Tom Tancredo wants to bomb Muslim Holy Sites

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How exactly would bombing innocent civilians at a holy site damage terrorist networks?

BTW, Tancre-who-is-this-guy and why should we care?

Terrorism is far down the list of our real priorities.

Fear of Terrists is the number one Republican brainwashing machine.

It worked like a champ up until Nov 2006, looks like they are stepping it up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here DM has put his finger on the problem.

The convention wisdom is an eye for an eye prevents violence because I won't smite thee if
I know I will get become the smited in return.

The problem comes when the terrorist strikes and then runs away. Suddenly we can't find the person who needs the smiting. So we smite not the perp but his kinfolk who we can find. As we blame all Muslims for the sins of a very very few. Which then pisses off the set of all Muslims and a very very few are then sufficiently radicalized enough to join the terrorists. Which also tells the terrorist their tactic is working so they are more likely to come back with more attacks.

And the point is the American people got attacked on 911, applied the conventional wisdom,
and suddenly five plus years later get these really disquieting results. We have more and not less terrorists, we have less and not more allies, we are hemorrhaging money and lives, we have lost many of our freedoms, have pissed of 1.4 billion people, and are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. And all these failures are IMPOSSIBLE to avoid noticing.

But what we, the American people, find almost impossible, is to come back and revisit the logic chain that got us into this fine mess.

But good logic should predict results--And we should pick event sequences that lead to favorable results. And suddenly the things that were supposed to cause favorable results are producing unfavorable outcomes. Therefore something in the initial logic was flawed.

HMMMMM---but where? As you can see, I have certain guesses on where we went wrong.
And am left in somewhat despair because quite a few disagree while insisting that is not where the logic failed.

But clearly the logic failed somewhere. Until we can identify that somewhere, we are no where. But as we can see, the cognitive dissonance of being nowhere no longer produces the votes. Even if we are still nowhere on coming to grips with the logic.

Oh my, you sound like Moonie :thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
I wouldn't stop laughing for a solid hour if the US steered a bunker buster right into the Ka'bah.

It would be such a jab in the eye to the enemy, virtually destroying an entire pillar of their religion.

Ah yes, nothing like turning every single Muslim on earth into a terrorist who wants revenge on the US. Are you some kind of moron?

Well, seeing as how Muslims believe that the Ka'bah is protected by Allah (Abraham tried to destroy it once, with an elephant,) hopefully by destroying it we would make them see the error of their faith, and they would all turn into peaceful atheists.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
I wouldn't stop laughing for a solid hour if the US steered a bunker buster right into the Ka'bah.

It would be such a jab in the eye to the enemy, virtually destroying an entire pillar of their religion.

Ah yes, nothing like turning every single Muslim on earth into a terrorist who wants revenge on the US. Are you some kind of moron?

Well, seeing as how Muslims believe that the Ka'bah is protected by Allah (Abraham tried to destroy it once, with an elephant,) hopefully by destroying it we would make them see the error of their faith, and they would all turn into peaceful atheists.

And the world was created in 7 days.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The real question is whether setting off a nuke on Mecca would stop them from setting off a nuke on US soil.

And the answer is no, but they can't play tit for tat as well because the US has more bombs. Just give me a heads up before the games start so I can emmigrate.

Sorry, Moonbeam you're not familiar with even some of the basic Muslim tenets, otherwise you'd not have written that post. Terrorists who bomb are quite accurately basing it upon teachings verbatim from Muhammad (except for the fact they didn't have bombs in the 6th or 7th century).

Does it have to be USA? IRA? And they've definitely targeted plenty of civilians in the past twenty to thirty years.

For the love, people, IRA did not bomb in Christ's name. They were not using the bible to back it up. They bombed in spite of their supposed religion, not because of it. Their motivations were not even ostensibly religious ones. That's like bringing up mcveigh to counter any time somebody says that "terrorists are all from the middle east", which is almost entirely accurate.

I am not familiar with many things. However, I trust my instincts more than I trust your opinion. I do not believe Islam is as you say it is or that the terrorists understand their religion. : nullHere are some words from somebody who I think understands Islam

 

[colonel]

it something funny about the west states

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The real question is whether setting off a nuke on Mecca would stop them from setting off a nuke on US soil.

And the answer is no, but they can't play tit for tat as well because the US has more bombs. Just give me a heads up before the games start so I can emmigrate.

Sorry, Moonbeam you're not familiar with even some of the basic Muslim tenets, otherwise you'd not have written that post. Terrorists who bomb are quite accurately basing it upon teachings verbatim from Muhammad (except for the fact they didn't have bombs in the 6th or 7th century).

Does it have to be USA? IRA? And they've definitely targeted plenty of civilians in the past twenty to thirty years.

For the love, people, IRA did not bomb in Christ's name. They were not using the bible to back it up. They bombed in spite of their supposed religion, not because of it. Their motivations were not even ostensibly religious ones. That's like bringing up mcveigh to counter any time somebody says that "terrorists are all from the middle east", which is almost entirely accurate.

Actually that is incorrect. Killing non-military targets was called cowardice back then. And Arabs were so proud of their bravery they would have never done that. The Quran can be interpreted in anyway a person may want it to so it's necessary to look at history. Laying siege to a city with a civilian presence was acceptable as long as civilians were not targeted what is now known as collateral damage. However, laying siege to kill civilians was unacceptable. Infact, If you look back at the conquest of Mecca, civilians were not harmed.