NationStates Jolt Archive

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html

It's like the death penalty: an excellent deterrant that you pray you never have to employ.

What a stupid idea.

Can't really think of much else to say.

What a silly thing to say. perhaps we should nuke NYC because of the Srebenica massacres?

Better yet, the Vatican too!

That's a silly idea. Punishing hundreds of thousands of Muslims for the actions of some extremists. It would be like nuking the Vatican because a select number of Catholics begin terrorising people.

Plus, like you said, it would just create a whole lot of hate, because after that, it's no longer a 'war on terror' it's an act of prejudice. But then again, after it becomes an act of prejudice, a whole lot of passionate opposition is incredibly just.

edit: which is really just how this whole 'war on terror' thing began, isn't it?

I don't think that would be an intelligent thing to do. If the united states is the target of a nuclear attack by terrorists it wouldn't be worth squandering the support recieved in the aftermath.

It's like the death penalty: an excellent deterrant that you pray you never have to employ.
It's worse than the death penalty: a deterrant that has the reverse effect than the one you have been looking for.

Way to put all Mulims in the same basket. That congressman should be admonished for his words.

"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.

Sounds sensible to me. "Don't blow us up, we'll blow up the only things on this Earth which matter to you."

So, we kill millions of innocent people and piss off the entire muslim world, and that results in the greatest rise of terrorist power in human history. There wouldn't be anymore moderates, because they would all want revenge (and for legitimate reasons for once) against us.

Don't forget that radiation's going to spread fast over the desert and kill even more people than just Mecca residents. (Meccans?).

yeah, coz nukes are always a good idea :rolleyes: . i sincerly hope its just a threat/bluff, and that if the US was nuked (God forbid), it wouldn't respond like that, though given their reaction to 9/11 i wouldn't expect them to stop at mecca. lesson for today kids: using nukes is bad.

Sounds sensible to me. "Don't blow us up, we'll blow up the only things on this Earth which matter to you."

OK, so, the thing you hold most dear has been destroyed. You will not want reenge AT ALL.

1.2 billion Muslims stick the USA in a deathmatch, you want to play the odds?

I think that, if we threatened to nuke their Holy City, we would never have to worry about a nuclear attack here. Therefore, Mecca would never be nuked in the first place, since they wouldn't dare put it at risk.

I think that, if we threatened to nuke their Holy City, we would never have to worry about a nuclear attack here. Therefore, Mecca would never be nuked in the first place, since they wouldn't dare put it at risk.

Riiight. Again people thinking with their Inadequecy Compensation instead of their heads.

America makes even a joking suggestion about taking out Mecca? Bin Ladin and every other Jihadist nut case starts looking more legitimate in the eyes of the Middle East.

Actually nuke Mecca? America is FUCKED.

I think that, if we threatened to nuke their Holy City, we would never have to worry about a nuclear attack here. Therefore, Mecca would never be nuked in the first place, since they wouldn't dare put it at risk.

I think that, if you threatened to nuke their Holy City, you would always have to worry about reprisals. And it's just this sort of thinking that kill a lot more humans than you realize.

I think that, if we threatened to nuke their Holy City, we would never have to worry about a nuclear attack here. Therefore, Mecca would never be nuked in the first place, since they wouldn't dare put it at risk.
The thing is, if you're going to seriously threaten to nuke mecca then you'd better be ready to nuke every major population center in the muslim world. You'd need to in order to reduce the number of enemies you've just created to a reasonable sum.

I'm not sure the US is ready to commit genocide. If we get nuked though, who knows?

I think that, if you threatened to nuke their Holy City, you would always have to worry about reprisals. And it's just this sort of thinking that kill a lot more humans than you realize.

Even threatening such a thing is more than enough to set off the terrorists; think of the response if a Muslim country threatened to nuke the Vatican or Jerusalem. They don't have to ever do it, but only the thought of it happening is enough to cause a backlash.

Interestingly, this may be exactly the mindset behind the Atocha and London bombs: if we can't get at the folk who bombed us, we can always enact some vicarious pay-back against some innocent civilians who look a bit like them. :rolleyes:

Yes let's nuke the peaceful muslims and piss the survivors off eventually turning them into terrorists too!

This congressman needs to get within five feet of a cliff and take six steps forward.

Actually nuke Mecca? America is FUCKED.


I couldn't agree with you more

Oh yes and

Goodbye Oil

That's a silly idea. Punishing hundreds of thousands of Muslims for the actions of some extremists.

Wrong. You punish every Muslim in the world who has not made the pilgrimage. A lot worse.

This a poor idea, at best. The only way to get the terrorists of our backs is relative isolationism. If the fanatical clerics don’t have US soldiers to point at, the US becomes more of a mythical far away land of evil to the people of the Mid-East, and not a reality which they want to blow up.

Oh yes and

Goodbye Oil

Actually we're on the brink of mass producing cars that run of a different energy source (Thanks discovery channel :)). Once that happens and we don't need oil anymore the Middle East is going to become one giant pit of uselessness to us.

I'm not sure the US is ready to commit genocide.

I'm fairly sure there's a sizable percentage of Americans just itching to do just that - and all they're looking for is a vague justification. Thing is, if there's enough armchair Pol Pots out there, the political parties will kowtow to them.

Hey, there's no reconstruction costs involved in wiping a people off the map, now is there? Score one for the genocide lobby. Now with enough support in Congress...

The mere threat of nuking Mecca would help jihadist factions gain support and would almost certainly cause an increase in terrorist attacks. I don't even want to THINK of what would happen if such a course were actually carried out.

I hope someone hit that congressman over the head with a clue hammer. :headbang:

I don't think that would be an intelligent thing to do. If the united states is the target of a nuclear attack by terrorists it wouldn't be worth squandering the support recieved in the aftermath.

Exactly.

There would be no more fool-proof way to lose the "War on Terror" than to nuke Mecca.

Oh, and Israel would likely do anything it could to nuke the U.S. for essentially pushing that country off the edge of a cliff. Israel, after all, will be equally guilty...by association.

Oh yes and

Goodbye Oil

And then some.

If for some dickweed reason America actually does nuke Mecca, here are the fallouts:

1) Bin Ladin and every other Jihadist in the world suddenly become revered as prophets, visionaries, defenders of the Muslim People, what have you on a global scale. Al Qaeda and groups like them can count on every self-respecting Muslim country as safe refuge and recruit regiments out in the open.

2) Even Saudi Arabia couldn't let this one slide, and would expel the American military presence as well as call for The Mother of All Oil Embargoes.

3) America basically declares that "In this war, there are no rules." Literally nuking one of the Five Pillars of Islam will strike an offensive blow into Muslims everywhere that the racist stereotype of "Every Muslim is a Terrorist" will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most if not all of the pissed off Muslims who join up the fight will not hesistate to murder civilians indiscriminately. After all, why hold up to such standards when they just nuked your core beliefs along with thousands if not millions of your fellow Muslims?

4) Pakistan not only pulls out of the War on Terror, they join up with the other side.

5) Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines gains strength on the sympathy vote as well as pointing out how Luzon was practically America's bitch since the end of WW2.

Any more I missed?

The thing is, if you're going to seriously threaten to nuke mecca then you'd better be ready to nuke every major population center in the muslim world. You'd need to in order to reduce the number of enemies you've just created to a reasonable sum.

I'm not sure the US is ready to commit genocide. If we get nuked though, who knows?

Nuking every muslim wont decrease your number of enemies, it'd just start a nuclear world war. Pakistan anyone? and other nuclear powers would surely side with Muslims if they were all being killed. Now more than one country have nukes the idea is that they're just a deterant, no-one would be stupoid enough to use them. a terrorist might (or might not be, i don't know). if its just a threat its a foolish thing to say, there's already an implied threat in the whole nukes as deterents thing. to actually voice it is stupid. but if it were to be carried out, well, all our debates about God and heaven would be solved one way or the other fucking quickly.


Actually we're on the brink of mass producing cars that run of a different energy source (Thanks discovery channel ). Once that happens and we don't need oil anymore the Middle East is going to become one giant pit of uselessness to us.

as it stands the oil industries wouldn't allow it. If it were allowed then the tech would be designed, refined and put into use pretty sharpish.

The problem is some terrorists leaders are not motivated by religion, instead they are motivated by the power religion affords them.

If Mecca were nuked, these terrorist leaders would gain massive support, and power.... they would not care about the religious signifigance of the city or the death of millions

Instead I would publish a list of what will happen if we are nuked, it would include

- A invasion of the terrorist groups nation of origin, as well as every other non-democratic nation in the middle east

- A Detailed description of a carpet bombing raid, and an explaination that the force we have attacked Iraq with was holding back, and that they have yet to see our true military power

Oh yes and

Goodbye Oil

Not saying that this congressmen isn’t an idiot, but its not “goodbye oil” if the US stops getting imports from the Middle East. For one thing, we have quite a reserve built up, and for another thing we only get twenty percent of our oil form the Mid-East. That is still a lot, but by no means, all of it.

Actually we're on the brink of mass producing cars that run of a different energy source (Thanks discovery channel :)). Once that happens and we don't need oil anymore the Middle East is going to become one giant pit of uselessness to us.

We already have electric-powered cars, and for a number of years as well... And they aren't popular whatsoever. Except for that woman who was in Baywatch, who's had one for like, ever (yay for incredibly stupid programs that get repeated every year, =P)

Except in my neighbour hood, where cars have been banned. We totter around in incredibly expensive golf carts. Well WE don't.. People with money do.

And then some.

If for some dickweed reason America actually does nuke Mecca, here are the fallouts:

1) Bin Ladin and every other Jihadist in the world suddenly become revered as prophets, visionaries, defenders of the Muslim People, what have you on a global scale. Al Qaeda and groups like them can count on every self-respecting Muslim country as safe refuge and recruit regiments out in the open.

2) Even Saudi Arabia couldn't let this one slide, and would expel the American military presence as well as call for The Mother of All Oil Embargoes.

3) America basically declares that "In this war, there are no rules." Literally nuking one of the Five Pillars of Islam will strike an offensive blow into Muslims everywhere that the racist stereotype of "Every Muslim is a Terrorist" will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most if not all of the pissed off Muslims who join up the fight will not hesistate to murder civilians indiscriminately. After all, why hold up to such standards when they just nuked your core beliefs along with thousands if not millions of your fellow Muslims?

4) Pakistan not only pulls out of the War on Terror, they join up with the other side.

5) Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines gains strength on the sympathy vote as well as pointing out how Luzon was practically America's bitch since the end of WW2.

Any more I missed?
You missed a big one. The US, knowing the consequences of nuking Mecca, rounds up all of the muslims in the US that it can find, deports them, then begins nuking every large muslim city to protect itself from over a billion enemies. Suddenly becomes the most hated and feared nation in the world and ends up uniting every other nation against itself.

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.
One of the stupidest ideas I've heard - but sadly one that crops up quite often when people decide there must be a simple solution to terrorism.

I suppose some people just think that discarding any semblance of morality in an attempt to fight terrorism is in some way NOT admitting defeat and allowing the terrorists to make you surrender your way of life - if you see what I mean.

This congressman is clearly an idiot. If you are the victim of brutality then it's better to stay the offended party than to make yourself a global pariah in this way. Please tell me no-one's going to make this man President? I thought we'd hit bottom there already...

I'm all for bombing the Vatican. They are the most corrupt organisation in the world!! The have MILLIONS of pounds worth of STOLEN art, but don't nuke anyone. If anyone nukes anyone we're all fucked! you either get the radiation drifting (like the welsh did after chenoble) or mutual destruction. How can that be good? I'm all for Verbal reasoning with the People who feel it nessasery to blow things up, because they obviously feel strongly that what we (the western world) are doing is wrong. I am inclined to agree. We hace no business in Iraq, Afganistan or any other country that doesn't attack us first! I'm not saying terrorism is the solution, I'm saying neither is Bush and blairs aproach of, 'we are God and can Police the world therefore'.

Finally, NUKES ARE ALWAYS WRONG AND STUPID!! THEY WILL KILL US ALL IF WE USE THEM!!!!

In my opinion, an attack on Mecca is a blatantly absurd and reprehensibly stupid idea.
Even worse that it was uttered aloud. Even worse it was on a public radio show.

I dont see Mecca as being the headquarters of those who are against the US. And as has been stated several times before on this thread, that would likely only to serve to radically increase the number of our enemies, the frequency and violence of their attacks against us. It would solidify many muslims, as 9/11 solidified the resolve of Amercians.

No-this would be a poor response to attacks by terrorists against our cities. Efforts to identify and confirm supporters of terrorism would make more sense. locating and neutralizing the recruiters & trainers. Cutting off their finances, information and supplies.

Bin Ladin and every other Jihadist nut case starts looking more legitimate in the eyes of the Middle East.


Well Said, and G_D knows America has already done enough to encourage this already.

The human race has developed technologies that it does not have the moral quality to control.

Perhaps one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen. If it's a joke, it's crap. If it's serious, then people really need to reconsider who they vote for.

you n00k me, i n00k you, hahahaha


is not a good policy

The idea is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve any laughter. If there's really such an attack on Mecca or anywhere in Saudi Arabia (who, by the way, is an American ally) by the United States, the American armed forces can say a long goodbye to foreign bases in the area. However, in the end, it's just like the threat by some Chinese general in the back - anyone with even the basic sense of international affairs will realize that it's overly foolish even as merely an idea.

Oh, don't forget, they should ship some nukes to every country around North Korea. And let's bombard the whole of Asia if Mr. Kim Jong Il does attack. /sarcasm

Perhaps one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen. If it's a joke, it's crap. If it's serious, then people really need to reconsider who they vote for.

I live in Colorado (where Tancredo's from...) and I DIDN'T VOTE for him! Pretty easy, considering that he represents a different district, tho. And yes, it's an actual quote. He was on a radio show in Florida IIRC...

This guy has a serious case of 'foot in mouth' disease and his spouting off makes Coloradans look like ignorant rednecks to the rest of the country. :rolleyes: Even if you do agree with him on immigration and border security, he just can't seem to keep the idiotic comments for rolling off his tongue...

I live in Colorado (where Tancredo's from...) and I DIDN'T VOTE for him! Pretty easy, considering that he represents a different district, tho. And yes, it's an actual quote. He was on a radio show in Florida IIRC...

This guy has a serious case of 'foot in mouth' disease and his spouting off makes Coloradans look like ignorant rednecks to the rest of the country. :rolleyes: Even if you do agree with him on immigration and border security, he just can't seem to keep the idiotic comments for rolling off his tongue...

Didn't mean to cause offence to Coloradans, it was pointed at the people who did vote for him.

