had them. And it was a known fact that he had had them in the past and would use them (since he had used them). I am not attempting to rewrite history, and I don't like the insinuation that I would.

hugs

lilnymph

Please give me quotes and sources for your assertion that "most of the worlds intelligence services, including those of countries that opposed the war, thought he had them".

I'll go first:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

-Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

There was a report put forward by british intelligence for a start. take a look at news reports from teh time if you want. I am afraid I don't ahve time at the moment to look them up. If I have more time tomorrow or monday I will

hugs

lilnymph

I don't see a real problem with the idea. I know that it is antithetical to those who always have a knee-jerk reaction to either Republicans or the necessity of war, but if the threat is credible and that threat prompts some highranking Saudi cleric-dude to tell his goons to not explode a bomb isn't that a good thing?

Supposedly SecState Baker made a similar threat to Saddam's minister Aziz in the First Gulf War in warning of the reaction of what would happen if he used chemical or biological weapons against Coalition forces.

And, of course, we don't know if the threat had any effect, but Aziz has since said that he felt threat was credible.

There was a report put forward by british intelligence for a start. take a look at news reports from teh time if you want. I am afraid I don't ahve time at the moment to look them up. If I have more time tomorrow or monday I will

hugs

lilnymph

Sorry, I consider it somewhat disrespectful at this point to continue the stupid game of arguing reality and attempting to "establish" facts which were well-established in spring of 2003, considering that American and British troops are still dying in the desert to this day due to the deception of our respective governments and the willingness of some people (I won't name any names, lil) to accept and defend those lies.

As I said, I remember quite clearly three years ago, and there was by no means any consensus by the world or world intelligence services regarding what you are now claiming as fact. I was in the military preparing for war and watching BBC every day. I remember very clearly, even if some would rather forget.

And I hope you see my point, how its a completely crazy idea, since my example is just as valid as the bomb mecca one ;)

Also, why do America counter terrorism or counter insurgent strategies allways seem to involve pissing off the "native" population, and therefore making it easier for the terrorists? I have never understood that. It didn't work in vietnam, it hasn't worked in Iraq, and now you want to do it over the middle east in general? You might want to take a look at other ways of doings things. British history for a start will give you some more successful ways of dealing with things, the 'Malayan Emergency' springs to mind.

hugs

lilnymph


What a ignorant thing to say ! the UK would all be speaking german no if not for us . And your dumb leaders , ' except Churchill ' was ok with Hitler taking over it's neighbors as long as it was left alone. but the UK Hitler ass kissers was lied too and paid a heavy price ,which would have been fatal if not for USA and it's allis .

So you can say thank you to us for making your existance possible .

Actually, I'd go one step farther.

If the terrorists nuke one of our cities, then we NUKE Mecca.

What a ignorant thing to say ! the UK would all be speaking german no if not for us . And your dumb leaders , ' except Churchill ' was ok with Hitler taking over it's neighbors as long as it was left alone. but the UK Hitler ass kissers was lied too and paid a heavy price ,which would have been fatal if not for USA and it's allis .

So you can say thank you to us for making your existance possible .
Pappy, I am sorry, but you're talking as your donkey guides you! The USA entered WW II late, and claimed all the credit, when Britain, Europe, the USSR and Anzac countries had done all the work. Are you aware that Prescott Bush (Dubya's Grandpappy) helped bank roll Hitler?

It gets me furious to hear Americans and their donkey kissers in Autralia and NZ assert "the UK would all be speaking german no if not for (the USA)" because it is utter bilge, bollocks, tripe and nonsense!

Actually, I'd go one step farther.

If the terrorists nuke one of our cities, then we NUKE Mecca.
"the terrorists nuke one of our cities" - like that's gonna happen! :rofl:

the terrorists nuke one of our cities" - like that's gonna happen!

If certain countries who are known to support terrorism get a hold of a nuclear weapon that is transportable in a regular car/ truck, then they could give one to the terrorists. Who, then sneak it across the open border with Mexico and then the drive to the designated target city. And ... Ka-Boom. No more Chicago, or Washington, or Dallas, or Miami, or ... pick a city.

It's not as far fetched as you suppose Della. It's conceivable; down-right scary, but conceivable.

Heck, if drug smugglers can smuggle TONS of cocaine across the Mexican border, who says terrorists can't smuggle one nuclear war-head across ?

