NationStates Jolt Archive

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,

Would you please stop speaking for me? As a member of the US population (and a NON Muslim) if we ever commited this atrocity I would declare war on the United States and I doubt that I would be the only one. 9/11 I sat there watching the TV and did I want to kill all the Muslims and/or Arabs? Hell no, I wanted to kill only those reponsible for the attack. How do you think the US will do with not only the rest of the world against it but a cival war within it's own borders?

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.

Which is sure as hell what it sounded like you werre doing.

Thats stupid. If we nuked Mecca we'd have to make a big crater out of every nation with a Muslim in it or else we'd be nuked again (and again and again...)

In all seriousness, I fear for the safety of anyone who even looks Arabic in this country, if we get nuked like that. Too many Americans got guns and what not, we'll see lynchings of Arabs here the like of which would make what the KKK did look like a Sunday picnic.

And that's the truth. Americans are, especially when pissed off...extremely irrational, and I'm quite sure my countrymen would take justice into their own hands against any and every Arab on this continent...and would DEMAND a nuclear strike back on the Middle East. Guarantee it.

"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."

Except you can't say that. Nearly half (that we know of) of american spoke up LOUDLY against this government last Election Day.

Probably more than that, but without a paper trail, we will never really know.

I, myself, hate Bush like poison, and I hate evrything this government currently stands for.

BUT, you are talking about US geTting NUKED!!! At that point, all bets are off, and I say fuck them, nuke their asses but good until they CAN'T nuke us anymore, because they will be dead.

I never said we oughta nuke them first...but, damn, if THEY nuke us, then we oughta damn well nuke THEM back. And nuke them HARD. I fully agree with Russia's theory during the cold War...in relation to this question...
You destroy a building, we destroy a city.

Hell yes!

If they get one nuke in here, I say we give them TWENTY nukes over there! Fuck 'em.

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?

Most Americans would.

I say we get the people responsible. And, quite frankly, if that is Muslims...then Muslims get it. If it's Swedes, then I say the Swedes get it. There are no innocents among a people that have nuked US.

I fully agree with Russia's theory during the cold War...in relation to this question...
You destroy a building, we destroy a city.

Hell yes!

If they get one nuke in here, I say we give them TWENTY nukes over there! Fuck 'em.
Do the actions of one small group of terrorists justify the slaughter of thousands of innocents?

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.

You think we're nuts?? You just watch what happens to this country if we get nuked! I'm serious! I'm already anti-Bush, anti-this Iraq war...anti just about everything this government has done. But if there is one thing that would pull us all together into a mad rage, it is nuking us. We Americans would go absolutely ballistic, I'm telling you we would. We'd shoot first and ask questions later, I promise you that we would!

consider that I...a non-Bush supporter...non-war supporter...would have such a reaction to even the THOUGHT of us getting nuked...and imagine what the more radical, conservative elements of American society would be like!

Hey, i'm just teling it like it is. You think we're nuts NOW??? Nuke us, and you'll SEE nuts!!

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...

You are forgetting something basic about American culture.

Think about it. Get back to me when you figure it out, okay?

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.

Now THERE is someone who understands American culture!!

Most Americans would.

I say we get the people responsible. And, quite frankly, if that is Muslims...then Muslims get it. If it's Swedes, then I say the Swedes get it. There are no innocents among a people that have nuked US.


So a couple of hundred people out of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide actually do this (believe me it'd take no more than this, not many people are crazed enough to do it, even in Al-Qai'eda) and they are ALL guilty?

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 idea of "nuking" Mecca is not only insulting but would not prove to be a deterrant of any kind. There are evil people who do not represent the nation
of Islam in any way yet claim that they are fighting a holy war. These people
would welcome such an attack for the same reason the Bush administration
welcomed the 9-11 attacks and the recent bombings in London. This is not
the way that civilised people deal with this sort of problem. Nuking Mecca
would only be an attack on the true nation of Islam. The terrorists do not
believe in Islam, they hide behind it. The same way Bush hides behind "Jesus"
If I ever meet this congressman I will have to excersise a lot of self control and respect another American's right to free expression and not shoot him in the foot.