I'm all for bombing the Vatican. They are the most corrupt organisation in the world!! The have MILLIONS of pounds worth of STOLEN art,
flame-bait

Nuking Mecca would do little more than create new enemies for us and empower the American Left, but I would have no problems with creating a few more Hiroshimas in Iran if OBL and Co. decide to slaughter millions of Americans.

Not even Robert Macnamra, well...yeah not even he would suggest that.

I'll just go ahead and say it ...

Any nation, including the US, who nukes Mecca becomes my enemy. I would even take up arms against my own country for such an action. That would be officially declaring war on Islam, all of Islam, and is cause - according to Qur'an - for ceaseless war. All bets are off. No holds barred. All out war.

Nuke Mecca and the criminals that did so would never be to claim they were fighting for hearts and minds instead of world dominance. Not that some of the more enlightened havent noticed this anyway, but nevermind. :p

Nuke Mecca and the criminals that did so would never be to claim they were fighting for hearts and minds instead of world dominance. Not that some of the more enlightened havent noticed this anyway, but nevermind. :p
Devil's advocate here.

It's not for world domination, but rather because we're faced with an enemy who's goal is to destroy us and who values nothing except his religion. If he's going to threaten our existance we need to threaten the only thing he holds sacred.

I cannot express my disgust at this suggestion. Even the thought of destroying the most sacred site of a religion - one that, in the great majority, is followed by peaceful and honorable citizens of nations around the world - for simplistic political and inexplicably ignorant and bigoted reasons fills my soul with a wholly inexpressable urge to vomit.

Personally, even though I myself am Christian, I think there is enough misunderstanding and mistreatment of Muslims anyway without going so far as to demonize their entire religion. My mother once spoke to and evangelical Christian minister in our area that said that Muslims and Islam were the most evil things in the world. Really obeys "Love thy neighbor as thyself," huh?

I think more people should read (especially fundamentalist evangelical Christians, since they are the main perpetrators of anti-Muslim propaganda and hate in the US), in the Qur'an, surah 1 verse 62: "The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians - all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve."

Food for thought.

Hmm, and I always thought the logical response to having your city threatened with nuclear reprisal is to NOT commit the act which would induce said reprisal...

Devil's advocate here.

It's not for world domination, but rather because we're faced with an enemy who's goal is to destroy us and who values nothing except his religion. If he's going to threaten our existance we need to threaten the only thing he holds sacred.

Mecca isnt the only thing they hold sacred, if it was people wouldnt be terrorists as Mecca is not under threat. The thing these people hold most sacred is their place in heaven and what better way of achieving this would there be than avenging the destruction of Mecca? If there was an attack on Mecca not only would almost every Muslim hate us, every single person with half a mind for terrorism would fight Jihad against us.

Oh heavens no. If we nuked Mecca, the rest would have to go, then where would we get oil? Then there is of course the fact that we'll be killing off all the reasonable Muslims as well, and any reasonable Muslims would immediately become murdering fanatics, leaving us with only the murdering fanatics who don't live in the cities, but places no one else will live. There is a good reason Al Qaeda hid in the mountains of Afghanistan; you could send as many nukes as you wanted in there, and still probably not wipe them out. Then there is of course the fact that it's still MORALLY WRONG, and that stooping to the level of our enemy wouldn't help matters either.

I think more people should read (especially fundamentalist evangelical Christians, since they are the main perpetrators of anti-Muslim propaganda and hate in the US), in the Qur'an, surah 1 verse 62: "The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians - all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve."
shouldn't muslim terrorists read it too?

Not to mention that, if we nuked Mecca, we OURSELVES would be the murdering fanatics.

And not all Muslims are Jihadists.

They have their extremeists and fundementalists. We have ours. Perhaps we need to try and stop them, too.

I'll just go ahead and say it ...

Any nation, including the US, who nukes Mecca becomes my enemy. I would even take up arms against my own country for such an action. That would be officially declaring war on Islam, all of Islam, and is cause - according to Qur'an - for ceaseless war. All bets are off. No holds barred. All out war.


Would you become a suicide bomber?

shouldn't muslim terrorists read it too?

Yes, but, unfortunately, the only choices we can make are ours.

The idea of hurting Mecca is silly- they have supported many good bands in the past- including recordings of The Beatles and Elvis. Also Liverpool FC would be nowhere without Macca and his tricky midfield trickery and long hair.

Iwannaland

Doesn't the nuclear deterrent only work if you're afraid of dying? 'Cos it doesn't seem like these extremists are too concerned about it overall.

And not all Muslims are Jihadists.

If thats aimed at me Im aware of that, notice my comment on anyone with half a mind for terrorism would join Jihad.

Would you become a suicide bomber?

No.

Hmm, and I always thought the logical response to having your city threatened with nuclear reprisal is to NOT commit the act which would induce said reprisal...

Two points on this:

1] The terrorists don't care about Mecca. OBL and his ilk have been declared non-Muslim and cannot get into Mecca in the first place. Only Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca.

2] Muslims are not afraid of such things. Threats are meaningless. We fear none except Allah.

The thing is, if you're going to seriously threaten to nuke mecca then you'd better be ready to nuke every major population center in the muslim world. You'd need to in order to reduce the number of enemies you've just created to a reasonable sum.

I'm not sure the US is ready to commit genocide. If we get nuked though, who knows?

Hell be prepared for rioting in AMERICAN streets and cival war! I know I'm not the only one who WILL NOT tolerate this sort of shit from my country.

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html
No! Worst idea ever!

Hell be prepared for rioting in AMERICAN streets and cival war! I know I'm not the only one who WILL NOT tolerate this sort of shit from my country.
but after a nuke to one of your major cities? The US doesn't have a good record at turning the other cheek.

but after a nuke to one of your major cities? The US doesn't have a good record at turning the other cheek.

Two things that must be noticed here is that the actions of America quite often to do not reflect the will of its people and anyone with an IQ above that of George Bush (that must be what, 99% of the population over the age of 3?) would realise Mecca was not responsible.

I don't think that would be an intelligent thing to do. If the united states is the target of a nuclear attack by terrorists it wouldn't be worth squandering the support recieved in the aftermath.


Not to affend anny americans but I dont truly think to many countries would come to there aid. I feel that they have to much "world wide hate" even by countries who are allied with them. for example the only country that helped them in Iraq was Briten all the other thought it was a stuped idea.


I feel the United States will be attacked agan but not with weapons of mas desrtruction but more car bombings linke what happend in London Englend recently it wont be anny more attacked on the government it will be on the country itself.

but after a nuke to one of your major cities? The US doesn't have a good record at turning the other cheek.
Hell, I and others were calling for a nuclear reprisal after 9/11. Imagine if a nuclear weapon vaporised half of an American city. I'm pretty sure a few cities would glow in the dark by the time we're done.

Two things that must be noticed here is that the actions of America quite often to do not reflect the will of its people and anyone with an IQ above that of George Bush (that must be what, 99% of the population over the age of 3?) would realise Mecca was not responsible.



He has a 120 IQ if I remember correctly. Not brilliant, certainly, but it is kinda decent.


90-110 Average
110-120 Above average
120-130 Highly intelligent
130-140 Gifted, appearing to be genius
140-150 Genius
160+ Just higher degrees of genius


I haven't seen the scale in a while so my depiction might be slightly inaccurate, but that's the gist of it.

Hell, I and others were calling for a nuclear reprisal after 9/11. Imagine if a nuclear weapon vaporised half of an American city. I'm pretty sure a few cities would glow in the dark by the time we're done.

So anyone who does so needs to do it several times in one go to make sure they dont respond right? :D

Would you become a suicide bomber?

well now, isn't that bigoted?

So anyone who does so needs to do it several times in one go to make sure they dont respond right? :D
Yeah. If you're going to nuke us you'd better be sure you can finish the job.

He has a 120 IQ if I remember correctly. Not brilliant, certainly, but it is kinda decent.


90-110 Average
110-120 Above average
120-130 Highly intelligent
130-140 Gifted, appearing to be genius
140-150 Genius
160+ Just higher degrees of genius


I haven't seen the scale in a while so my depiction might be slightly inaccurate, but that's the gist of it.

Thats American IQ though lol, British is different. I have a higher IQ than him

Yeah. If you're going to nuke us you'd better be sure you can finish the job.

That will take a few more years. Can anyone lend me a few billion pounds? :D

but after a nuke to one of your major cities? The US doesn't have a good record at turning the other cheek.

Fuck the US. The people who our leaders have forgoten will not stand for this.

Two points on this:

1] The terrorists don't care about Mecca. OBL and his ilk have been declared non-Muslim and cannot get into Mecca in the first place. Only Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca.

2] Muslims are not afraid of such things. Threats are meaningless. We fear none except Allah.




Ah, it is true that we (Jews/Christians/Muslims) do believe the following:

Matthew 10:28 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.





Still, it would be a hinderance to the pilgrimage would it not?

Thats American IQ though lol, British is different. I have a higher IQ than him



I'm sure most of us do :D

Not to affend anny americans but I dont truly think to many countries would come to there aid. I feel that they have to much "world wide hate" even by countries who are allied with them. for example the only country that helped them in Iraq was Briten all the other thought it was a stuped idea.


I feel the United States will be attacked agan but not with weapons of mas desrtruction but more car bombings linke what happend in London Englend recently it wont be anny more attacked on the government it will be on the country itself.

The world has seen what nuclear weapons do. I don't care where you are, but if a nuke goes off today anywhere those who set it off aren't going to be looked at with smiles and happy faces.

I honestly think that if a nuke or bio weapon ever did go off in a major population center and caused more than a few thousand deaths (the WTC killed 3000 people and we invade 2x countries) all bets are off. I would not be surprised that if a nuke killed a million+ Americans the US responce would be catastrophic destroying , Mecca, Medina, Terhan,and others with convetional strikes at the Dome of the Rock. US would be like a angry snake lashing out in all directions. My nightmare scenario wou be a dna specific bioweapon that killed Arabs.



The thing is, if you're going to seriously threaten to nuke mecca then you'd better be ready to nuke every major population center in the muslim world. You'd need to in order to reduce the number of enemies you've just created to a reasonable sum.

I'm not sure the US is ready to commit genocide. If we get nuked though, who knows?

Isn't it possible, under the wording of the second amendment to kill this guy. The whole 'well-being of the state' bit. It'd be a fun one to argue in court.

Still, it would be a hinderance to the pilgrimage would it not?

Yeah ... I'd say it'd put a damper on it, nod.

My nightmare scenario wou be a dna specific bioweapon that killed Arabs.

Good thing only 12% of the world's Muslims are Arabs. :) There would still be 1.3+ billion Muslims in the world.

Drop nuetron bombs all over the middle-east and start over.

Drop nuetron bombs all over the middle-east and start over.

Does that include Israel and Turkey?

Still, it would be a hinderance to the pilgrimage would it not?

Better idea would be to have someone sneak in around a hundred dirty bombs and make the city glow, they can't go to the city if they die of Radiation poisoning before entering, and best of all the US can blame other terrorsts.

Heck give someone 6 tons of C4 and have spread throughout the city, and give demands like for 'such and such terrorist group stand down or we'll blow up (Insert Monument here).

No one take this seriously.

Didn't mean to cause offence to Coloradans, it was pointed at the people who did vote for him.

None taken, none taken. He makes us all look like morons and all we can do is roll our eyes and say, "Who's the idiot who put him in office again?"

Question - Where are these 'Terrorists' going to get a nuclear weapon? Second how is the US going to deliver it's Nuclear bomb to Mecca? By airplane? the US would be going up against F-16s, 18s some of the best radar in the world and SAMs, not obsolete Migs. If they decide to use an ICBM, well China and Russia will launch theirs and then the whole question is moot as EVERYONE in the world will be dead.

Question - Where are these 'Terrorists' going to get a nuclear weapon? Second how is the US going to deliver it's Nuclear bomb to Mecca? By airplane? the US would be going up against F-16s, 18s some of the best radar in the world and SAMs, not obsolete Migs. If they decide to use an ICBM, well China and Russia will launch theirs and then the whole question is moot as EVERYONE in the world will be dead.

There are well documented cases of Weapons Grade Plutonium going missing from former Soviet Nuclear plant. The rumours in the press in Europe a year or so ago were that MI6 / CIA / Mossad were actively engaged in tracking down groups offering ex Soviet warheads for sale.

Not all the Soviet Warheads can be accounted for, this may be a case of poor accounting / exaggeration of numbers by the Soviets during the cold war or it may be that they have been appropriated by parties unknown.

Cruise missiles or a single ICBM would be my preferred delivery method. China and / or Russia would not be threatened by a weapon targetted on the Middle East, so there would be no reason for them to retaliate.

All that being said it is possibly the most stupid, pointless and counter productive suggestion I have ever heard. Bearing in mind how the USA went from having the entire world's sympathy following September 11th (even Iran offered messages of sympathy and support) and within 18 months were even more unpopular than at any other time in history, can anyone imagine the international hatred that would be engendered if such an act were even considered. Sheer utter madness.

Better idea would be to have someone sneak in around a hundred dirty bombs and make the city glow, they can't go to the city if they die of Radiation poisoning before entering, and best of all the US can blame other terrorsts.

Heck give someone 6 tons of C4 and have spread throughout the city, and give demands like for 'such and such terrorist group stand down or we'll blow up (Insert Monument here).

No one take this seriously.
I'm not seriously advocating this, but....

Create GM smallpox and a vaccine that is effective against it. Hit Mecca with smallpox, close the borders, immunize the US population and that of our alllies, watch the rest of the world sicken and die.

Now you know why I'm not seriously advocating this.

Question - Where are these 'Terrorists' going to get a nuclear weapon? Second how is the US going to deliver it's Nuclear bomb to Mecca? By airplane? the US would be going up against F-16s, 18s some of the best radar in the world and SAMs, not obsolete Migs. If they decide to use an ICBM, well China and Russia will launch theirs and then the whole question is moot as EVERYONE in the world will be dead.
Submarine launched balistic missile from the Mediterranian? By the time launch is detected the missile has already hit and China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Europe, etc. know they're not targets so they won't launch at the USA.

He's a congressman, which means people voted for him... scary.

I'm not seriously advocating this, but....

Create GM smallpox and a vaccine that is effective against it. Hit Mecca with smallpox, close the borders, immunize the US population and that of our alllies, watch the rest of the world sicken and die.

Now you know why I'm not seriously advocating this.

Hell, you just solved the population crisis.

OK, so, the thing you hold most dear has been destroyed. You will not want reenge AT ALL.

1.2 billion Muslims stick the USA in a deathmatch, you want to play the odds?

Yeah, because we've got the fucking nukes. Your point is fair, now that I consider it - it would be unwise because retribution would be demanded by all surviving Muslims - but to suggest anyone else will come out on top = insanity.