What a ignorant thing to say ! the UK would all be speaking german no if not for us . And your dumb leaders , ' except Churchill ' was ok with Hitler taking over it's neighbors as long as it was left alone. but the UK Hitler ass kissers was lied too and paid a heavy price ,which would have been fatal if not for USA and it's allis .

So you can say thank you to us for making your existance possible .


Yes the US allowed us to bankrupt ourselves by selling us surplus equipment, they were selling the Nazis stufff as well. For example the self sealing fuel tanks on the luftwaffe airplanes were almost all made in America. We paid, and if the Japanese had held off, America would have been happy for us to go under, as long as the Germans kept buying goods made in America

I think I missed some really good topics. Being a “newbie” is a drag.

I heard a rumor that someone had mentioned bombing Mecca, but I thought it was only a crazy rumor. But no, it was not a rumor. :(

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html


real smart you think you have problems with a few thousand nutters, imagine what it will be like with a billion muslims freaking out at you. How many of the middle east countries are you prepared to invade to ensure your supply of oil? - Every muslim country on the planet will shut the oil pipeline to America, all of them? with every muslim on the planet looking for a way to kill Americans? At least in Vietnam, some of the locals were on your side.

It gets me furious to hear Americans and their donkey kissers in Autralia and NZ assert "the UK would all be speaking german no if not for (the USA)" because it is utter bilge, bollocks, tripe and nonsense!

Exactly, by the Time the US joined the War, The allies had already fought Germany to a standstill in europe, won the battle of britian so prevented any invasion of Britian (as there is NO way germany could invade britian without control of the skys and the seas, and they had neither), and had pretty much kicked germany off north Africa too, and held the mediterrian.

While its doubtful Britain could have "won" the war without America, its doubtful she would have lost either.

hugs

lilnymph

Exactly, by the Time the US joined the War, The allies had already fought Germany to a standstill in europe, won the battle of britian so prevented any invasion of Britian (as there is NO way germany could invade britian without control of the skys and the seas, and they had neither), and had pretty much kicked germany off north Africa too, and held the mediterrian.

While its doubtful Britain could have "won" the war without America, its doubtful she would have lost either.

hugs

lilnymph





Exactly right, lilnymph! My father fought in WWII for Britain (he came from L'pool), my uncle died in the May blitz of L'pool, and my grandparents lost their house. I hate to see that belittled!

real smart you think you have problems with a few thousand nutters, imagine what it will be like with a billion muslims freaking out at you. How many of the middle east countries are you prepared to invade to ensure your supply of oil? - Every muslim country on the planet will shut the oil pipeline to America, all of them? with every muslim on the planet looking for a way to kill Americans? At least in Vietnam, some of the locals were on your side.

And if the Christians mobilize against the Muslims? How about if all the other religions that Isalm has a seeming problem with start to push back the influence of Islam? If you are advocating religious war on the part of the Muslims, what will stop the other religions (that all get pooped on by Islam) from counter-acting them? Numbers are nice but there are many more Christians than Muslims and the Christians will be able, much easier, to form an alliance with Hindus to take out the Muslims. Every society has Islam trouble, and the idea that people will keep putting up with this Islam trouble is getting tiring. If one side advocates the destruction of another over it's entire life, then just like in the Crusades those being preached against will eventually fight back. I know that many people see it the exact opposite way though. They should be referred to with proper labels like: politically correct fools, useful idiots, or willing dupes.

I bet the terrorists would actually love it if America bombed Mecca.

And if the Christians mobilize against the Muslims? How about if all the other religions that Isalm has a seeming problem with start to push back the influence of Islam? If you are advocating religious war on the part of the Muslims, what will stop the other religions (that all get pooped on by Islam) from counter-acting them? Numbers are nice but there are many more Christians than Muslims and the Christians will be able, much easier, to form an alliance with Hindus to take out the Muslims. Every society has Islam trouble, and the idea that people will keep putting up with this Islam trouble is getting tiring. If one side advocates the destruction of another over it's entire life, then just like in the Crusades those being preached against will eventually fight back. I know that many people see it the exact opposite way though. They should be referred to with proper labels like: politically correct fools, useful idiots, or willing dupes.
Ain't gonna happen, jimmyjude. World-wide, Christians do out-number Muslims, but in most countries, they live peaceably side-by-side, and are never going to go to war against Muslims... for one thing, most Christians are now peaceful people who go to war only when actually attacked.