Do the actions of one small group of terrorists justify the slaughter of thousands of innocents?

You're forgetting that, at that point, the average American would not give a shit. Besides, I've already said THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS among a people that have nuked us. And most Americans would feel the same way. No innocents.

So a couple of hundred people out of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide actually do this (believe me it'd take no more than this, not many people are crazed enough to do it, even in Al-Qai'eda) and they are ALL guilty?

Basically.

Basically.

This is pretty much what Hitler did y'know.

Godwin.

So a couple of hundred people out of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide actually do this (believe me it'd take no more than this, not many people are crazed enough to do it, even in Al-Qai'eda) and they are ALL guilty?
A nation that has perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians, maybe even more than a million suddenly destroyed by a nuclear weapon isn't likely to act rationally.

You're forgetting that, at that point, the average American would not give a shit.
No, I'm not forgetting that. I am not saying that it will not happen, I am saying that it is morally wrong for it to happen. If I'm reading your arguments correctly, you seem to be blending the two.
Besides, I've already said THERE ARE NO INNOCENTS among a people that have nuked us.
So the average Middle Easterner nuked you? The average guy out on the street killed the Americans?
Because that's who a return nuke will be killing. There are far less terrorists and terrorist-supporters than there are middle-easterners.
I'd bet many of them even believe that terrorism is wrong, too.
Would it not be senseless to nuke people who are on the same side as you or are indifferent, simply because other people from the same country as they attack you?

I hope you all own bicycles. After nuking Saudi Arabia where will you get oil? Every single oil producing nation (excluding canada, venezuela and Nigeria) and since Venezuela and Nigeria are 2 out of 11 members of OPEC the other 9 being muslim they will not sell oil to you either. That leaves your sole source of oil (outside of what is produced in the US) Canada. With canada producing around 3 billion barrels a day and shipping 1/3 (the current deal signed between our two governments) to the US and the US importing 13 billion barrels a day there will be no oil left in the US.

So go buy a bike. (or walk)

A nation that has perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians, maybe even more than a million suddenly destroyed by a nuclear weapon isn't likely to act rationally.
You see, here's the thing:
I haven't seen anybody arguing that the US will act perfectly rationally. It is entirely possible that we would do something liek nuke Mecca, and I don't think I've heard anyone deny that possibility.

What we are saying, or at least what I am saying, is that it is morally wrong, and the answer I am getting seems to be "Yes but the US won't act rationally!", which, to me, would seem to have rather little to do with whether or not it is right to nuke Mecca.

We can solve this problem by eliminating those in charge who do not think rationaly.

Quick order some pretzels!

You see, here's the thing:
I haven't seen anybody arguing that the US will act perfectly rationally. It is entirely possible that we would do something liek nuke Mecca, and I don't think I've heard anyone deny that possibility.

What we are saying, or at least what I am saying, is that it is morally wrong, and the answer I am getting seems to be "Yes but the US won't act rationally!", which, to me, would seem to have rather little to do with whether or not it is right to nuke Mecca.
Ok, I agree it's a bad move.

If mecca is nuked im moving to canada.

But in all seriousness;
American polititians are basiclly people who can talk but have no brains.

It's like this:
Polititian --> :fluffle: <--US public

Polititian: Will you vote for me?

US public: Of course I will!