Not to affend anny americans but I dont truly think to many countries would come to there aid. I feel that they have to much "world wide hate" even by countries who are allied with them. for example the only country that helped them in Iraq was Briten all the other thought it was a stuped idea.

Actually there were 44 countries at the start. And if anyone wasn't using the UN for their own ends, there would have been a 'legal' war (I love that term. The concept is so laughable.) anyway, seeing as every single shot fired at Western aircraft was an act of war in and of itself. But Europe likes the oil more than getting Iraq sorted out quickly and forcefully.

Ok. Let's imagine this...
EDIT: By the way, I'm serious!

1. A truck carrying a warhead from an old Kazakh mid-range missile explodes in Manhattan while in a traffic jam. Millions die.

2. US is outraged and shocked beyond belief. Bush has completely gone nuts and literally screams into the microphone at the news conference while tears run down his face. He keeps using the word "revenge" and even "final victory" has found a way into his "speech". The Journalists applaud.

3. Bush gives "The Terrorists" 24 hours to deliver Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri etc and threatens to nuke Mecca. The only American outraged by this is Michael Moore, who the same night is found dead in his hotel room.

4. After 24 hours of no response (other than desperate pleas by nations around the globe not to do it), the US launches an ICBM with a 1MT warhead. Mecca is turned into a crater, about a million or so people die then and later on.

5. The Arab world is stunned. Literally billions of people demonstrate, in Europe, in the Middle East, in Russia, in China, in South America, in Canada, in Australia.

6. All members of NATO immediatly leave the alliance, multiple former allies (Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Egypt etc...) freeze all relations with the US.

7. Two days later a huge uprising forces US troops out of several suburbs of Baghdad, hundreds of demonstrators are killed, as are a number of soldiers. The uprising continues as the US loses control over Iraq. To stop this, Bush authorises the use of lethal and overwhelming force against the population. MOABs start falling.

8. At the UN all member states agree on a resolution condemning US actions and imposing an embargo and other sanctions. The US vetoes, the rest of the world goes ahead anyways. One exception is Israel.

9. Economic collapse looms, but especially Chinese manipulation of their massive amounts of US currency breaks the US completely, all the while Saudi Arabia has pulled out the last of its' trillions of dollars of investment, leaving the US on its' knees.

10. What happens next? I have no idea, but I think it'll have something to do with explosives...

Yeah, because we've got the fucking nukes. Your point is fair, now that I consider it - it would be unwise because retribution would be demanded by all surviving Muslims - but to suggest anyone else will come out on top = insanity.


That is assuming that ONLY muslims will be pissed off by the US government nuking a populated city.

Also by doing that the US would end up in a state of war with Suadi Arabia.
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Oman, Morrocco, Algeria, Sudan, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, Singapore and the U.A.E. would almost all instantly join in on the Saudi's side. Then all of their allies would be forced to go to war with the US. NATO would be split because it cannot defend both the US and Turkey and most member nations would be pressured to side against the US because they just nuked several million civilians. So the conflict becomes the United States of America vs. the rest of the world.

Now who would win that fight?

Ans. No one, Nuclear Holocaust

The large part of Muslims are against terrorism because they experience it first hand everyday in various forms, so there's no reason in labelling them as terrorist or terrorist supporters. Because Muslims are against the American led Iraqi war, it doesn’t mean they support Zarqawi. By, bombing Mecca, America will definitely lose any support against terrorists from the Muslim world, second, the majority moderate Muslims will defiantly side with extremists, seeing the bombing of Mecca is based on religious war. Out of shock, European nations will probably condemn either attacks (America being nuked and Mecca being nuked) and will act as neutral or mediators. Non-Islamic Asian and African countries will also condemn on either attacks but will try to be "friendly" with their restless angry Muslim neighbours, or the vast Muslim minorities within their nations. South American countries again would be sidelined in world events, besides, most Central and South Americans have a long history of distrust against the American government for the way it involves itself in their affairs. It’s funny, considering how the Iraqi mess has not been learned yet because the same folks (behind the Iraq war) want a repeat, only this war will pit Muslims against America, and no Western nation wants to get involved, except probably Australia.

i think you should nuke while the holy city is most full.
then you get rid of the most muslims
then deal with iran cause it possibly has nukes
then move them all out of western counties and put them all in saudia arabia bulid a brick wall around the country and then you will of stopped terrorism from an annoying religion which cannot get on with other religions and blaming them for what is happening

i think you should nuke while the holy city is most full.
then you get rid of the most muslims
then deal with iran cause it possibly has nukes
then move them all out of western counties and put them all in saudia arabia bulid a brick wall around the country and then you will of stopped terrorism from an annoying religion which cannot get on with other religions and blaming them for what is happening

And next week I'll be finding a cure for cancer and reversing global warming :rolleyes:

The large part of Muslims are against terrorism because they experience it first hand everyday in various forms, so there's no reason in labelling them as terrorist or terrorist supporters. Because Muslims are against the American led Iraqi war, it doesn’t mean they support Zarqawi. By, bombing Mecca, America will definitely lose any support against terrorists from the Muslim world, second, the majority moderate Muslims will defiantly side with extremists, seeing the bombing of Mecca is based on religious war. Out of shock, European nations will probably condemn either attacks (America being nuked and Mecca being nuked) and will act as neutral or mediators. Non-Islamic Asian and African countries will also condemn on either attacks but will try to be "friendly" with their restless angry Muslim neighbours, or the vast Muslim minorities within their nations. South American countries again would be sidelined in world events, besides, most Central and South Americans have a long history of distrust against the American government for the way it involves itself in their affairs. It’s funny, considering how the Iraqi mess has not been learned yet because the same folks (behind the Iraq war) want a repeat, only this war will pit Muslims against America, and no Western nation wants to get involved, except probably Australia.
thats where you are wrong as soon as america acts the rest of the world follows and why would europe fear muslims they could easily be dealt with

And next week I'll be finding a cure for cancer and reversing global warming :rolleyes:

i know three great things
the end of islam a cure for cancer and thee end of global warming

That is assuming that ONLY muslims will be pissed off by the US government nuking a populated city.

Also by doing that the US would end up in a state of war with Suadi Arabia.
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Oman, Morrocco, Algeria, Sudan, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, Singapore and the U.A.E. would almost all instantly join in on the Saudi's side. Then all of their allies would be forced to go to war with the US. NATO would be split because it cannot defend both the US and Turkey and most member nations would be pressured to side against the US because they just nuked several million civilians. So the conflict becomes the United States of America vs. the rest of the world.

Now who would win that fight?

Ans. No one, Nuclear Holocaust

tacos bells nato is hardly ever active.
also those counties really could nt deal with russia america United kingdom france germany japan china canada india

also why the fuck would Indonesia join the arabs
in indonesia the majority religion is christianity

also why the fuck would Indonesia join the arabs
in indonesia the majority religion is christianity

9% > 89%? Uh-huh. Master the basic maths before trying international politics.


EDIT: 'Commandos 3'. Hmmm. Any connection to Commando3?

also why the fuck would Indonesia join the arabs
in indonesia the majority religion is christianity
The majority of indonesians would be very surprised to hear that.

tacos bells nato is hardly ever active.
also those counties really could nt deal with russia america United kingdom france germany japan china canada india
Jesus H. Christ, mate, what are you on today?
In the case of a nuclear attack by the US on Mecca
Russia - would maybe side with the US, but seeing how many countries would be against it, Putin may very well decide that his better bet is with his axis Paris-Berlin-Moscow.
UK - Would never halp with a Holocaust like that.
France - Are you kidding? They're more likely to fire their nukes at the Americans than the Arabs.
Germany - Goes along with France.
Japan - They can't really help much, and their constitution is against using force overseas.
China - Why would the Chinese jeopardise themselves? They'd probably side with the Arabs and get as much oil as they can.
Canada - Depends on what Government is in, but at no time would they want to be involved in a Holocaust.
India - India has millions and millions of Muslims themselves, and they'd have to be the Front Line against Pakistan. I don't think they would commit suicide for American illusions of grandeur.

So we've got some angry Muslims able to cause damage to major western cities. These Muslims believe that martydom will earn them an eternity in paradise, and their leaders wish to cause as much damage to western civilisation as they can possibly manage.

Oh, yeah, threatening to bomb Mecca is a great move. Osama must have thought all his birthdays had come at once when he read that gem.

As soon as a Nuclear weapon is detonated in an American City by Al-Queda, i will kiss my life goodbye.. and im British.

I have studied american politics, if 4 + million (thats 4,000,000!!!) Americans die due to a nuclear weapon being set off in the States, America WILL launch Nukes at the middle east.. it wont be politically correct, it wont even be sane.. It will be a massive super power EXTREMELY pissed off..

everyone saying you will declare war on the muslim religion, newsflash for you, yes there is alot of muslims, but you can not and WOULD NOT win agains't the US, Yes muslims outnumber them, but quite frankly if 4 million Americans died, the entire US population would lynch mob every single arab they could find for starters, Mecca would be turned into desert, then probably most of the middle east would follow into nuclear devastation.

America would seal all borders, export all muslims, and go on full battle alert and be ready for a final fight to the death agains't everyone and anyone.

Europe would never *DARE* attack the United States, they would condemn them but thats it. China probably wouldn't care, Russia is in no fit state to do anything.

Terroism will rise through the roof (though at that point its no longer Terroism in my opinion, its a just cause).

The end result would be World War 3, and the population of earth would more than likely be reduced from 6-7 billion to about 500 million

Not even Robert Macnamra, well...yeah not even he would suggest that.

Well, I for myself have wrote an essay about Kennedy and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis (McNamara was his Secretary of Defense at that time).
I think that McNamara would be horrified if he heard such a utterly idiotic remark made by a mad ignorant congressman.
The only way to effectively combat terrorism, in my eyes, is to encourage thoroughly all the democrats in the Middle East, the moderates, and to little by little engage in a democratisation and a secularisation of that region.
However, it is also of utmost importance that all those terrorist organisations are fought not only by the West, but also by those Mid East nations such as Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia: and furthermore, it would help if the religious leaders preached peace and tolerance to their followers (as I would think they would) and clearly show that those people have nothing to do with the Islamic faith.
Finally, I would say that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to the fight against islamist fundamentalism: I do sincerely believe that only a true and fair and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians would greatly decrease the threat of terrorism, let's all hope that it will one day be realised.

i think you should nuke while the holy city is most full.
then you get rid of the most muslims
So why again are we trying to kill as many innocentts as possible? Funny, it almost sounds a bit like what the terrorists do.

If United States nukes Mecca USA will be destroy, all the Muslims and Muslims country’s will go to war with USA.
I hope that it don’t happen, all the Muslims in this world with died defending Mecca and Islam.
Islamic can’t be stop and it will not me stop this world will become Muslims one day. If USA nukes Mecca USA will be crushed to it knees.

Allah Ekber
Long live Islam and Muslims
Death to Israel
Death to Jews
Long live Hitler and Nazi
Long live Bosnia and Bosnian Muslims
Long live Yasser Arafat
Victory to Islam
Victory to Palestine

Allah Ekber long live Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are Muslim would you give you life you Islam? <<<Yes i would>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that include Israel and Turkey?

is that ironical or a sign of utter shock at the ignorance of the precedent post?

is that ironical or a sign of utter shock at the ignorance of the precedent post?



I will don the mantle of Grammar Cop, as I have lost my sanity from this: It's ironic ;)

If United States nukes Mecca USA will be destroy, all the Muslims and Muslims country’s will go to war with USA.
I hope that it don’t happen, all the Muslims in this world with died defending Mecca and Islam.
Islamic can’t be stop and it will not me stop this world will become Muslims one day. If USA nukes Mecca USA will be crushed to it knees.

Allah Ekber
Long live Islam and Muslims
Death to Israel
Death to Jews
Long live Hitler and Nazi
Long live Bosnia and Bosnian Muslims
Long live Yasser Arafat
Victory to Islam
Victory to Palestine

Allah Ekber long live Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are Muslim would you give you life you Islam? <<<Yes i would>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Hey! Just a minute now, this is outrag........oh, you never said death to Christians. Ok, carry on :D

I will don the mantle of Grammar Cop, as I have lost my sanity from this: It's ironic ;)


thanks, feeling confused sometimes :)

Hmm...Nuke the nukers? That's like if Fire Departments fought fires with gasoline, the States are just going to aggravate more extremists and Non-Violent Muslims to resort to extreme measures as retaliation. Maybe the U.S. should just raise their security...if thats even possible, I think they've used their last resort.:p Watch them put snipers in buildings around all major public areas next. :sniper:

If United States nukes Mecca USA will be destroy, all the Muslims and Muslims country’s will go to war with USA.
I hope that it don’t happen, all the Muslims in this world with died defending Mecca and Islam.
Islamic can’t be stop and it will not me stop this world will become Muslims one day. If USA nukes Mecca USA will be crushed to it knees.

Sorry bro, too many Americans have guns and equipment to deal with nukes. And that's just the general population. Most do have better equipment than the military. Sure you'll get some of us but the rest will be striking back. How do you handle that? You don't.

To sum that all up:

It's Tom Tancredo. Really, is this any surprise coming from him? Bastard idiot. Maybe some immigrants should go and bomb his house because of his attacks against them?

Idiot. :rolleyes:

I find it funny when everyone says, well the US is bound to lose agains't that many people.. erm newsflash, US is number one power both militarily and more importantly patriotically.

Also, the US will NOT accept losing as an option... see below

to sum this all up more like

Islamic Extremists/Terroists nuke US
US Nukes Mecca
Islam goes full out war agains't US
US hands Islamic religion its ass (while getting its ass burnt)
Islam wiped out (in the sense of not lots of worshippers left)
USA is in a state of depression and ruin, alot of muslims hung and killed by US citizens
USA beats muslims and kills/deports them all from US soil, and possibly wipes out middle east... US wins
US starts to lose to muslim population and outside help, they unleash nuclear hell... No one wins

2 choices, US wins, or everyone loses... pe

rsonally im hoping for the US

To sum that all up:

It's Tom Tancredo. Really, is this any surprise coming from him? Bastard idiot. Maybe some immigrants should go and bomb his house because of his attacks against them?

Idiot. :rolleyes:

Well I assume he lives in the same US that I do. Last time I checked we still use the constitution. Which means he has freedom of speech. That means freedom to say stupid crap. It protects Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and that idiot Senator that compared US troops to Nazis. I wouldnt advocate violence against anyone exercising there freedom of speech.