Regarding India, from what I have read in our local paper in the last few years, every so often, Hindus wig out and attack both Christians and Muslims. That being so, an alliance of Hindus and Christians vs Muslims is on the far side of unlikely..

Oh spare me...... if some more terrorist lunatics- like those who bombed London *ahem*- nuked an American city and we nuked Mecca and the **** really hit the fan as a result, as in Muslims worldwide uniting against all us non-Islamic "infidels", then every European country, especially Bush's little lapdog Prime Minister Blair, will be right there fighting with us.

As if the European Union would go to war with the US in defense of Saudi Arabia, LMAO they wouldn't even fight to save their own ass. They'll go where they're told when they're told.

It's shameful that people are posturing as if they'd somehow take the side of Islamic radicals against the US if extremists actually start nuking American OR European cities- and let's not ever forget that it could just as well BE a European city. I mean can we be reasonable here and just admit that no matter how much we were all against the Iraq war, that's really taking it to the next level.

I know if any radiocactive device were set off in my city by some pampered brainwashed Muslim college punk and hurt anyone I care about, I'll fly over to Mecca and drop the bomb myself. And if it happened in London or Sydney I'd feel exactly the same. Let's get real for a minute.

Err you are forgetting one thing. The US bombing Mecca would obviously mean the US is just after cheap, irrational revenge and the government has gone insane.
No sane country would ally with the US after that.

Err you are forgetting one thing. The US bombing Mecca would obviously mean the US is just after cheap, irrational revenge and the government has gone insane.
No sane country would ally with the US after that.

And this is any different from current US policy ?

Ignore our own borders, while invading Middle East countries for the benefit of Israel and the super-rich ... that's also insane.

If certain countries who are known to support terrorism get a hold of a nuclear weapon that is transportable in a regular car/ truck, then they could give one to the terrorists. Who, then sneak it across the open border with Mexico and then the drive to the designated target city. And ... Ka-Boom. No more Chicago, or Washington, or Dallas, or Miami, or ... pick a city.- They won't get their hands on a bomb that big or sophisticated. Nor do I think they feel they need to. A small dirty bomb will probably have the desired symbolic effect.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be horrible, but it would hardly be a major city blown off the map.

And this is any different from current US policy ?

Ignore our own borders, while invading Middle East countries for the benefit of Israel and the super-rich ... that's also insane.
But it can be disguised as something not as bad. Bombing Mecca could never be.

But it can be disguised as something not as bad. Bombing Mecca could never be.

Probably not.

I did just think of something.

If the US does bomb Mecca, would the terrorists respond by bombing the Vatican ? Just to hurt all those Catholics out there ?

Probably not.

I did just think of something.

If the US does bomb Mecca, would the terrorists respond by bombing the Vatican ? Just to hurt all those Catholics out there ?- Jack Chick will bomb the vatican and blame it on all muslims.

In all honesty, someone should have already hired some Buddhists to cleanse Mecca for what was done to their idols.

In all honesty, someone should have already hired some Buddhists to cleanse Mecca for what was done to their idols.

*dons Genghis Khan headgear*

Why should Mecca be off limits? Muslims certainly don't think anybody elses's religious places or icons or property are off limits. It's a viable target, and should even be given priorty.

Oh spare me...... if some more terrorist lunatics- like those who bombed London *ahem*- nuked an American city and we nuked Mecca and the **** really hit the fan as a result, as in Muslims worldwide uniting against all us non-Islamic "infidels", then every European country, especially Bush's little lapdog Prime Minister Blair, will be right there fighting with us.

As if the European Union would go to war with the US in defense of Saudi Arabia, LMAO they wouldn't even fight to save their own ass. They'll go where they're told when they're told.

It's shameful that people are posturing as if they'd somehow take the side of Islamic radicals against the US if extremists actually start nuking American OR European cities- and let's not ever forget that it could just as well BE a European city. I mean can we be reasonable here and just admit that no matter how much we were all against the Iraq war, that's really taking it to the next level.

I know if any radiocactive device were set off in my city by some pampered brainwashed Muslim college punk and hurt anyone I care about, I'll fly over to Mecca and drop the bomb myself. And if it happened in London or Sydney I'd feel exactly the same. Let's get real for a minute.