What a completely bizarre, yet oddly predictable response from a Republican/hillbilly. What would happen if an MP suggested "nuking Tel Aviv" in the aftermath of the Rafah massacre? or the Jenin massacre? What would happen if a Congressmen tried to ban menorahs from public view the way Nativity scenes are today? Islam and Christianity, but especially Islam are the only religions people in the West seem able to bash openly these days, and now in the case of Islam, people are able to, with straight faces, openly talk about genocide. I honestly do not think the US would do something so absurd, what benefit, other than revenge does it get? It looses any possible Muslim allies (Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar), radicalizes 1.5 billion people, and most likely will be met with a response by Russia/China. Russia and China have pledges to defend Syria and Iran, and I think there would be serious thought in Europe, Russia, China, and heaven knows where else, that the US has gone too far this time. And how comes the Japanese are not able to talk openly about "nuking" Hollywood or New York after they suffered not one but two nuclear attacks, are non-white lives worth less? And how noble it would be to kill many innocent people in Makkah, because someone small, random group of people, decided to kill an equally innnocent population in the US? Really adequate response isnt it, really accomplishes alot. The fact that this is even suggested should show people how in the US today, its OK to hate Muslim.

What a completely bizarre, yet oddly predictable response from a Republican/hillbilly. What would happen if an MP suggested "nuking Tel Aviv" in the aftermath of the Rafah massacre? or the Jenin massacre? What would happen if a Congressmen tried to ban menorahs from public view the way Nativity scenes are today? Islam and Christianity, but especially Islam are the only religions people in the West seem able to bash openly these days, and now in the case of Islam, people are able to, with straight faces, openly talk about genocide. I honestly do not think the US would do something so absurd, what benefit, other than revenge does it get? It looses any possible Muslim allies (Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar), radicalizes 1.5 billion people, and most likely will be met with a response by Russia/China. Russia and China have pledges to defend Syria and Iran, and I think there would be serious thought in Europe, Russia, China, and heaven knows where else, that the US has gone too far this time. And how comes the Japanese are not able to talk openly about "nuking" Hollywood or New York after they suffered not one but two nuclear attacks, are non-white lives worth less? And how noble it would be to kill many innocent people in Makkah, because someone small, random group of people, decided to kill an equally innnocent population in the US? Really adequate response isnt it, really accomplishes alot. The fact that this is even suggested should show people how in the US today, its OK to hate Muslim.
There was no Jenin massacre. It was shown to be a palestinian fabrication in a thread several months ago. I don't know about Rafah.

I hope you all own bicycles. After nuking Saudi Arabia where will you get oil? Every single oil producing nation (excluding canada, venezuela and Nigeria) and since Venezuela and Nigeria are 2 out of 11 members of OPEC the other 9 being muslim they will not sell oil to you either. That leaves your sole source of oil (outside of what is produced in the US) Canada. With canada producing around 3 billion barrels a day and shipping 1/3 (the current deal signed between our two governments) to the US and the US importing 13 billion barrels a day there will be no oil left in the US.

So go buy a bike. (or walk)

Mexico is the second biggest oil importer.

Read the link I posted.

I don't recall being "shown" any evidence to make be believe a massacre didn't happen in Jenin, and Rafah, a refugee camp near the Sinai border was almost completely destoyed. I suppose next you will say Deir Yassin was a "fabrication", and besides, in regards to Jenin, how can it be proven either way, the Jews never let anyone in to inspect what really happened.

I don't recall being "shown" any evidence to make be believe a massacre didn't happen in Jenin, and Rafah, a refugee camp near the Sinai border was almost completely destoyed. I suppose next you will say Deir Yassin was a "fabrication", and besides, in regards to Jenin, how can it be proven either way, the Jews never let anyone in to inspect what really happened.
Here are some links for your edification.

www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html
www.rense.com/general24/dt.htm
www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=21052002-123835-3473r
www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/Jeningrad_What_the_British_Media_Said.asp
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/194lzmsh.asp

A little searching will prove to you that the Jenin "massacre" never was. The first time this issue was brought up in this forum there were links to BBC sources that confirmed that Jenin was a palestinian fabrication.

I don't recall being "shown" any evidence to make be believe a massacre didn't happen in Jenin, and Rafah, a refugee camp near the Sinai border was almost completely destoyed. I suppose next you will say Deir Yassin was a "fabrication", and besides, in regards to Jenin, how can it be proven either way, the Jews never let anyone in to inspect what really happened.
No, apparently it really didn't happen in the scale as was thought initially. I saw a PBS documentary about it. People thought it was a lot worse, but the real destruction was only in a relatively small area. It was by no means as big as it seemed at the time. And only comparatively few people died too.
http://www.nodo50.org/csca/palestina/imagenes_palestina/jenin/jenin-aerea1.jpg

I really don't agree with any of these revenge attacks though, no matter how little damage they do.