Well I assume he lives in the same US that I do. Last time I checked we still use the constitution. Which means he has freedom of speech. That means freedom to say stupid crap. It protects Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and that idiot Senator that compared US troops to Nazis. I wouldnt advocate violence against anyone exercising there freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you a blank check to yell "Fire!" (or "Bomb!") in a crowded theater when there isn't any. Knowing well that Islam has its share of extremist fuckwards looking for the slightest pretense to go apeshit and justify those actions the asshole should have known better.

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you a blank check to yell "Fire!" (or "Bomb!") in a crowded theater when there isn't any. Knowing well that Islam has its share of extremist fuckwards looking for the slightest pretense to go apeshit and justify those actions the asshole should have known better.



As should have Newsweek and its fallacious report on Gitmo. Way to enflame the Muslim world :rolleyes:

Freedom of Speech doesn't give you a blank check to yell "Fire!" (or "Bomb!") in a crowded theater when there isn't any. Knowing well that Islam has its share of extremist fuckwards looking for the slightest pretense to go apeshit and justify those actions the asshole should have known better.


Yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal actually. Yeah he should know better i agree. But what can you do.

As should have Newsweek and its fallacious report on Gitmo. Way to enflame the Muslim world :rolleyes:

Oh God we should have kept the details of actual events from public knowledge instead of giving the Muslim Extremists a field day of justifications to continue bombing the shit out of us!!

Newsweek didn't retract the story because they were false- if anything they were later confirmed. They were retracted because the Bushevik Party squeezed Newsweek for the retraction.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh God we should have kept the details of actual events from public knowledge instead of giving the Muslim Extremists a field day of justifications to continue bombing the shit out of us!!

Newsweek didn't retract the story because they were false- if anything they were later confirmed. They were retracted because the Bushevik Party squeezed Newsweek for the retraction.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



I'd love to see you tell that to individuals killed by angry, rioting people. Newsweek should be punished for publishing that story, especially with a lack of facts.

i know three great things
the end of islam a cure for cancer and thee end of global warming

Oh no! Not the Commando series again. Weren't they permanently cancelled?

As for the topic, I don't have anything new to add that everybody else already has.

I'd love to see you tell that to individuals killed by angry, rioting people. Newsweek should be punished for publishing that story, especially with a lack of facts.

Jackass Jerry Falwell's comments on Muhammad being a terrorist incited riots too and you're not calling for him to be punished.

:rolleyes:

Jackass Jerry Falwell's comments on Muhammad being a terrorist incited riots too and you're not calling for him to be punished.

:rolleyes:



I'm not taking the bait.

A majority of the muslim population already supports the terrorists. im a muslim, i lived in Syria, if you said anything good about america you were beaten up, so really it cant get any worse.

If an american city gets nuked, i expect there to be a lot of confusion in the government for a while, but they will come to the conclusion that this is now a total war against the muslim world. What you are seeing today really is the modern day muslim crusades.....

Muslims were not always hard core religious as they are today. Really you have to look at the Christian crusades of past and realize that what is happening today is a mirror image of that. Muslims are being whipped up into a religious frenzy to do jihad from many arab nations, mostly SA, Syria and Egypt. The directional flow this time is out of the middle east and into Europe instead of the christian ones that were the other way around...

Basically...this is just a modern day continueation of something that has gone on for thousands of years now. And wont end until the extinction of one or the other.

Oh God we should have kept the details of actual events from public knowledge instead of giving the Muslim Extremists a field day of justifications to continue bombing the shit out of us!!

Newsweek didn't retract the story because they were false- if anything they were later confirmed. They were retracted because the Bushevik Party squeezed Newsweek for the retraction.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They've been terrorists since long before the US was around. They don't need any excuse to bomb; it's their degenerate culture.

<snip>

What you are seeing today really is the modern day muslim crusades.....

Muslims were not always hard core religious as they are today. Really you have to look at the Christian crusades of past and realize that what is happening today is a mirror image of that.

<snip>



What goes around, comes around. Although, this coulda happened like 500 years ago, before the people you retaliate against have the capability to blow pretty much everyone off the face of the earth... :rolleyes:

They've been terrorists since long before the US was around. They don't need any excuse to bomb; it's their degenerate culture.

"Degenerate Culture?" This from someone who claimed or lied about being a Muslim and "declared a Jihad" on Michael Moore? This should be technically hilarious but I'm not laughing.

Is your name Clayton Bigsby by any chance? :D

"Degenerate Culture?" This from someone who claimed or lied about being a Muslim and "declared a Jihad" on Michael Moore? This should be technically hilarious but I'm not laughing.

Is your name Clayton Bigsby by any chance? :D

That's Mr. Bigsby to you.

Basically...this is just a modern day continueation of something that has gone on for thousands of years now. And wont end until the extinction of one or the other.

that's a bit pessimistic. i'm fairly sure (and if i'm wrong then we're all fucked anyway) that middle eastern muslims and western christians and everyone in between could get on fine. it'll just take time, sensible money policies and an end of some of the hypocricy which surrounds the 'war on terror'. I take hope from NI, where IRA violence has dropped massively. I don't know of any recent attacks.

What goes around, comes around. Although, this coulda happened like 500 years ago, before the people you retaliate against have the capability to blow pretty much everyone off the face of the earth... :rolleyes:

Yes, but that doesnt mean you ignore it and let them do what they want, you remember all the atrocities that happened back then? It would happen in Europe too...the workings of fanatics.

The fact that Europe and the Americans are spending most their time infighting, isnt a very good sign for them. Europe will pay the price first. Dont expect the muslims to help you guys either, they are either indifferent, or supporting but i dont wanna fight kinda moods. There are very few of us liberal muslims that are around trying to wake you guys up to the growing storm coming...kind of like the germans escaping from germany during the rise of hitler desperately trying to get France and brittan to do something before its too late....

"Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people........El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son..........Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks."


You can almost see the exact same things being said during the crusades you can almost picture it....with obvious modern tones. The kings sending off their sons to die....

This isnt poor rable you guys are fighting, it is a culture war. nobody is innocent and its a total war...im trying to get you Europe and Americans to realize this...but its like youre all blind and content to shove your heads in the sand.

that's a bit pessimistic. i'm fairly sure (and if i'm wrong then we're all fucked anyway) that middle eastern muslims and western christians and everyone in between could get on fine. it'll just take time, sensible money policies and an end of some of the hypocricy which surrounds the 'war on terror'. I take hope from NI, where IRA violence has dropped massively. I don't know of any recent attacks.

I believe the resolution to the NI problem has more to do with the massive economic growth in the Republic and the movement towards political union in Europe more than anything else.

That, and no-one can really be bothered with it anymore.

that's a bit pessimistic. i'm fairly sure (and if i'm wrong then we're all fucked anyway) that middle eastern muslims and western christians and everyone in between could get on fine. it'll just take time, sensible money policies and an end of some of the hypocricy which surrounds the 'war on terror'. I take hope from NI, where IRA violence has dropped massively. I don't know of any recent attacks.

I must admit im a pro american on this side, strange coming from a syrian muslim huh? haha. They are the only ones doing the right thing, at the expense of behing shuned by their own kind, and maybe their countries world viewpoint, they are the only ones taking a stand against this growing storm, that ive witnessed with my own eyes...LONG before 9-11. Some sort of religious frenzy took over...i dont know what happened. It became dangerous to say anything positive about anything non muslim...

i fear the americans will go down in flames without help, British support is weak at best, they are the only things proping up the americans, without that, the americans are isolated. much like germany was after world war 1. Youre asking for a rise of radicalism in the united states as well with your constant shunning of them and their deeds.

I can't believe anybody actually finds this to be a good idea.

If you were to nuke mecca during the migration, you would no longer be fighting terrorists, but be taking part Hitleresque extermination of Muslims.

It would be like going into every Christian church on Easter Sunday and setting off a bomb right when people kneel down to pray.

With that sort of religious genocide, I can't imagine any country siding with America. While the UK may not oppose them, they will condemn their acts.


psst. All of you left out Malaysia.

I must admit im a pro american on this side, strange coming from a syrian muslim huh? haha. They are the only ones doing the right thing, at the expense of behing shuned by their own kind, and maybe their countries world viewpoint, they are the only ones taking a stand against this growing storm, that ive witnessed with my own eyes...LONG before 9-11. Some sort of religious frenzy took over...i dont know what happened. It became dangerous to say anything positive about anything non muslim...

i fear the americans will go down in flames without help, British support is weak at best, they are the only things proping up the americans, without that, the americans are isolated. much like germany was after world war 1. Youre asking for a rise of radicalism in the united states as well with your constant shunning of them and their deeds.


Well, you are right, it is a culture clash, I don't know the entire rationale behind it (if, as you say, it has been going on long before 9/11/all that other shit), but I guess we're all to blame, and when the shitstorm comes (if it does), everyone's going to basically shoot themselves in the foot...

This is (seriously) one of those times when we all need to agree to disagree, kiss, make up, and move on with our own lives.

psst. All of you left out Malaysia.

Stupid Brits, with thier being so damn good at war and stuff. If they'd messed that up like vietnam it wouldn't be an issue there right now.

Excellent idea. A few sick extremists use a nuclear device. Solution: Stoop to their level and annihilate several hundred thousand innocents and alienate a huge proportion of the world. Marvelous.

Death to Israel
Death to Jews
Long live Hitler and Nazi

would i be feeding a troll if i said it was wrong to wish death on anyone, particularly on such generalised terms?

As to what people are saying about america winning, a few things. there are american muslims, i dunno which way they would go in that situation, but given that we;ve had homegrown terrorists here in part coz of Iraq, i would guess you'd then have homegrown terrorists in US too.

Also don't forget Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Lastly, the rest of the world is a wildcard, they could support, admonish or go to war with America.

I'm relieved to see nearly unanimous rejection of tje idea, given the political spectrum represented here. i still think that a lot of americans would follow that course of actin if thjey were nuked though.

What about all the other countries that share the area? If you nuke there neighbours the fallout isnt going to respect boarders. Really nuclear weapons are a hollow threat. There are only a few couintries you could choose that dont have allied neighbours. Sadly for me australia is one, and sadly for you so is america. Can you imagine the political problems if we nuked france for instance, noone would miss the french, but there would be massive backlash about the radiation going into shared watersupplies all over europe.

What about all the other countries that share the area? If you nuke there neighbours the fallout isnt going to respect boarders. Really nuclear weapons are a hollow threat. There are only a few couintries you could choose that dont have allied neighbours. Sadly for me australia is one, and sadly for you so is america. Can you imagine the political problems if we nuked france for instance, noone would miss the french, but there would be massive backlash about the radiation going into shared watersupplies all over europe.

What do you mean 'no one would care?'

The French have croissants!

Of course, you can get croissants in just about any cafe, the French have the best croissants.

Using nuclear weapons against a sovereign nation in response to the actions of a terrorist group would be the doom of us all.

This isnt poor rable you guys are fighting, it is a culture war. nobody is innocent and its a total war...im trying to get you Europe and Americans to realize this...but its like youre all blind and content to shove your heads in the sand.

I’m sure simply sealing the boarders would do the trick for the US.

What do you mean 'no one would care?'

The French have croissants!

Of course, you can get croissants in just about any cafe, the French have the best croissants.

Given the topic of this thread, it is ironic that you brought up croissants. In any case, they are Austrian, and not french, in origin.

Given the topic of this thread, it is ironic that you brought up croissants. In any case, they are Austrian, and not french, in origin.

Yep. And they were based on the crescent moon shape of the Islamic symbol.

if we nuked france for instance, noone would miss the french

Wow, you really are a hardcore Bushevik. Holding France in contempt to the point where you wouldn't blink an eye at nuking the French.

It's that kind of contempt for humanity that fuels the Jihadists in more ways than one.

:rolleyes:

Yep. And they were based on the crescent moon shape of the Islamic symbol.

Exactly. To celebrate the defeat of the Muslim armies at the siege of Vienna in 1683. Or so the story goes. (I am not entirely convinced that is the complete truth.)

Yep. And they were based on the crescent moon shape of the Islamic symbol.

Well you learn something new everyday.

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.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Love the instant clarification there by his more politically-conscious - and, let's be frank, more intelligent - spokesman.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

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

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this [oppression, perceived or genuine] hapens in Iraq, and we determine that it has a certain amount of popular, Christian support in America, you know, you could take out their holy sites."

"You're talking about bombing Jerusalem."

"No, no, no, I'm talking about bombing New York."

Please note the near-identical and accurate format of this analogy, and please also note the conversation is fictional.

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."

If anywhere in the States is attacked with a nuclear weapon it would take a force of will stronger than any politician has not to respond in kind - but the question is, of course, where to attack? The simple answer would seem to be Mecca - after all, this War Against Terror is specifically a War on Islamic Terror. The trouble with this is that the USA cannot retain the moral high ground after doing such a thing; it claims, so far, to have refrained from total war, claims which have been substantiated by international media coverage, but to do that would be to cross a line. To do that would be to unite the world against itself. No nation could politically stand with a country which would destroy a city of people who had nothing to do with a terrorist attack. It's functionally equivalent to the above, fictional conversation in which Bin Laden advocates destroying a city of people who had nothing to do with (what is perceived to be) an illegal occupation.

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.

"We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?" Adams said.

"What is near and dear to them? They're willing to sacrifice everything in this world for the next one. What is the pressure point that would deter them from their murderous impulses?" he said.

Traditionally, their families; if they're willing to die for a cause, ask them if they're willing for their families to die for it too. Of course, you have to ask them this before they blow themselves up, or make examples of a few - and besides, this is just a smaller-scale version of the absurd nuclear retaliation in question.

Tancredo is known in the House for his tough stand on immigration.

Now there's a surprise.

In all, the idea can be said to be absurd, but what scares me the most is that in Europe, anywhere, for someone to say such a thing would mean having to resign. The fact that the American press and people would not demand a Senator's blood in a milkshake for this - or that the man would not have the decency to listen to them, come to think of it - is worrying.

Oh, yeah, threatening to bomb Mecca is a great move. Osama must have thought all his birthdays had come at once when he read that gem.

Indeed. He's probably hoping it'll happen. If Bin Laden ever seriously believed the US would nuke Mecca in retaliation for an attack, he would undoubtedly encourage terrorists to carry out such an attack. It plays right into his hands. Especially since, as Kerulavia pointed out, Bin Laden is banned from entering Mecca anyway.

The fact that there are people advocating genocide, the slaughter of millions of innocent people - be it through nuking Mecca, or, in other threads, Teheran or Pyongyang - is truly sickening.

If the US ever stoops to committing genocide, there'll be no 'Coalition of the Willing' to follow it this time.

Dear god this is actually a conversation.