Yep. Let's see if Mohammed opens up the sky and prevents it from getting bombed.

Why should Mecca be off limits? Muslims certainly don't think anybody elses's religious places or icons or property are off limits. It's a viable target, and should even be given priorty.
So a few Muslims are bad thus we should destroy anything Muslim? Right-o

What exactly is viable about it? Does it have an ICBM launcher built under it?

I hope irrational thinkers such as you never lead the US... oh wait too late.

So a few Muslims are bad thus we should destroy anything Muslim? Right-o

What exactly is viable about it? Does it have an ICBM launcher built under it?

I hope irrational thinkers such as you never lead the US... oh wait too late.
Well said, Banana-King! :nice:

Well said, Banana-King! :nice:

I hear too tight headrags can cause mental illness . Have yall considered one size fits all ? :P

Exactly right, lilnymph! My father fought in WWII for Britain (he came from L'pool), my uncle died in the May blitz of L'pool, and my grandparents lost their house. I hate to see that belittled!


Did they get shot in the back ? :eek7:

So a few Muslims are bad thus we should destroy anything Muslim? Right-o


I check out Muslim rags fairly often, and I read no outrage over attacks on Jewish synagogues, nor do I see where any tears were shed over the Mufti Of Jerusalem's vandalism and damage of the Wailing Wall. I think it would be great to just wipe that rock in the desert off the face of the earth, just to let Muslims get a taste of their own attitudes and know their bullsh*t can go both ways. It's not a big deal to most of the West, and extremely easy to do as well. We can just manufacture a 'terrorist cell' to blame it on, then stone wall and claim we can't find them for a hundred years, blame it on 'a tiny minority of Quakers', and make fake 'apologies' for it.

And if the Christians mobilize against the Muslims? How about if all the other religions that Isalm has a seeming problem with start to push back the influence of Islam? If you are advocating religious war on the part of the Muslims, what will stop the other religions (that all get pooped on by Islam) from counter-acting them? Numbers are nice but there are many more Christians than Muslims and the Christians will be able, much easier, to form an alliance with Hindus to take out the Muslims. Every society has Islam trouble, and the idea that people will keep putting up with this Islam trouble is getting tiring. If one side advocates the destruction of another over it's entire life, then just like in the Crusades those being preached against will eventually fight back. I know that many people see it the exact opposite way though. They should be referred to with proper labels like: politically correct fools, useful idiots, or willing dupes.


Yes, why not? The majority of Muslims already love the idea of 'Holy War', so let's give it a go. It would over really really shortly, as they are fundamentally cowards who prefer to attack unarmed civilian targets, like tourists, or rolling Jews in wheelchairs off of tour ships into the ocean, or firing bazookas into school busses, then filming themselves dancing and hopping around like spastic frogs with joy over their great 'achievements'. As for the desert rats, they are the easiest ot get rid of, just as Saddam Hussien's great 'army' virtually disappeared in smoke literally in a matter of hours. We can always import people to work the wells and pipelines, no real problem there.

I check out Muslim rags fairly often, and I read no outrage over attacks on Jewish synagogues, nor do I see where any tears were shed over the Mufti Of Jerusalem's vandalism and damage of the Wailing Wall. I think it would be great to just wipe that rock in the desert off the face of the earth, just to let Muslims get a taste of their own attitudes and know their bullsh*t can go both ways. It's not a big deal to most of the West, and extremely easy to do as well. We can just manufacture a 'terrorist cell' to blame it on, then stone wall and claim we can't find them for a hundred years, blame it on 'a tiny minority of Quakers', and make fake 'apologies' for it.

let's nuke the whole planet; they don't show sufficient outrage when american soldiers are killed or when when protestors deface american flags.

Yes, why not? The majority of Muslims already love the idea of 'Holy War', so let's give it a go. It would over really really shortly, as they are fundamentally cowards who prefer to attack unarmed civilian targets, like tourists, or rolling Jews in wheelchairs off of tour ships into the ocean, or firing bazookas into school busses, then filming themselves dancing and hopping around like spastic frogs with joy over their great 'achievements'. As for the desert rats, they are the easiest ot get rid of, just as Saddam Hussien's great 'army' virtually disappeared in smoke literally in a matter of hours. We can always import people to work the wells and pipelines, no real problem there.