You see, here's the thing:
I haven't seen anybody arguing that the US will act perfectly rationally. It is entirely possible that we would do something liek nuke Mecca, and I don't think I've heard anyone deny that possibility.

What we are saying, or at least what I am saying, is that it is morally wrong, and the answer I am getting seems to be "Yes but the US won't act rationally!", which, to me, would seem to have rather little to do with whether or not it is right to nuke Mecca.

and that is because the US would NOT act rationally. I'm not saying it is right, or that I support it, but I can tell you the average American is going to holler for blood (and we really don't give a shit WHOSE blood we get) if we get nuked.

I'm telling you even I would holler for blood at that point. And I have supported NOTHING Bush has done yet. and I'd holler for blood...and you know what? I'm not so sure I'd give a shit if the blood we got was guilty blood or not. And well over half this country is more Republican than I am, since I'm a big-time leftist.

But, in the evnt of my country getting nuked...even I would be hollering for someone's blood, and I quite frankly would even give a shit whose blood we got. Just that we got some.

I'm just telling it the way it is. Our citizenry...my countrymen/women...would not tolerate the nuking of an American city. I know my own countrymen/women well enough to say that. It would not be tolerated...and most Americans wouldn't give a shit if the return nuke hit innocent or guilty people. I'm not saying it's rihgt...I'm not saying it's rational. but it's the reaction I would expect from my countrymen/women.

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

My goodness. What quality congresspeople you American elect. :eek:

We can solve this problem by eliminating those in charge who do not think rationaly.

Quick order some pretzels!

nope. It goes beyond Bush. It goes beyond politics, religion...anything.

The one thing my countrymen/women would NEVER tolerate, is the nuking of any American city. We would be as one, hollering for blood, and any President who didn't give us blood after such an attack would likely find himself removed by force from the office, and one of my countrymen would push the damn button if the President wouldn't.

Trust me, we would NOT be rational in such a situation. Americans are not known for rationality to begin with, but you could hardly expect any other reaction from a people who just had a major city in their country NUKED.

And I happen to live close enough to a major metropolitan area, that likely it would affect me directly. I live equidistant between both Philadelphia and New York. Both would be prime targets of an enemy. Both have harbors. both have large civilian populations.

I live close enough to either one that the nuclear bomb would likely have some effects upon me. If not kill me, it would certainly make life very difficult for a while.

But, I'm telling you...you could not expect any other reaction from a country that just got nuked. They are gonna want blood. They are gonna DEMAND blood. I know my countrymen/women well enough to know this.

We do not handle things like Britain, we don't have that famous "stiff upper lip" thing here in America. We would lash out like you've never seen before...and with the support of a vast majority of our people, too.

I'll nuke you!!!

http://thross.012webpages.com

:headbang: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

nope. It goes beyond Bush. It goes beyond politics, religion...anything.

The one thing my countrymen/women would NEVER tolerate, is the nuking of any American city. We would be as one, hollering for blood, and any President who didn't give us blood after such an attack would likely find himself removed by force from the office, and one of my countrymen would push the damn button if the President wouldn't.

Trust me, we would NOT be rational in such a situation. Americans are not known for rationality to begin with, but you could hardly expect any other reaction from a people who just had a major city in their country NUKED.

And I happen to live close enough to a major metropolitan area, that likely it would affect me directly. I live equidistant between both Philadelphia and New York. Both would be prime targets of an enemy. Both have harbors. both have large civilian populations.

I live close enough to either one that the nuclear bomb would likely have some effects upon me. If not kill me, it would certainly make life very difficult for a while.

But, I'm telling you...you could not expect any other reaction from a country that just got nuked. They are gonna want blood. They are gonna DEMAND blood. I know my countrymen/women well enough to know this.