If you were to even threaten such a thing, you would lose not just the support of the Muslim world but of every country with a conscience. I'm from the UK. We have a large Muslim population. We would be the first to dump you. This is the last time I'm coming near this web site; it's bad enough knowing that there are this many morons in the world without ruining my day by reading this twaddle.

Hell, I and others were calling for a nuclear reprisal after 9/11. Imagine if a nuclear weapon vaporised half of an American city. I'm pretty sure a few cities would glow in the dark by the time we're done.

That kind of dangerous thinking would lead to a global war in which America would be anihlated! Simply put, no one would come to your aid, not Europe, not Canada, not South America, your businesses and army will be kicked out of most countries and your citizens abroad will be murdered in their hundreds, everywhere from Lagos to London. Your businesses would be undefendable abroad, and your ecconomy (along with the rest of the world's) would retract drastically, leading to civil unrest, possibly even civil war.

I hope in the States you have the means to indict Senators for making such self distructive statements. This Senator demonstrates exactly why the rest of the world is (at the very least) weiry of Republican's running your country.

What a silly thing to say. perhaps we should nuke NYC because of the Srebenica massacres?

Better yet, the Vatican too!


Hi, i am from Bosnia, Bugojno

Di ti zivis

If they touch American soil with nuclear weaponry, then we should do likewise with them. Like I said in an earlier thread, you can only fight terror with terror. They use biological/chemical/biochemical weapons, America should use them too.

I don't think all Arabian states have the means to even remotely harm America, I think you should be worried about the islamic population already living in the USA. However, none of you must forget that America has many allies who love to see Mecca bombed. Right wing nations in Europe, Russia, African nations with islamic rebels ravaging the countryside. It's not a 1 vs all kind of thing, and politics is a strange world on itself.

Hey! Just a minute now, this is outrag........oh, you never said death to Christians. Ok, carry on :D


i d


I didn’t say Christians because long time a go when Muhammad the messenger of Allah. Muslims were safe buy Christians.
If you don’t belie me watch the Move I think it is call Messenger of God.
It was a black Christian king that gave the Muslims a City of Medina.

Esalamu Alleku <<< Peace be to You<<<

If they touch American soil with nuclear weaponry, then we should do likewise with them. Like I said in an earlier thread, you can only fight terror with terror. They use biological/chemical/biochemical weapons, America should use them too.

I don't think all Arabian states have the means to even remotely harm America, I think you should be worried about the islamic population already living in the USA. However, none of you must forget that America has many allies who love to see Mecca bombed. Right wing nations in Europe, Russia, African nations with islamic rebels ravaging the countryside. It's not a 1 vs all kind of thing, and politics is a strange world on itself.


I think you vastly overestimate the number of allies the USA has at the moment. The coalition of the willing consisted of 34 states at its peak, 10 of them have already dropped out again.

You cannot fight terror with terror. The only thing that will create is escalation and more terrorists, on both sides. If you want to remain above the terrorists, don't start acting like them.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of allies the USA has at the moment. The coalition of the willing consisted of 34 states at its peak, 10 of them have already dropped out again.

You cannot fight terror with terror. The only thing that will create is escalation and more terrorists, on both sides. If you want to remain above the terrorists, don't start acting like them.


Now it's more like the coalition of the bombable... :(. We pay, America slay... :mad:

If they touch American soil with nuclear weaponry, then we should do likewise with them. Like I said in an earlier thread, you can only fight terror with terror. They use biological/chemical/biochemical weapons, America should use them too.

I don't think all Arabian states have the means to even remotely harm America, I think you should be worried about the islamic population already living in the USA. However, none of you must forget that America has many allies who love to see Mecca bombed. Right wing nations in Europe, Russia, African nations with islamic rebels ravaging the countryside. It's not a 1 vs all kind of thing, and politics is a strange world on itself.

If American is so ineptly run (militarily) that it can not competantly fight off a few thousand irregualars in Iraq how in God's green earth will it fight off the collective forces of the Globe, regular and irregular? becase that is what such a silly attitude will result in. As the Chinese said to the Russians in the 1960s, "it doesn't matter how many nukes you have, when you run out, there will still be millions of us left to come knocking on your doors." America would be served well by adopting a less beligerant attitude to other people's faith. If America really wants to defeat Islamic terrorism, give up your SUVs, go Green. No oil wealth, no power for the dictatorships.... no dictatorships, no terrorism.

I didn’t say Christians because long time a go when Muhammad the messenger of Allah. Muslims were safe buy Christians.
If you don’t belie me watch the Move I think it is call Messenger of God.
It was a black Christian king that gave the Muslims a City of Medina.

Esalamu Alleku <<< Peace be to You<<<

Oh well if it was in a movie it mut be true then, just look at how historically accurate they always are :rolleyes:

You cannot fight terror with terror. The only thing that will create is escalation and more terrorists, on both sides. If you want to remain above the terrorists, don't start acting like them.

Which is why I say, bring the troops home, and use them to seal the boarders. Deport anybody trying to sneak in illegally back to their nation of residence. That is all we need to do, and boom no more foreign terrorists, and no more costly war.

If America really wants to defeat Islamic terrorism, give up your SUVs, go Green. No oil wealth, no power for the dictatorships.... no dictatorships, no terrorism.

Considering we only get twenty percent of our oil from the Mid-East (yeah I know its still a lot) that would hurt our own oil industry in Texas and the Gulf, not to mention the economies of Venezuala and sub-Saharan Africa.

I'm too lazy to check, but has anyone mentioned that this congressman is from the town of the Columbine massacre? You'd think he'd be less inclined towards violence.

I say no, we shouldn't nuke a Holy city. I'm catholic and I know I'd hate to see the Vatican nuked if a bunch of Catholic nations started acting up...

Yes lets Nuke Mecca and then Jerusalem and then The Vatican and then Baghdad.
Yes thats the thing to do.

Considering we only get twenty percent of our oil from the Mid-East (yeah I know its still a lot) that would hurt our own oil industry in Texas and the Gulf, not to mention the economies of Venezuala and sub-Saharan Africa.

As a sub-saharan African, NO it wouldn't hurt us, It would HELP. Stop buying our diamonds, oil and minerals, it is what keeps the mad big men in power, again, no oil money, less power for the tyrants!

If American is so ineptly run (militarily) that it can not competantly fight off a few thousand irregualars in Iraq how in God's green earth will it fight off the collective forces of the Globe, regular and irregular? becase that is what such a silly attitude will result in. As the Chinese said to the Russians in the 1960s, "it doesn't matter how many nukes you have, when you run out, there will still be millions of us left to come knocking on your doors." America would be served well by adopting a less beligerant attitude to other people's faith. If America really wants to defeat Islamic terrorism, give up your SUVs, go Green. No oil wealth, no power for the dictatorships.... no dictatorships, no terrorism.

You're exactly what can be described as an 'armchair general'. Honestly, not a single regular military force can handle a guerrilla. That was the greatest fear of American forces. That's why they shouldn't waste time on people who don't want democracy. Just bomb them, take what you want/need and get the hell out of there. Bombing Bagdad to smithereens and some other homebases of terror will do just fine. I mean, more INNOCENT CIVILLIANS have died because of terrorist actions than coalition forces. So that means some 10,000 people have died. Now, you can decrease that number even further because those people attacking US and other allied forces are civillian, because they are not bound to an officially registered army or any type of armed forces. I really don't think America will be nuked, because frankly I think the nuclear threat is just exaggerated as a scare tactic to keep the masses alert for a terrorist attack. Nevertheless, never let your guard down.
If America really wants to defeat Islamic terrorism, give up your SUVs, go Green. No oil wealth, no power for the dictatorships.... no dictatorships, no terrorism.
What a load of hippie talk. You belong in the sixties, not 2005. Oil is needed for an economy, if you just take away cars and let everybody drive buses, you need such an enormous amount of buses, diesel trains for transport it doesn't matter in the end.
I think you vastly overestimate the number of allies the USA has at the moment. The coalition of the willing consisted of 34 states at its peak, 10 of them have already dropped out again.

You cannot fight terror with terror. The only thing that will create is escalation and more terrorists, on both sides. If you want to remain above the terrorists, don't start acting like them.
That's still 24 highly advanced states compared to barbarian republics. What are they going to do? Force another oil crisis? Remember, Israel, Russia and many other nations aren't the type of nations that are defeated easily - or their spirits broken for that matter. Terrorism only makes them more fanatical.

would i be feeding a troll if i said it was wrong to wish death on anyone, particularly on such generalised terms?

As to what people are saying about america winning, a few things. there are american muslims, i dunno which way they would go in that situation, but given that we;ve had homegrown terrorists here in part coz of Iraq, i would guess you'd then have homegrown terrorists in US too.

Also don't forget Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Lastly, the rest of the world is a wildcard, they could support, admonish or go to war with America.

I'm relieved to see nearly unanimous rejection of tje idea, given the political spectrum represented here. i still think that a lot of americans would follow that course of actin if thjey were nuked though.

I have to say that freedom of speech is a right that is abused by some people: it does not and can never include incitement to hatred, murder, racism and terrorism of course. Therefore, it is important that everyone respects everyone regardless of their ethnic origin, sex, or anything. Preaching extremism should never be allowed (whatever it sources or causes may be). I am merely pointing out to your response to that post.

Exactly. To celebrate the defeat of the Muslim armies at the siege of Vienna in 1683. Or so the story goes. (I am not entirely convinced that is the complete truth.)


More precisely the troops of Mehmed IV (January 2, 1642–1693), sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1648 to 1687.
:)

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html

Yes, let's suddenly prove a hundred million radicals right!

Thank you; I'll pass.

That's why they shouldn't waste time on people who don't want democracy. Just bomb them, take what you want/need and get the hell out of there. Bombing Bagdad to smithereens and some other homebases of terror will do just fine. I mean, more INNOCENT CIVILLIANS have died because of terrorist actions than coalition forces. So that means some 10,000 people have died. Now, you can decrease that number even further because those people attacking US and other allied forces are civillian, because they are not bound to an officially registered army or any type of armed forces.

How nice. So if we follow your logic, the US should pull out its troops, send in the B-2s/Tridents/Minutemen then move in with troops? You realize that by doing so, the death toll of uninvolved civilians by American forces will skyrocket then? I specifically label America because of the remaining nations, none of them are as trigger happy with their nuclear arms (if they have them), then you (possibly another armchair general) appear to be.

And that would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike then.

So much for the so-called operation to 'liberate' Iraq. Maybe if you meant liberate it of a living population...


That's still 24 highly advanced states compared to barbarian republics. What are they going to do? Force another oil crisis? Remember, Israel, Russia and many other nations aren't the type of nations that are defeated easily - or their spirits broken for that matter. Terrorism only makes them more fanatical.

Highly advanced states? Pray tell, which of these 24 remaining nations happen to be highly advanced in comparison to the so-called barbarian republics? If you mean advanced as in how much destructive power they hold, then North Korea holds a great deal more advancement than nations larger than it.

You sir, smack of lots of patriotism, but not much realism.

Doesn't this feel like something you'd formerly attribute to the USSR? "Destroy a building and we'll destroy a city." Very over-the-top.

I have to say that freedom of speech is a right that is abused by some people: it does not and can never include incitement to hatred, murder, racism and terrorism of course.

You forgot divulging state secrets. =p

Honestly, not a single regular military force can handle a guerrilla. That was the greatest fear of American forces.

Conventional military forces have crushed guerrilla foeces in the past. However, this was normally due to excessive brutality (e.g. the Nazis taking out the Polish resitance by direct threats to their families, Chinese military fighting rebellions simply by bombing their towns to the ground). So ironically, the (EDIT: best changed to) most effective way to fight terror IS with terror.
However, it defeats the purpose of fighting at all, because your ideals rapidly become worthless and stained with blood. That's why the coalition tries desperately to keep it's nose clean in Iraq: there's no point bringing democracy to a country if you're going to destroy it.
As for nuking Mecca, hell no. There's a LOT of innocent people there. Not every terrorist is a muslim fanatic, and not every muslim is a terrorist. It's not even a valid strategic target. As mentioned before, it erodes ideals: how are we better if we attack civilians en masse? An absolutely terrible idea dreamed up by a sensationalist appealing to the mass media.

You're exactly what can be described as an 'armchair general'. Honestly, not a single regular military force can handle a guerrilla. That was the greatest fear of American forces. That's why they shouldn't waste time on people who don't want democracy.

Excuse me, while I am not a military man I am a political scientist, and have see first hand gurilla warfare in Africa - DRC; let me remind you that Britain has defeated two such movements, in Kenya and in Malaysia, plus through political and military means subverted politico/religiously orientated terrorist movements (Mau Mau and the IRA). Also The Rhodesians did a bloody fine job of holding off for twenty years two bigger guerilla movements whilst enduring political and economic sanctions. The Rwandans beat the interhamwe, the Soviets beat off dozens of such insergancies (granted I wouldn't advocate their methods).

Just bomb them, take what you want/need and get the hell out of there. Bombing Bagdad to smithereens and some other homebases of terror will do just fine..

Like you did in Vietnam, north Korea, Laos and Cambodia - very successful policy, heh?

I mean, more INNOCENT CIVILLIANS have died because of terrorist actions than coalition forces. So that means some 10,000 people have died.

Closer to 200 000, directly of indirectly as a result of predominatly US and Iraqi Army activites

I really don't think America will be nuked, because frankly I think the nuclear threat is just exaggerated as a scare tactic to keep the masses alert for a terrorist attack.

First piece of sense!

What a load of hippie talk. You belong in the sixties, not 2005. Oil is needed for an economy, if you just take away cars and let everybody drive buses, you need such an enormous amount of buses, diesel trains for transport it doesn't matter in the end.
Ever heard of electric busses and trains - see France, Japan, Holland. Oil is only nessicary because the oil companies have undermined all other routes so far, but you addiction is dangerous, not only to us but also to yourselves.

[INDENT][I]I think you vastly overestimate the number of allies the USA has at the moment. The coalition of the willing consisted of 34 states at its peak, 10 of them have already dropped out again.

That's still 24 highly advanced states compared to barbarian republics. What are they going to do? Force another oil crisis? Remember, Israel, Russia and many other nations aren't the type of nations that are defeated easily - or their spirits broken for that matter. Terrorism only makes them more fanatical.

Russia will turn its back on you as soon as it is profitable, as will most European countries, the all resent America's school bully attitude. Only Isreal wil stay onside, that's because the need the US so badly.

Haha, yeah right American forces aren't nazis you know. Anyway, I have no trouble with killing off the ungrateful Iraqi's. Hell, bomb 'em all I say. So what if we "prove" the radicals right? They already find the USA and the whole Western World for that matter a despicable place, not a single sould mourns about the loss of innocent people being killed by their brothers-in-arms.
How nice. So if we follow your logic, the US should pull out its troops, send in the B-2s/Tridents/Minutemen then move in with troops? You realize that by doing so, the death toll of uninvolved civilians by American forces will skyrocket then? I specifically label America because of the remaining nations, none of them are as trigger happy with their nuclear arms (if they have them), then you (possibly another armchair general) appear to be.