I don't know if you are being serious, but you are making me laugh out loud literally. Not that it matters, but I like this post.

let's nuke the whole planet; they don't show sufficient outrage when american soldiers are killed or when when protestors deface american flags.


Who said anything about nukes? It's just a frigging rock they're dancing around.

Who knows what kind of explosives those crazed, insane Quakers are liable to use on it. I guess whatever is loaded in the bomb bays of the squadron of bombers the devious devils hijack.

Did they get shot in the back ? :eek7:
Please note, P&M, that I have reported your post insulting my family, as a breach of the TOS.
I check out Muslim rags fairly often, and I read no outrage over attacks on Jewish synagogues, nor do I see where any tears were shed over the Mufti Of Jerusalem's vandalism and damage of the Wailing Wall. I think it would be great to just wipe that rock in the desert off the face of the earth, just to let Muslims get a taste of their own attitudes and know their bullsh*t can go both ways. It's not a big deal to most of the West, and extremely easy to do as well. We can just manufacture a 'terrorist cell' to blame it on, then stone wall and claim we can't find them for a hundred years, blame it on 'a tiny minority of Quakers', and make fake 'apologies' for it.
Yes, Oberon. Manufacturing terrorist cells to blame things on, is a technique that has been used by 'your side' before. I canot believe the insane hatred your post shows.

I'm not much interested in the insane opinions of PLO and Hamas supporters on this issue. Maybe next year.

All can say is I perfectly understand why Quakers would do such a thing, having been driven to madness by their Muslim Oppressors. We should respect and tolerate both sides of the issue, right? Right, because Quakers are human beings too just like Muslims.

It would over really really shortly, as they are fundamentally cowards
I would actually think blowing your self up for what you believe in to not be cowardice. It is the US that are firing missiles from the safety of a boat/plane. Reminds me of that scene in Godfather II.


[about the unrest in Cuba]
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.


As for the desert rats, they are the easiest ot get rid of, just as Saddam Hussien's great 'army' virtually disappeared in smoke literally in a matter of hours.
Let's see you try...

If memory serves, the land hasn't been conquered since Alexander the Great.

That should tell you something.

If memory serves, the land hasn't been conquered since Alexander the Great.



Sorry, Xach, but the middle east has been conquered several times through out history. Alexander being only one of many. The Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, even the Egyptians (pre-Alexander) all beat them down. And even as late as WWI, the entire region was under the same gov't ... the Ottoman Empire.

And during WWII, the entire area was controlled by the British. I was divided up into separate areas for ease of governing, but they were all subjects of the British crown.

Well this is a lovely thread that I'm finally (reluctantly) getting into. According to the logic displayed by the irrational herd, we should react to a nuclear bomb in the USA set off by crazed zealots, who happen to be Muslim, by eliminating the holiest place in their religion. This action, should any administration be stupid enough to carry it out, would set the entire muslim world against us. Oh I know, many of you anti muslim dingbats out there would consider that to be a fixable problem.

Initial results would be: 1. All M.E. oil would cease heading our way. 5 ME countries sit on 2/3 of world's oil. Then there's Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, the "stan" countries, sitting on another 10%...Venezuela, and probably Russia. The country would grind to a halt just like a traffic jam heading out of Houston.

2.America would be considered a pariah by Europe, Russia, India, China. Any country that bombs a Holy site to Billions, many of whom reside in their countries, would face chaos internally if they did not. In the US the moderates, usually silent would join the chaos, and the country would split down the middle. Russia and China and India would fill the gap left by the US's departure from sanity as the new moral arbiters.

3. Terrorism would find new heights. Pakistan would allow it's Nukes to be used against US targets; Israel would be first, and it would respond by blasting back. Nuclear war at last; all because some knee jerk twits couldn't see the larger picture.

I sure hope you guys get seriously vetted before applying for any responsible position in any government.

Ras/Oberon you're enjoying this aren't you?

I would actually think blowing your self up for what you believe in to not be cowardice. It is the US that are firing missiles from the safety of a boat/plane. Reminds me of that scene in Godfather II.

Recruiting the insane to do your dirty work is not 'bravery', it's just sending insane people off to do damage. Ditto sending a bunch of brainwashed children off to bomb busses and whatever. I'm not suprised you think that's 'bravery'.

Let's see you try...

It's already been done, twice. Maybe you missed it, it was on all the TV news reports.