We do not handle things like Britain, we don't have that famous "stiff upper lip" thing here in America. We would lash out like you've never seen before...and with the support of a vast majority of our people, too.

Brilliant, so we should drop the talking of nuking anybody, shouldn't we?

One must realize that we are not, rather by principal we should not, be fighting Islam, we are fighting terrorism....as elementary as that idea is. However, we musn't equte Mecca, a city of peace, with terrorism. If we're going to be irrational, let's at least do it in moderation.

Trust me, we would NOT be rational in such a situation. Americans are not known for rationality to begin with, but you could hardly expect any other reaction from a people who just had a major city in their country NUKED.
You say that like it's something to be proud of.

A totally irresponsible thing to say. Not the way to go about it at all. Not all Muslims are evil. If we nuke Mecca then we are no better than the terrorists. How did this guy ever get elected? Besides, the Saudis are our friends. This guy is seriously demented.

You say that like it's something to be proud of.
Not particularly. Just the facts, ma'am.
It's just the cold, hard facts. I know my countrymen/women.
And I know they would not tolerate a nuclear attack on us.

Rationality would be the first casualy of just such an attack, I guarantee it.

Not that I am necessarily proud of that, but I do know how my countrymen/women think/act/feel.

And if there is one thing that would completely send this country ballistic, try nuking us. Guarantee you would see a great lashing out the likes of which you've NEVER seen before. And I know it. And I fear it.

No, not proud. Just stating the facts, one American to one obviously non-American...who does not understand the American psyche.

Allright, folks. I'm American. Many of you aren't.

But, in the end, if it happens, we'll see who was right.

Because I don't think very many Americans are gonna be too damned interested in TALKING after one of our major population centers gets nuked.

See if I'm not right.

-snip-
I'm not saying that you're not correct in what you are saying.
But I think that that kind of barbaric revenge thinking is just below you and any other people on the planet.
Maybe you guys should get aggression-management help... :D

i have not read all twenty pages of this thread, and, am not sure if someone has already made this point, but, somewhere on the second or third page, someone mentioned/suggested america return to isolationism to remove muslim extremists as a threat. i'd like to simply point out that isolationism does not work.

remeber world war two? remeber the jewish holocaust? that's what isolationism gets us.

while the threat of deploying nuclear weapons against muslim states in retalation to a nuclear attack on our own soil does sound... resonable to me at first... i think there have been enough points made in this thread to discredit such an attempt. deterance does work, when dealing with other nations. dealing with independent cells of terrorists, however... i can't see how such would be feasible. anyway, i can agree with all who said it's time for us, as americans, to stop thinking with our bombs, and start thinking and acting with diplomacy.

Rome 'nuked' Carthage to end all future Punic wars, it worked. Rome 'nuked' Jerusalem once to stop uprisings, and it didn't work, but they did it again several years later to get the temple and that time it worked.

You don't take out the oppositions holy sites unless it's all-out war against a nation and society.

Fighting terrorists is an entirely different situation and this proposal to take out Mecca is absurd unless all of the Muslim nations declared war on America first… This entire scenario is ridiculous outside of making a comic-book what-if theme story for children.

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

Look, if the US is prepared to nuke Mecca, then it had better be prepared for an all out invasion, genocide, and colonization/expansion in territory. Because if your going to kill indescriminately like the terrorists on a major city that is sacred to MANY average Americans, then we WILL have to wage an all out war on the region. Because if it gets to the point where we want to nuke Mecca (Although a couple of MOAB's will do the job) then it is only a matter of days before a full war will begin anyway.

Nuking Mecca is a declaration of war on a religion. And the only way to win is to actually fight like your at war.

In otherwords, it will NEVER happen. So stop trying to piss people off of other faiths.

I'm not saying that you're not correct in what you are saying.
But I think that that kind of barbaric revenge thinking is just below you and any other people on the planet.
Maybe you guys should get aggression-management help... :D

Unlike in many European countries, Aggression management and therapy is not provided healthcare and is looked down upon and generally shunned.