And that would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike then.

So much for the so-called operation to 'liberate' Iraq. Maybe if you meant liberate it of a living population...I'm not advocating nuclear arms against cities, I'm simply saying that nuclear forces should be used IF, and only IF, the USA comes under direct attack from a suitcase nuke or any other dirty bomb. What are the current figures? Only 2% of the Iraqi population supports the US. I'd say that's the best sign you can get, let them sort the terrorism and such. Terrorists are killing more women and children daily, and yet they do not support the USA.
Highly advanced states? Pray tell, which of these 24 remaining nations happen to be highly advanced in comparison to the so-called barbarian republics? If you mean advanced as in how much destructive power they hold, then North Korea holds a great deal more advancement than nations larger than it.

You sir, smack of lots of patriotism, but not much realism.North Korea isn't an islamic republic that defends and promotes terrorists, so that renders your argument void. Next one please. They're just silly communists, just be patient and cut food aid to them. Then something will happen there for the betterment of the people. Well not really, but you disabled a threat without fighting. Like the people there are better off living under such an insane regime.As for nuking Mecca, hell no. There's a LOT of innocent people there. Not every terrorist is a muslim fanatic, and not every muslim is a terrorist. It's not even a valid strategic target. As mentioned before, it erodes ideals: how are we better if we attack civilians en masse? An absolutely terrible idea dreamed up by a sensationalist appealing to the mass media.Define innocent. If you agree with the terrorists - and a lot of them do, believe you me - then you're just as bad as the terrorists. And you're just one step away of committing these acts yourself. Sure, they may be innocent victims but hell if you hear them about innocents being killed back in 9/11.

The problem is some terrorists leaders are not motivated by religion, instead they are motivated by the power religion affords them.

If Mecca were nuked, these terrorist leaders would gain massive support, and power.... they would not care about the religious signifigance of the city or the death of millions

Instead I would publish a list of what will happen if we are nuked, it would include

- A invasion of the terrorist groups nation of origin, as well as every other non-democratic nation in the middle east

- A Detailed description of a carpet bombing raid, and an explaination that the force we have attacked Iraq with was holding back, and that they have yet to see our true military power

Sorry, playing catch-up from way back, but ... you're having a laugh, yeah? The USA can't even maintain order in Iraq, & with nigh-on 200,000 troops tied up there, how the hell could they invade anywhere else? They could bomb other countries, sure, but not invade them.

Ever heard of electric busses and trains - see France, Japan, Holland. Oil is only nessicary because the oil companies have undermined all other routes so far, but you addiction is dangerous, not only to us but also to yourselves.I live in the Netherlands, Amsterdam to be more specific and the only electrical public transportation is a streetcar and some half-assed trolleybuses in other cities. None of them will replace the car. All other cities are connected by bus and train. Neither of them are cost-effective or buy you time compared to cars.

PS: Same story for France. I do not know about Japan, but they probably have those monorail cars. Transport capacity of public transportation can never match cars.

Haha, yeah right American forces aren't nazis you know. Anyway, I have no trouble with killing off the ungrateful Iraqi's. Hell, bomb 'em all I say. So what if we "prove" the radicals right? They already find the USA and the whole Western World for that matter a despicable place, not a single sould mourns about the loss of innocent people being killed by their brothers-in-arms.
How nice. So if we follow your logic, the US should pull out its troops, send in the B-2s/Tridents/Minutemen then move in with troops? You realize that by doing so, the death toll of uninvolved civilians by American forces will skyrocket then? I specifically label America because of the remaining nations, none of them are as trigger happy with their nuclear arms (if they have them), then you (possibly another armchair general) appear to be.

And that would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike then.

So much for the so-called operation to 'liberate' Iraq. Maybe if you meant liberate it of a living population...I'm not advocating nuclear arms against cities, I'm simply saying that nuclear forces should be used IF, and only IF, the USA comes under direct attack from a suitcase nuke or any other dirty bomb. What are the current figures? Only 2% of the Iraqi population supports the US. I'd say that's the best sign you can get, let them sort the terrorism and such. Terrorists are killing more women and children daily, and yet they do not support the USA.
Highly advanced states? Pray tell, which of these 24 remaining nations happen to be highly advanced in comparison to the so-called barbarian republics? If you mean advanced as in how much destructive power they hold, then North Korea holds a great deal more advancement than nations larger than it.

You sir, smack of lots of patriotism, but not much realism.North Korea isn't an islamic republic that defends and promotes terrorists, so that renders your argument void. Next one please. They're just silly communists, just be patient and cut food aid to them. Then something will happen there for the betterment of the people. Well not really, but you disabled a threat without fighting. Like the people there are better off living under such an insane regime.As for nuking Mecca, hell no. There's a LOT of innocent people there. Not every terrorist is a muslim fanatic, and not every muslim is a terrorist. It's not even a valid strategic target. As mentioned before, it erodes ideals: how are we better if we attack civilians en masse? An absolutely terrible idea dreamed up by a sensationalist appealing to the mass media.Define innocent. If you agree with the terrorists - and a lot of them do, believe you me - then you're just as bad as the terrorists. And you're just one step away of committing these acts yourself. Sure, they may be innocent victims but hell if you hear them about innocents being killed back in 9/11.

and they had to ask 'why do they hate us?' :rolleyes:

this may just be the stupidest person on the internet today.

let me remind you that Britain has defeated two such movements, in Kenya and in Malaysia, plus through political and military means subverted politico/religiously orientated terrorist movements (Mau Mau and the IRA).

The IRA were never 'defeated'. They are still armed. Just because they don't blow people up anymore doesn't mean they and their loyalist counterparts (catholic terrorist... protestant terrorist- i've had relatives killed by both. Doesn't make a damn differance which one they are.) aren't raping the country, and standing for the assembly while doing it. They now simply feed off Northern Ireland like a crime gang, extorting their own population, creating an environment of fear.
Sorry, just my opinion from living here and all that all the agreement did was trade them power and freedom for a bunch of half-promises. Sure the large scale stuff is gone, but what does it matter when people are still afraid to speak out about them?
Sorry, just me spouting out about one of the crappiest counter terrorism ops ever concieved.

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html

Its quite frightning that so many of the US electorate seem to have the view that the whole world is 'us' and 'them', and if anyone attacks 'us' then there is an immediate call for a blood letting against 'them', where 'them' can be absolutely anyone else in the world, muslim, Iraqi, Afghanistani, French.... 'who cares someone's got die'

and they had to ask 'why do they hate us?' :rolleyes:

this may just be the stupidest person on the internet today.
AGREE!!! :headbang:

The IRA is still active in Northern Ireland, it's just they don't have media attention. Rhodesia. That's just the best example ever. 1% Of the total population there was white, and guess what? The country became a black majority dictatorship after Mugabe came to power. After Ian Smith declared independence, the UK did not recognize it, and that meant the end of Rhodesia.

You cannot defeat terrorism by politics or teaching, only stern actions by governments with limits on religious freedom ie putting a stop to preaching hateful messages that holds for both Christians and muslims, can do it. It's not like muslims are the only fanatical beings on this planet. Anyone remember the Japanese sect that planted sarin in Tokyo's subway some 10 years ago? Or the IRA being Christian or the KKK or the Colombian drugmob, being no lesser terrorists compared to aforementioned groups.

PS: Putting limits on civil rights is stupid. Like a patriot act can stop a madman from bringing bombs to crowded buses. Very specific measures are necessary, and simple things. Enforcing the door to the cockpit with steel is a good first step.

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html

This moron should be taken out to the middle of Washington and hung upside down by his balls while some sense gets slapped into him . fekin idiot dickhead moron waste of dna .

Considering we only get twenty percent of our oil from the Mid-East (yeah I know its still a lot) that would hurt our own oil industry in Texas and the Gulf, not to mention the economies of Venezuala and sub-Saharan Africa.

Dude, you never hear of plastic?

Haha, yeah right American forces aren't nazis you know. Anyway, I have no trouble with killing off the ungrateful Iraqi's. Hell, bomb 'em all I say. So what if we "prove" the radicals right? They already find the USA and the whole Western World for that matter a despicable place, not a single sould mourns about the loss of innocent people being killed by their brothers-in-arms.

Sounds pretty facist to me.

If you agree with the terrorists - and a lot of them do, believe you me - then you're just as bad as the terrorists. And you're just one step away of committing these acts yourself. Sure, they may be innocent victims but hell if you hear them about innocents being killed back in 9/11.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but on so many levels none of us are inocent. If you voted for a president of the US, France or Britain in the last fourty years, then you have propogated the stability over democracy policy of those contries in foregn affairs; if you put petol in your car that came from Saudia Arabia, fromer Zaire, Equitorial Guinea, Nigeria or most other oil manufaturing countries, you have put money into the hands of the regemes that run (ran) these contries; bought stocks and shares in any one of a thousand different firms, you have contributed in a small way the state of the world today,you - I - we are not inocent. I don't share the opinion that terrorism is some great alwful demonic act, it is just another form of warfare. Unpalitable, yes; illigitamte, probably; evil, any more or less than invading contries for their oil?

Shit... All this stupid debate over US agression. It's there, It's a fact. We should worry about other things. For time is running out for those of us who do not want more U.S. wars, or more killings, more maimings, more empire-building, more occupations, more global injustice, more flouting of human rights, more fake democracy, more wealth for a few, more poverty for many, more weapons and profits for weapons-makers, more lies from the media, more ignorance among consumers of the media. And finally, time is also running out for those of us who do not want more power concentrated in an "establishment" whose organization few of us can even describe, although it has made servants of almost all of us.

Wake up people...

Rhodesia. That's just the best example ever. 1% Of the total population there was white, and guess what? The country became a black majority dictatorship after Mugabe came to power. After Ian Smith declared independence, the UK did not recognize it, and that meant the end of Rhodesia.

No offence, but please do not try to tell a Zimbabwean what you understand about Rhodesia, Mugabe and Smith. And before you ask, 1 I am a white Zimbabwean living in exile, 2 my partner is a Black Zimbabwean and our families were on opposite side. Mugabe is the second black president of Zimbabwe, and the third black leader after Smith, Rev Muzorewa was Prime Minister of the first non-racial government, and he carried on the war against ZANU (Mugabe's lot)

PS: Putting limits on civil rights is stupid. Like a patriot act can stop a madman from bringing bombs to crowded buses.

Good point

Terorism isn't simply another form of warfare, don't cha know. While I still throughly think Mecca is an invalid target for a nuke, in fact EVERYWHERE in the modern world is an invalid target for a nuke (gee... if I was one of the nuclear family, and there was a nuke heading towards me, whadda I do? Hmmm... hey kids, can you say 'mutual self-destruction?'), terrorism is as much a 'valid' form of warfare as 'slash and burn' in Vietnam.
Did it kill civilians? Yes, lots.
Did it kill military targets? Hell no. Well, like three people a time.
Terrorism differs from warfare in ways too numerous to be considered humane. I know, I lived it.

I haven't seen the US shipping a single barrel of oil from Iraq to the USA. Anyway, I do not vote, in fact, I refuse to vote subsequently. In my opinion, politics don't do a damn thing for people. All they do is throw in some lame promises to gather a tight knit group of dedicated people to spread the word. In Europe it's all the same: politicians promise heaven and paradise and in reality nothing happens. I tend to agree with various political spectrums because most of them have things that make sense - while are other points of their agenda are plain bull.

Anyway, let's put your reasoning to the extreme. If I buy a gold Krugerrand from 1978, that means it was dug up in South Africa by an underpaid black worker, minted in a factory controlled by a racist government. If I buy a diamond for someone I love or cherish, there's a minor possibility it is a blood diamond. When I eat a burger, I silently agree with killing animals for food. If I buy a cotton sweater, there's a large chance it's produced in China and the cotton is produced on some farm owned by an underpaid farmer.

Yeah right. Like I'm going to worry about all that. The world is an unfair place, just live with it or don't live at all. You can start worrying about every aspect that doesn't make sense, is cruel or barbaric but in the end: nothing changes. I realised that and stopped worrying - and caring.

Shit... All this stupid debate over US agression. It's there, It's a fact. We should worry about other things. For time is running out for those of us who do not want more U.S. wars, or more killings, more maimings, more empire-building, more occupations, more global injustice, more flouting of human rights, more fake democracy, more wealth for a few, more poverty for many, more weapons and profits for weapons-makers, more lies from the media, more ignorance among consumers of the media. And finally, time is also running out for those of us who do not want more power concentrated in an "establishment" whose organization few of us can even describe, although it has made servants of almost all of us.

Wake up people...

Haha, yeah right American forces aren't nazis you know. Anyway, I have no trouble with killing off the ungrateful Iraqi's. Hell, bomb 'em all I say. So what if we "prove" the radicals right? They already find the USA and the whole Western World for that matter a despicable place, not a single sould mourns about the loss of innocent people being killed by their brothers-in-arms.

America may not be nazi yet. But you are advocating a line of thought not too different from them. Nazi'ism wasn't all about setting up death camps you know.


I'm not advocating nuclear arms against cities, I'm simply saying that nuclear forces should be used IF, and only IF, the USA comes under direct attack from a suitcase nuke or any other dirty bomb. What are the current figures? Only 2% of the Iraqi population supports the US. I'd say that's the best sign you can get, let them sort the terrorism and such. Terrorists are killing more women and children daily, and yet they do not support the USA.

And I wonder how terrorism came to Iraq? I certainly never heard of there prior to its invasion. You break the china, you have the responsibility of sweeping up and replacing it. But it doesn't excuse breaking it in the first place.

Unless you are a brat who cares nothing about other people's property that is.


North Korea isn't an islamic republic that defends and promotes terrorists, so that renders your argument void.

And I suppose Pakistan will sit idly by while American forces turn Mecca into a crater? India is not likely to support it either. Neither of them needs to be Islamic republics who support terrorism, but the use of nuclear arms by any country, particularly one who is viewed poorly around the globe now, on a target of great religious value to all Muslim, will result in consequences the USA can poorly afford. America is not infallible. It is not invincible. Go with that attitude, and you will be surprised when you DO fall.

Pride and fall are not possibilities. They are inevitabilities.


Next one please. They're just silly communists, just be patient and cut food aid to them. Then something will happen there for the betterment of the people. Well not really, but you disabled a threat without fighting. Like the people there are better off living under such an insane regime.