If memory serves, the land hasn't been conquered since Alexander the Great.

That should tell you something.

it was under Turkish rule for centuries, before that Roman, at least parts of it, also Iranian, and British and French in this century.

Well this is a lovely thread that I'm finally (reluctantly) getting into. According to the logic displayed by the irrational herd, we should react to a nuclear bomb in the USA set off by crazed zealots, who happen to be Muslim, by eliminating the holiest place in their religion. This action, should any administration be stupid enough to carry it out, would set the entire muslim world against us. Oh I know, many of you anti muslim dingbats out there would consider that to be a fixable problem.

Nobody is afraid of the 'entire Muslim world', it is mostly still medieval and in many places a stone age way of life.

Initial results would be: 1. All M.E. oil would cease heading our way. 5 ME countries sit on 2/3 of world's oil. Then there's Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, the "stan" countries, sitting on another 10%...Venezuela, and probably Russia. The country would grind to a halt just like a traffic jam heading out of Houston.

Nonsense.

2.America would be considered a pariah by Europe, Russia, India, China. Any country that bombs a Holy site to Billions, many of whom reside in their countries, would face chaos internally if they did not. In the US the moderates, usually silent would join the chaos, and the country would split down the middle. Russia and China and India would fill the gap left by the US's departure from sanity as the new moral arbiters.

More nonsense. And destroying their 'Holy site' would prove to many who merely forced to be Muslim by law that their 'religion' is a farce. There aren't as many Muslims out there as most people think, any more tha all of Europe was really 'Catholic', just because that religion had a monopoly. I doubt even half of them or Muslim by choice, and I'm being generous.

3. Terrorism would find new heights. Pakistan would allow it's Nukes to be used against US targets; Israel would be first, and it would respond by blasting back. Nuclear war at last; all because some knee jerk twits couldn't see the larger picture.

Terrorism has reached 'new heights' already, under trying to reason with religious zealots. They take that as weakness. These 'terrorists' are backed by Muslim govts., and the majority of Muslims cheer them on and support them. Sorry, your fantasy world full of 'reasonable' Muslims doesn't exist, and never did.

And Pakistan has already promoted nuclear terrorism, it began to do so along time ago, and they have already aided in trying to spread that capability to terrorist cells, so grow up; smoking a joint, holding hands, and singing 'We Are The World' isn't going to stop the cretins.

Ras/Oberon you're enjoying this aren't you?

Why not? I think the West and Americans as well should run out into the streeets in big crowds and film ourselves laughing and dancing up and down like spastic frogs every time an Arab or Muslim dies from an Israeli attack, then mail the films to Arab TV stations. LOL

All your 'slippery slope' arguments about the supposed actions of all those countries are too rediculous to answer line by line. Most of those countries would maybe pay lip service to condemning it, but they would be cheering in private, especially Russia, China, India, and a big chunk of Europe, as long as they got their quota of oil.

I don't know if you are being serious, but you are making me laugh out loud literally. Not that it matters, but I like this post.

Which parts do you think aren't serious?

Which parts do you think aren't serious?

If it's serious then I can see why you worship Israel so much. But in Israel there are far cooler heads than yours. No your kind of zealotry is more akin to Osama and Zawahiri and Zarqawi. "They piss me off let's nuke em."

If it's not serious, which I really suspect it isn't it's because you enjoy trolling. Look for something to say that's ludicrously moronic and watch everybody fall all over themselves!

If it's not serious, which I really suspect it isn't it's because you enjoy trolling. Look for something to say that's ludicrously moronic and watch everybody fall all over themselves!

No different than what the majority of Muslims babble every day about Israel, the U.S. and Europe. Euro and American PLO and Hamas sympathizers babble daily ludicrous insanity about appeasing the PLO and Arab Muslims, the usual stupid 'both sides are equally wrong!' and then go on to even crazier stupidity from there. The Arabs, and a majority of Muslims, want a war, period, whether you want to face up to that or not they will insist on one.

The Arabs, and a majority of Muslims, want a war, period, whether you want to face up to that or not they will insist on one.

how did you reach that conclusion?

how did you reach that conclusion?

The last 100 years of Middle East history, and the last 40 years of the 'Islamic revival', which is has led to a big increase of terror attacks not only in Europe and the U.S., but especially in their own countries as well.