And all this "What If?" scenario overlooks one observation. If the terrorists got to nuke an American city, someone in Homeland Security has severely fucked up.

Maybe someone has made this point, but if the US nukes Mecca, how would Europe and America's allies react? On one hand, the US has gone insane and will probably kill millions of people until the world's second largest religion is bombed into submission. On the other, the most Muslims have the moral high-ground, because they would have been unjustly attacked, and the others would be terrorists with access to nuclear weapons.

Most Americans would.

I say we get the people responsible. And, quite frankly, if that is Muslims...then Muslims get it. If it's Swedes, then I say the Swedes get it. There are no innocents among a people that have nuked US.

That would only be applicable if "a people" attacked you.

First of all, Muslims are not "a people", they are a group of people who share the same faith.
Second, you are not going to be attacked by the established leadership of this "people", but rather by some fanatical criminal elements that happen to share their faith (which in truth can be argued, as Islam itself condemns actions like these, just as Christianity does).

So, yes, the vast majority of Muslims in Mecca is and will be abslutely and completely innocent. Attacking them would make you the terrorists.

Just for the sake of arguement, what if an Muslim who was born in the USA and has US citizenship was to blow up Frankfurt Airport? Would that justify Germany (or maybe even the EU) bombing New York? No? Why not? Same scenario....

You are forgetting something basic about American culture.

Think about it. Get back to me when you figure it out, okay?

Damn, I did it again... I mistook US citizens for rational beings that would be capable of thinking before acting :eek:

Hmm... Fight terrorism by touching off WWIII... makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

BTW: the "terrorists get nukes senario is, despite the hysterical mouthings of what passes for the press in this country, very unlikely.

Damn, I did it again... I mistook US citizens for rational beings that would be capable of thinking before acting

Well, our government isn't, but I have to believe that at least SOME of our citizens are. (I hope)

This would be especially bad for Australians like myself, as we live just south of the largest Muslim population on Earth (Indonesia) We would probably be suffering the massive invasion we have always feared from them if America were to do something as monumentaly stupid as that unless we disowned the U.S. as allies, pulled out of the Non-Proliferation treaty and made good use our massive Uranium deposits really quickly.

Not particularly. Just the facts, ma'am.
It's just the cold, hard facts. I know my countrymen/women.
And I know they would not tolerate a nuclear attack on us.

Rationality would be the first casualy of just such an attack, I guarantee it.

Not that I am necessarily proud of that, but I do know how my countrymen/women think/act/feel.

And if there is one thing that would completely send this country ballistic, try nuking us. Guarantee you would see a great lashing out the likes of which you've NEVER seen before. And I know it. And I fear it.

No, not proud. Just stating the facts, one American to one obviously non-American...who does not understand the American psyche.

Then the American Psyche must change! If you did lash out you will cease to exist. It is time the USA gets over its unilateralism, you are not big enough to take on the world, no country is or ever has been.

The problem is if a nuke ewipped country lashes out, EVERYONE ceases to exist. Nukes cannot be chucked around like cherry bombs. The launching of a single nuke from anyone's stockpile will permaently damage the entire world. I think that's what a lot of people are missing. This governor or whatever does not represent the entire American goverment. President Chaney, I mean Bush, would never go that far, in my opinion.

The problem is if a nuke ewipped country lashes out, EVERYONE ceases to exist. Nukes cannot be chucked around like cherry bombs. The launching of a single nuke from anyone's stockpile will permaently damage the entire world. I think that's what a lot of people are missing. This governor or whatever does not represent the entire American goverment. President Chaney, I mean Bush, would never go that far, in my opinion.

I don't know... I've heard the words "He wouldn't do that, it's just too plain stupid" in relation to Bush one time too many. And he ALWAYS ended up doing that.

I don't know... I've heard the words "He wouldn't do that, it's just too plain stupid" in relation to Bush one time too many. And he ALWAYS ended up doing that.maybe, but it have do be there reasonable adult, that will keep him from do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
You are forgetting something basic about American culture.