I have yet to see anything better happen under the use of sanctions beyond the consolidation of power by the ruling regime. Face reality. Sanctions are worthless for their stated goals of forcing another nation's hands.


Define innocent. If you agree with the terrorists - and a lot of them do, believe you me - then you're just as bad as the terrorists. And you're just one step away of committing these acts yourself. Sure, they may be innocent victims but hell if you hear them about innocents being killed back in 9/11.

Ah, the famed "with us or with the terrorists" argument. Yes, why not view all people who are not US parrots as faceless vermin unworthy of life. Why not find anyone who says that terrorists are people with views that might be valid and shoot them? Yes indeed. Let us see to it that the great cleansing of America happens. By building death camps and throwing everyone who happens to sympathise with a viewpoint other than the administrations inside.

So much for the "land of the free". More like land of the Nazis to be.

A very selfish and ignorant view, one that only understands the brute rule of force.

Who is a barbarian now?

I haven't seen the US shipping a single barrel of oil from
Iraq to the USA.

But you have stopped China from buying it from Iraq!

Anyway, I do not vote, in fact, I refuse to vote subsequently. In my opinion, politics don't do a damn thing for people. All they do is throw in some lame promises to gather a tight knit group of dedicated people to spread the word. In Europe it's all the same: politicians promise heaven and paradise and in reality nothing happens. I tend to agree with various political spectrums because most of them have things that make sense - while are other points of their agenda are plain bull.

That is how you ended up with Bush and we ended up with Mugabe, demand better politics and political parties!

Anyway, let's put your reasoning to the extreme. If I buy a gold Krugerrand from 1978, that means it was dug up in South Africa by an underpaid black worker, minted in a factory controlled by a racist government.Correct! If I buy a diamond for someone I love or cherish, there's a minor possibility it is a blood diamond. Correct! your getting the hang of thisWhen I eat a burger, I silently agree with killing animals for food.A little off the mark If I buy a cotton sweater, there's a large chance it's produced in China and the cotton is produced on some farm owned by an underpaid farmer.rather owned by the CCP

Yeah right. Like I'm going to worry about all that. why notThe world is an unfair place, just live with it or don't live at all change it one little bit at a time. You can start worrying about every aspect that doesn't make sense, is cruel or barbaric but in the end: nothing changes. I realised that and stopped worrying - and caring.that is very saddening

That is how you ended up with Bush and we ended up with Mugabe, demand better politics and political parties!Yeah Gore is such an amazing alternative option I almost went home to vote in favor of him. Don't kid yourself.

Arguably, Mugabe's election had a lot of circumstances which guarenteed that greaseball got back in power, and the racist bigot is more than happy to enforce his authority on his own populace, as proven in the past. Bush's didn't. But I digress.
What about the other effects of a nuclear strike? The changing of the political climate to one that's more nuclear friendly? The lowering of public opinion of all UN members towards America for it's toatal breech of sanctions? the untold effects on the loca environments of neighbouring countries through tactical nuclear fallout?

So this congressman says we should nuke mecca if muslim extremists nuke a US city. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not. On one hand knowing that Mecca becomes radioactive rubble if we're attacked could be a good deterrant. On the other, we'd probably have to prepare to nuke every major population center in the Islamic world immediately after because of the response by otherwise non-violent muslims, which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/congressman.muslims.ap/index.html

Wow, and they think terrorism is bad now, do something like that and the world goes insane

If you agree with the terrorists - and a lot of them do, believe you me - then you're just as bad as the terrorists. And you're just one step away of committing these acts yourself. Sure, they may be innocent victims but hell if you hear them about innocents being killed back in 9/11.

Is it not possible to disagree with America's methods without agreeing with those of the terrorists? Personally, I'd not advocate suicide bombings, but nor would I advocate this disturbing trend we're now seeing of invading everywhere which doesn't like America.

Of course any violent regime change involves a certain degree of chaos and a few years of increased suffering - the trouble is now that machine-guns and the (suicide-)bombing culture (or rather the ready availability of explosive and relevant expertise) have meant that it's possible and becoming more common for the average desperate citizen to fight back against perceived oppression, and people who've been promised by American propagandists a better life the instant a new government is installed are instead suffering those few years of depression and being told that it means the new "occupation" government doesn't care about them and they must fight it. This is perfectly understandable in a system where people haven't grown up with the democracy-based concept of complaining for [x] years and then electing a new government, but instead have grown up with oppression and revolution and so view violence as a more normal solution.

However, to get back to the subject, democracy is based on dissent; to promote what you promote, Guffingford, is fundamentally undemocratic, as it says that dissent is equivalent to murder.

I like that one. That's a keeper.

In my opinion, politics don't do a damn thing for people. All they do is throw in some lame promises to gather a tight knit group of dedicated people to spread the word. In Europe it's all the same: politicians promise heaven and paradise and in reality nothing happens. I tend to agree with various political spectrums because most of them have things that make sense - while are other points of their agenda are plain bull.

You are silly. Of course politics is largely convenient lies, but this doesn't make it ineffective or futile. And for the record, American politics is so much more flexible than European politics, for your nation has only two possible parties which crush all opposition to them, and can basically say what they want to appeal to whomever they want and then do nothing about it, since the popular sense of patriotism/nationalism is so amazingly strong as to make half of the nation God-fearing patriots who will support their government whatever happens and the other half Communists/terrorists/atheists/etc. who will stand wholly and pointlessly against everything the Administration does.

Anyway:

...Yeah right. Like I'm going to worry about all that. The world is an unfair place, just live with it or don't live at all. You can start worrying about every aspect that doesn't make sense, is cruel or barbaric but in the end: nothing changes. I realised that and stopped worrying - and caring.

But would you worry - or care - if you were a child whose parents were killed with guns bought with conflict diamonds? Wouldn't you want to change the world?

I like that one. That's a keeper.

What're you referring to, mate?

Your point. T'was good. Very objective.

Oh. Thank you :)

So we are saying we should have nuked Moscow in 1946 instead?

*mumbles something about Truman not getting it*

I'm not a generally violent person...and I do not like this war. BUT, that said...as far as I am concerned...if they nuke us first, it's open season. I say glass the motherfuckers. Glass 'em. Don't stop with Mecca. Screw it. They nuke us FIRST, and it's open season.

I'm not a generally violent person...and I do not like this war. BUT, that said...as far as I am concerned...if they nuke us first, it's open season. I say glass the motherfuckers. Glass 'em. Don't stop with Mecca. Screw it. They nuke us FIRST, and it's open season.

See, THAT's the kind of reaction that lost you the support of so many rational governments in the past year...

Wow, and they think terrorism is bad now, do something like that and the world goes insane

Not if we glass every last one of them...which is what I think our reaction should be if they nuke us first! Why stop with just Mecca? Bullshit. Far as I am concerned, if they nuke us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver!

Fuck 'em. the average Muslim keeps refusing to speak out against the terrorists, and refusing to denounce the actions of the terrorists, which, by inference, must mean that they support the activity.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

I'm not a generally violent person...and I do not like this war. BUT, that said...as far as I am concerned...if they nuke us first, it's open season. I say glass the motherfuckers. Glass 'em. Don't stop with Mecca. Screw it. They nuke us FIRST, and it's open season.

Who's "they"?

See, THAT's the kind of reaction that lost you the support of so many rational governments in the past year...


Yeah? And what would YOUR reaction be if YOUR country got nuked by a bunch of weirdbeards?

Who's "they"?
They are the terrorists, the evil bastards.

Not if we glass every last one of them...which is what I think our reaction should be if they nuke us first! Why stop with just Mecca? Bullshit. Far as I am concerned, if they nuke us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver!

Fuck 'em. the average Muslim keeps refusing to speak out against the terrorists, and refusing to denounce the actions of the terrorists, which, by inference, must mean that they support the activity.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

"Why stop with planes into the twin towers? Bullshit. Fas as I am concerned, if they invade us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver.

Fuck 'em. The average American keeps refusing to speak out against their government, and refusing to denounce the acitons of their government, which, by inference, must mean they support the invasions.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy."

Not if we glass every last one of them...which is what I think our reaction should be if they nuke us first! Why stop with just Mecca? Bullshit. Far as I am concerned, if they nuke us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver!

Fuck 'em. the average Muslim keeps refusing to speak out against the terrorists, and refusing to denounce the actions of the terrorists, which, by inference, must mean that they support the activity.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Actually, that's kind of funny. Do you have the faintest idea how easy to manipulate that attitude makes you?
Would you even wait to find out who might be behind the attack and why, or would you run off screaming and shouting to nuke the Arab world and lynch every muslim you could get your hands on?

They are the terrorists, the evil bastards.

Just like the Stern Gang?

Not if we glass every last one of them...which is what I think our reaction should be if they nuke us first! Why stop with just Mecca? Bullshit. Far as I am concerned, if they nuke us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver!

Fuck 'em. the average Muslim keeps refusing to speak out against the terrorists, and refusing to denounce the actions of the terrorists, which, by inference, must mean that they support the activity.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

OK, at a conservative estimate there are a couple of thousand major muslim population centres. That's nuclear winter territory, especially factoring in the responses.

You guys are nuts. Fucking nuts.

They are the terrorists, the evil bastards.

No they aren't. They're Muslims, that you're talking about. You're not talking about a city of terrorists; Mecca is not a place one can only enter if one is an America-hating fanatic trained in and willing to use lethal force against the West. It's a city, like Washington DC. But because DC has the Administration in it, which invades countries, you are justifying the use of nuclear force by Iraqi or Afghan citizens on that city. Since your argument is based on revenge alone and on no other basis the analogy stands perfectly.

Yeah? And what would YOUR reaction be if YOUR country got nuked by a bunch of weirdbeards?

I guess pretty much just what Britain is doing right now. Find out who exactly did it and bring them to justice.
I wouldn't run amoc on a wild revenge in the Middle East, if that's what you're insinuating...

I think the troll's gone.

Not if we glass every last one of them...which is what I think our reaction should be if they nuke us first! Why stop with just Mecca? Bullshit. Far as I am concerned, if they nuke us, they are asking for it, and we oughta deliver!

Fuck 'em. the average Muslim keeps refusing to speak out against the terrorists, and refusing to denounce the actions of the terrorists, which, by inference, must mean that they support the activity.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

You know it's funny how many people seem to not realize the world is just one red button push away from the annihilation of most of our species.

If United States nukes Mecca USA will be destroy, all the Muslims and Muslims country’s will go to war with USA.
I hope that it don’t happen, all the Muslims in this world with died defending Mecca and Islam.
Islamic can’t be stop and it will not me stop this world will become Muslims one day. If USA nukes Mecca USA will be crushed to it knees.

Allah Ekber
Long live Islam and Muslims
Death to Israel
Death to Jews
Long live Hitler and Nazi
Long live Bosnia and Bosnian Muslims
Long live Yasser Arafat
Victory to Islam
Victory to Palestine

Allah Ekber long live Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are Muslim would you give you life you Islam? <<<Yes i would>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I realize that muslims like you exist I become a little more comfortable with the idea of nuking mecca.

A little advice. Your rant here has not won you any friends and only makes you and anyone associated with you look bad.

They've been terrorists since long before the US was around. They don't need any excuse to bomb; it's their degenerate culture.

I'll thank you not to insult the culture of my borther and future sister in law! That's like saying that all Christians are degenerate terrorists because Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympics and clinics... Yeesh!

That kind of dangerous thinking would lead to a global war in which America would be anihlated! Simply put, no one would come to your aid, not Europe, not Canada, not South America, your businesses and army will be kicked out of most countries and your citizens abroad will be murdered in their hundreds, everywhere from Lagos to London. Your businesses would be undefendable abroad, and your ecconomy (along with the rest of the world's) would retract drastically, leading to civil unrest, possibly even civil war.

I hope in the States you have the means to indict Senators for making such self distructive statements. This Senator demonstrates exactly why the rest of the world is (at the very least) weiry of Republican's running your country.
Kick out our businesses. Some things are more important than wealth.
Don't come to our aid. Some things are more important than friendships and alliances
If the US is faced with nuclear terrorism there will probably be one of two outcomes. Either the US will win by utterly destroying it's adversaries, anyone who supports them, and numerous civilians who happen to be in the way, or the world ends. Either way we defeat our enemies. When we're truly angry we will be willing to take the risk.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I think I know my people well enough to know that they won't tolerate a nuclear attack on an American city.

I'll thank you not to insult the culture of my borther and future sister in law! That's like saying that all Christians are degenerate terrorists because Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympics and clinics... Yeesh!

Well if he had done it in the name of Jesus, supported and funded by radical theocratic christian regimes, I would agree with that statement about rudolph.

But whatever. The point is, muslims like to blow themselves, and other things, up. They have a history of doing it. And whenever they do, so-called moderate muslims step forward to "condemn" it by explaining that it is the result of challenges facing us all, usually [US support for Zionist Tyranny/Bush's policy in the middle east/Islamophobia in the UK (that one is my personal favorite)].

Probably there are many muslims that are indeed really horrified by terrorism, unfortunately they seem to pick as their spokespeople individuals who uniformly act as apologists in most respects for the extremists. So it becomes difficult after a while to have any sympathy, and naturally the suspicion is that all this condemnation is really praising with faint damnation.

It would be nice to actually hear from a muslim that would just condemn these actions without the, we condemn it but..........

After all, how many christians blathered on about how the "system" or the "government" was at least partly responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh?

If American is so ineptly run (militarily) that it can not competantly fight off a few thousand irregualars in Iraq how in God's green earth will it fight off the collective forces of the Globe, regular and irregular? becase that is what such a silly attitude will result in. As the Chinese said to the Russians in the 1960s, "it doesn't matter how many nukes you have, when you run out, there will still be millions of us left to come knocking on your doors." America would be served well by adopting a less beligerant attitude to other people's faith. If America really wants to defeat Islamic terrorism, give up your SUVs, go Green. No oil wealth, no power for the dictatorships.... no dictatorships, no terrorism.
We're having trouble in Iraq because we're trying to minimize civilian casualties and trying to rebuild the nation.

If the US is attacked with a nuclear weapon we won't really consider civilian casualties. We won't worry about rebuilding. We'll just kill the hell out of anyone connected with the attack.

McNamara was dovish I think, you are thinking of Curtis Lemay.


Not even Robert Macnamra, well...yeah not even he would suggest that.

It would be nice to actually hear from a muslim that would just condemn these actions without the, we condemn it but..........

How many sources would you like? Don't be naive. Islam does not preach hate, and statements like "muslims like to blow themselves up" is such utter nonsense it's not even worth considering. Suicidally desperate people who have been brainwashed into thinking mass murder will earn them a place in Heaven by pseudo-Muslim psychopaths using religion as their weapon in a political crusade like to blow themselves up. Not muslims.