Think about it. Get back to me when you figure it out, okay?


Damn, I did it again... I mistook US citizens for rational beings that would be capable of thinking before acting :eek:

Well, close enough that I'll give you credit for it. It's not so much US citizens, as our leadership...though, in the event of such a monstrous attack, I'm not so sure about our citizens, either. I really do believe rationality would be the first casualty of such an attack. so I'll give you half-credit on this one. Close, anyway.

Then the American Psyche must change! If you did lash out you will cease to exist. It is time the USA gets over its unilateralism, you are not big enough to take on the world, no country is or ever has been.

Pipe dreams. The American psyche will not change. Sorry, but rationality would be the first casualty of such an attack...take my word for it. I'm American, I know my countrymen/women.

The problem is if a nuke ewipped country lashes out, EVERYONE ceases to exist. Nukes cannot be chucked around like cherry bombs. The launching of a single nuke from anyone's stockpile will permaently damage the entire world. I think that's what a lot of people are missing. This governor or whatever does not represent the entire American goverment. President Chaney, I mean Bush, would never go that far, in my opinion.
You don't think so?
You don't know our leadership very well, do you?

Remember this is a country that attacked Iraq with no provokation.

Imagine what happens if the provokation is the nuking of an American city!

I'm telling you that rationality would be the first casualty. And not just in our leadership...but in a huge amount of our civilian population!

You'd be seeing vigilante "reprisal" attacks against anyone who even LOOKED Middle Eastern being carried out by Vigilate Joes all over the country. You see riots in every major city, mosques being burned down, Muslims being run over with cars...you are forgetting this is a very well-armed country, and there are a lot of people here who don't need much of a push to become vigilantes!

i'm telling you you don't want to see the results of such an attack. I'm not proud of this, incidentally, I'm just realistic, and I know my fellow citizenry.

There's a significant portion of our citizenry who damn well would shoot first and ask questions later...and there would not be very many Americans interested in TALKING after one of our cities just got NUKED.

I'm telling you, our response, officially, and unofficially, would be way over the top. You nuke one of our cities, and you might as well have just kicked a hornet's nest!

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

Yeah, so then Muslims bomb St. Paul's in Vatican city and just blowing up churches in general. It's such a vicious circle isn't it?

Yeah, so then Muslims bomb St. Paul's in Vatican city and just blowing up churches in general. It's such a vicious circle isn't it?
Cool! Then religion gets wiped out completely.

On second thought, the number of dead outweigh the benefit.

Most Americans would.

I say we get the people responsible. And, quite frankly, if that is Muslims...then Muslims get it. If it's Swedes, then I say the Swedes get it. There are no innocents among a people that have nuked US.

Interesting theory. Are there inocents among a people who have nuked Japan?

You think we're nuts?? You just watch what happens to this country if we get nuked! I'm serious! I'm already anti-Bush, anti-this Iraq war...anti just about everything this government has done. But if there is one thing that would pull us all together into a mad rage, it is nuking us. We Americans would go absolutely ballistic, I'm telling you we would. We'd shoot first and ask questions later, I promise you that we would!

I know I would, be shooting at people like you I mean.

It would be much more creative to sink Mecca instead by digging a huge network of tunnels underneath, although it run into a bit of money. Spewing radioactive garbage on it would also work. The problem would be that we couldn't make a Meccopoly game if we did.

You'd be seeing vigilante "reprisal" attacks against anyone who even LOOKED Middle Eastern being carried out by Vigilate Joes all over the country. You see riots in every major city, mosques being burned down, Muslims being run over with cars...you are forgetting this is a very well-armed country, and there are a lot of people here who don't need much of a push to become vigilantes!


Your forgetting that in most American states, just about anyone can carry a large number of weapons. Maybe the Muslim population is not as well armed as the Christian conservative population, but I would think that you would have quite a few gun fights and, depending on just how many guns there are out there, civil war.

What was it again? Class 3 license holders can own chainguns right?