You talk to any muslim in your town, mate, you ask them if they'd like to blow themselves up, see what answer you get, if they don't just slap you and walk off. You'll lose friends that way, I tell you. Grow up. Muslims are people too.

<snipIt would be nice to actually hear from a muslim that would just condemn these actions without the, we condemn it but..........<snip>

http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
Our Positions: Terrorism

The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.

The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.

Among Islamic scholars, the concept of jihad ranges in definition from the personal struggle against temptation to holy war. All calls for jihad to create an Islamic state should be rejected as heretic and a threat to modern society. The Coalition feels that the concept of jihad should be reinterpreted for a modern day context in which holy war is obsolete. No holy war needs to be waged; there is no clear and present threat to Islam; the only war that needs to be waged in the modern world is one against terrorists and extremists. As militant Islamic fundamentalism increases, the Coalition will wage a battle of minds as we bring Islam into the 21st century and introduce a doctrine which is compatible with democracy and modern living.

So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. Even members of this Coalition face threats as they carry out their work. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.

More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the perceived suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every terrorist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the ?liberation? of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world?s request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. HAMAS, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad justify the murder of innocent Jews by adopting the Palestinian cause.

The clever adoption of the Palestinian cause has made it difficult for peaceful Muslims to attack terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad and HAMAS. The real aim of organizations such as Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah and countries such as Iran is not just the ?liberation of Palestine? but the creation of a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance and fear that inspired and supported the Taliban and the creation of a medieval society in Afghanistan.

The Coalition rejects the urgent desire by extremist groups to create a strict Islamic empire as a justification for terrorism. The coalition rejects the desire to help the Palestinians as a justification for terrorism. The coalition rejects the use of terrorism under any circumstances and will challenge the terrorists? propaganda machines head on.

The Coalition will seek to raise the peaceful voices of Muslims world wide. The terrorist and extremist Muslims will no longer go unchallenged. Their days of sympathetic leaching off the Muslim community are numbered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, © Copyright 2005

http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/index.php
http://www.freemuslims.org/about/

I agree, if they nuke us, we nuke them. There is a perfect time to do this too, I forget when it is, but it would have the most casualties.

We're having trouble in Iraq because we're trying to minimize civilian casualties and trying to rebuild the nation.

If the US is attacked with a nuclear weapon we won't really consider civilian casualties. We won't worry about rebuilding. We'll just kill the hell out of anyone connected with the attack.

This is why, of all the nations in the world that most desperately needs to be striped of her arms, America stand head and sholders abouve the rest!

well now, isn't that bigoted?

Absolutely not. Its clear he is commited and devout. H emade strong statements about being willing to fight for his religion. I am trying to understand at what point a person is willing and determined to go on a suicide mission for their beliefs.
If I asked someone if they would become a suicide bomber strictly based on the fact they were Muslim, that might be bigoted.

So-the answer to you question is no.

Or we could just blow up the dome of the rock

I agree, if they nuke us, we nuke them. There is a perfect time to do this too, I forget when it is, but it would have the most casualties.
Who are "they"? Where are you going to find enough of "them" to make a nuclear strike practical?

This is why, of all the nations in the world that most desperately needs to be striped of her arms, America stand head and sholders abouve the rest!
Do you really think so? It's our belief that a nuclear attack on our homeland must result in the destruction of our enemy that kept the peace throughout the cold war. Think how many lives would have been lost in a conventional war between Warsaw pact nations and NATO. Our willingness to use overwhelming nuclear force prevented that.

I guess pretty much just what Britain is doing right now. Find out who exactly did it and bring them to justice.
I wouldn't run amoc on a wild revenge in the Middle East, if that's what you're insinuating...


Right- this isnt the middle east or Islam fighting us right now. Just a very small percentage of people that happen to be from the middle east and islamic.

Intelligence is the answer. We need to determine exactly who our enemies are, investigate, obtain hard evidence and then deal with them and them alone.
We dont need to create new enemies. We dont need to push those stiing on the fence down on the wrong side. We need to leave the Iraqi people and the Afghans better off than they were and able to govern themselves without outside pressure.
Then we need to leave.

Do you really think so? It's our belief that a nuclear attack on our homeland must result in the destruction of our enemy that kept the peace throughout the cold war. Think how many lives would have been lost in a conventional war between Warsaw pact nations and NATO. Our willingness to use overwhelming nuclear force prevented that.

Yes, but Bush is not JFK!!!

I agree, if they nuke us, we nuke them. There is a perfect time to do this too, I forget when it is, but it would have the most casualties.


We dont need to "nuke" anyone. Even if they use nuclear weapons against us, we are most likely able to defeat almost any enemy with our conventional weapons. For the US to use nuclear weapons I think it would have to be the last resort, to prevent a catastrophic defeat on our home soil.

Nuclear weapons were to prevent their very use through "mutually ensured destruction"- at one time, If the former Soviet Union and the US started lobbing nuclear weapons at each other, both countries would cease to exist as we know them. Its was the ability to strike back with massive force, even though we were hit, that kept every thing in check. That is no longer the case.
No one is capable of doing that to us today. We have to worry about smuggled dirty bombs, suicide bomers, fertilizer bombs and maybe a nuke smuggled in aboard a ship. But the days of nukes raining down are over.

Yes, but Bush is not JFK!!!
Nixon, Ford, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Regan weren't JFK either. Presidents change and life goes on. Bush has less than 4 years left.

Submarine launched stealth cruise missle.


Question - Where are these 'Terrorists' going to get a nuclear weapon? Second how is the US going to deliver it's Nuclear bomb to Mecca? By airplane? the US would be going up against F-16s, 18s some of the best radar in the world and SAMs, not obsolete Migs. If they decide to use an ICBM, well China and Russia will launch theirs and then the whole question is moot as EVERYONE in the world will be dead.

Or we could just blow up the dome of the rock

Are you serious? :mad:

The dome of the rock is in Jerusalem. If you blew it up you'd be blowing up the whole temple mount and the old city, at the very least - which means a lot of things holy to Christians and Jews too.

Or did you just not know where the Dome of the Rock was?

The inherent problem why islamic terrorists wouldn't mind using nukes against us is that we can't hit them back. Inevitably, striking Mecca or Medina would only make their cause stronger and fuel hatred against us.
You shouldn't be shooting at shadows, you might hit someone real.

Excellent analysis and sadly accurate. An alternate would be a race specific bioweapon, with an equally horrific outcome.


Ok. Let's imagine this...
EDIT: By the way, I'm serious!

1. A truck carrying a warhead from an old Kazakh mid-range missile explodes in Manhattan while in a traffic jam. Millions die.

2. US is outraged and shocked beyond belief. Bush has completely gone nuts and literally screams into the microphone at the news conference while tears run down his face. He keeps using the word "revenge" and even "final victory" has found a way into his "speech". The Journalists applaud.

3. Bush gives "The Terrorists" 24 hours to deliver Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri etc and threatens to nuke Mecca. The only American outraged by this is Michael Moore, who the same night is found dead in his hotel room.

4. After 24 hours of no response (other than desperate pleas by nations around the globe not to do it), the US launches an ICBM with a 1MT warhead. Mecca is turned into a crater, about a million or so people die then and later on.

5. The Arab world is stunned. Literally billions of people demonstrate, in Europe, in the Middle East, in Russia, in China, in South America, in Canada, in Australia.

6. All members of NATO immediatly leave the alliance, multiple former allies (Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Egypt etc...) freeze all relations with the US.

7. Two days later a huge uprising forces US troops out of several suburbs of Baghdad, hundreds of demonstrators are killed, as are a number of soldiers. The uprising continues as the US loses control over Iraq. To stop this, Bush authorises the use of lethal and overwhelming force against the population. MOABs start falling.

8. At the UN all member states agree on a resolution condemning US actions and imposing an embargo and other sanctions. The US vetoes, the rest of the world goes ahead anyways. One exception is Israel.

9. Economic collapse looms, but especially Chinese manipulation of their massive amounts of US currency breaks the US completely, all the while Saudi Arabia has pulled out the last of its' trillions of dollars of investment, leaving the US on its' knees.

10. What happens next? I have no idea, but I think it'll have something to do with explosives...

Excellent analysis and sadly accurate. An alternate would be a race specific bioweapon, with an equally horrific outcome.
Considering the genetic similarity between humans of all "races" how is it possible to come up with such a thing? Even if you target a gene, like the one that causes sickle cell, that is present only in people of African and in some cases mediterranian ancestry only a minority of the people in those populations carry the gene, so it wouldn't wipe out the whole group, only a small segment of the target group.

Let's just nuke the entire globe, and wipe ourselves out. Would be tons more fun than just nuking the mouse-slimes or whatever.

And the crapolics and phlews, too.

If there was no Hilter the Jews Diaspora would still be spread through Europe and Isreal would never have come to be. Ergo The "Palestinians" would still have there homeland(Jordan). Tito would have never come to power so no artifical Yugoslavia and no breakup there of and likely no ethnic cleasning.

What's wrong with the Jews (aside from Gafilta Fish which is a bio weapon), I never been harmed by a Jew, or by a "Jewsish" Conspiracy.

I am from New York originally and I have been harmed by Muslims. Do I hate all Muslims for that? No...I hate Jihadists. I hate all religious extremists especially the Christian right who would Talabanize the US. I'm sure the Christian community has done you more harm than any Jew. So why single them out?



If United States nukes Mecca USA will be destroy, all the Muslims and Muslims country’s will go to war with USA.
I hope that it don’t happen, all the Muslims in this world with died defending Mecca and Islam.
Islamic can’t be stop and it will not me stop this world will become Muslims one day. If USA nukes Mecca USA will be crushed to it knees.

Allah Ekber
Long live Islam and Muslims
Death to Israel
Death to Jews
Long live Hitler and Nazi
Long live Bosnia and Bosnian Muslims
Long live Yasser Arafat
Victory to Islam
Victory to Palestine

Allah Ekber long live Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are Muslim would you give you life you Islam? <<<Yes i would>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering the genetic similarity between humans of all "races" how is it possible to come up with such a thing? Even if you target a gene, like the one that causes sickle cell, that is present only in people of African and in some cases mediterranian ancestry only a minority of the people in those populations carry the gene, so it wouldn't wipe out the whole group, only a small segment of the target group.It can be done in some instances. Turks for instance have a genetic defect that makes them vulnerable to a disease that makes them deadly overweight. Dark-skinned people have more melanin in their skin than light-skinned people. It's difficult, but not impossible. You just need to find something that attacks something unique.

If there was no Hilter the Jews Diaspora would still be spread through Europe and Isreal would never have come to be. Ergo The "Palestinians" would still have there homeland(Jordan). Tito would have never come to power so no artifical Yugoslavia and no breakup there of and likely no ethnic cleasning.

What's wrong with the Jews (aside from Gafilta Fish which is a bio weapon), I never been harmed by a Jew, or by a "Jewsish" Conspiracy.

I am from New York originally and I have been harmed by Muslims. Do I hate all Muslims for that? No...I hate Jihadists. I hate all religious extremists especially the Christian right who would Talabanize the US. I'm sure the Christian community has done you more harm than any Jew. So why sing them out?
Teehee, Bosnia and Herzegowina has no idea that Hitler had no problem with encouraging his ancestors (if that's where he's from) from slaughtering eachother like animals.

Well if he had done it in the name of Jesus, supported and funded by radical theocratic christian regimes, I would agree with that statement about rudolph.

Erm... IIRC, he was doing these things in the name of jehovah/jesus, and while not directly supported by churches or those advocating thocracy, I seem to recall hearing that he had recieved some sort of support from individuals while hiding the the woods in the back end of beyond. Or am I thinking of someone else?

But whatever. The point is, muslims like to blow themselves, and other things, up. They have a history of doing it. And whenever they do, so-called moderate muslims step forward to "condemn" it by explaining that it is the result of challenges facing us all, usually [US support for Zionist Tyranny/Bush's policy in the middle east/Islamophobia in the UK (that one is my personal favorite)].

Some Christians like to blow things up and shoot those who disagree with them. They are a minority! I know and love deeply several muslims, and they are horrified and sickened by what is being committed in the name of allah by a minority of their religion. Saying we should bomb mecca (or Medina, or the Dome of the Rock, or Santa Sophia or or or...) because of the actins of a few brainwashed idiots is like saying that we should carpet bomb the Vatican (or Salt Lake City or Colorado Springs or or or...) because of the actions of Christian terrorists!

After all, how many christians blathered on about how the "system" or the "government" was at least partly responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh?

I don't quite see how... I don't much like the 'system' and say so publicly, so would I be responsible if a pagan terrorist (now there's a mental image...) blew something up? If I gave this hypothetical person material support or encouraged him/her/it to blow something up, then I could see bearing some responsibility, but otherwise... I just don't see it.

If there was no Hilter the Jews Diaspora would still be spread through Europe and Isreal would never have come to be. Ergo The "Palestinians" would still have there homeland(Jordan). Tito would have never come to power so no artifical Yugoslavia and no breakup there of and likely no ethnic cleasning.

What's wrong with the Jews (aside from Gafilta Fish which is a bio weapon), I never been harmed by a Jew, or by a "Jewsish" Conspiracy.

I am from New York originally and I have been harmed by Muslims. Do I hate all Muslims for that? No...I hate Jihadists. I hate all religious extremists especially the Christian right who would Talabanize the US. I'm sure the Christian community has done you more harm than any Jew. So why single them out?



Oh, so you hate the Christian right? Now your true colours are showing....

Oh heavens no. If we nuked Mecca, the rest would have to go, then where would we get oil?


Canada is the United States' biggest source of foreign oil.

I hate any group that would deprive another groups of its fundamental rights. Well the Cristian Right seems to believe that homosexuals are an "abomination"
a policy I cannot abide by (none of my Gay freinds seem abomibale to me). All men are are created equal not just the straight white Xtian Bible thumpers. Please Christianity is a POX on humanity like all religion really. If Jebus does come back ...he'd be a Buddhist.



Oh, so you hate the Christian right? Now your true colours are showing....

Canada City']Canada is the United States' biggest source of foreign oil.
Source please?

I though most of the US oil came from South America

Source please?

I though most of the US oil came from South America

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/energyrel050328-en.asp


Canada remains the largest supplier of oil (crude and refined combined) to the US in 2004, supplying 2.1 million barrels per day. This represents the sixth consecutive year, from 1999 to 2004, that Canada was the number one foreign supplier of oil to the U.S. Canadian oil represents 17% of US oil imports and 10% of US consumption.


So if a whiny liberal thinks George Bush went to the middle east for Oil, just point them to this site.