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
Maybe they should nuke the vatican next time a Catholic extremist kills someone?

Interesting theory. Are there inocents among a people who have nuked Japan?
I wouldn't blame a Japanese person who said no to that question.

I know I would, be shooting at people like you I mean.

wouldn't surprise me. You think I've never been shot at before? You don't know who you are dealing with, do you?

Well, trust me, I've dodged the bullets, the bricks, and the rocks of bigots for a long time now, so why don't you just take your best shot?

Your forgetting that in most American states, just about anyone can carry a large number of weapons. Maybe the Muslim population is not as well armed as the Christian conservative population, but I would think that you would have quite a few gun fights and, depending on just how many guns there are out there, civil war.

What was it again? Class 3 license holders can own chainguns right?

Did I ever say the Muslim/Middle-Easterners would not fight back? But they'd be outnumbered and outgunned!
I'm telling you, this place would go completely ballistic. and yes, civil war is a very real possibility. Once rationality is an official casualty (won't take long) then just about anything is possible.

...and don't forget next time an Elvis fan kills someone, we should nuke Graceland! Uh-huh-huh!

I know I would, be shooting at people like you I mean.

Please do not feed the troll

Did I ever say the Muslim/Middle-Easterners would not fight back? But they'd be outnumbered and outgunned!

Why do you think it will be only Muslims/Middle-Easterners fighting the bigots? If this ever happens I certainly intend to be out there shooting lynchers and cutting people down.

Please do not feed the troll

What troll? I think most of these people who say they would be out lynching Muslims and Arabs are being honest.

What troll? I think most of these people who say they would be out lynching Muslims and Arabs are being honest.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!!
Back up!!
When did I ever say I would be out there lynching Muslims?? NEVER did I say that. I said you would see cases of it happening all over the United States...not that I would participate in same! It's just that I know my countrymen/women...and there's a lot of them out there that don't need too much of a push to become vigilantes!

I'm just stating what I honestly believe would happen. I'm not saying I support it, advocate it, or would participate in it.

just thought I'd better clear that up before this gets out of hand!

Let me state, very clearly and for the record...I do not endorse, or approve of, or suggest or condone such activities...i'm merely saying they would be happening! there are those in our society who are unbalanced enough that even a little push will send them over the edge into getting a little vigilante-style justice by taking the law into their own hands. Now, you would admit nuking one of our cities would be more than just a little push, would you not?

There's a significant portion of our citizenry that would go apeshit, and start taking the law into their own hands is what I am saying.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!!
Back up!!
When did I ever say I would be out there lynching Muslims?? NEVER did I say that. I said you would see cases of it happening all over the United States...not that I would participate in same! It's just that I know my countrymen/women...and there's a lot of them out there that don't need too much of a push to become vigilantes!

I'm just stating what I honestly believe would happen. I'm not saying I support it, advocate it, or would participate in it.

just thought I'd better clear that up before this gets out of hand!

Let me state, very clearly and for the record...I do not endorse, or approve of, or suggest or condone such activities...i'm merely saying they would be happening! there are those in our society who are unbalanced enough that even a little push will send them over the edge into getting a little vigilante-style justice by taking the law into their own hands. Now, you would admit nuking one of our cities would be more than just a little push, would you not?

There's a significant portion of our citizenry that would go apeshit, and start taking the law into their own hands is what I am saying.
Yep. The fact is that many people, or at least many Americans don't like nuance. They don't deal well with shades of grey when considering complex issues. Why do you think Bush got re-elected? Most people who voted for him, i think, chose him because he oversimplified things so they could understand without too much effort.

Those same people will oversimplify the issue of terrorism and say that all muslims are guilty.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!!
Back up!!
When did I ever say I would be out there lynching Muslims?? NEVER did I say that. I said you would see cases of it happening all over the United States...not that I would participate in same!

Then you have used faulty grammar, earlier in the thread you stated that "We Americans would go absolutely ballistic, I'm telling you we would. We'd shoot first and ask questions later, I promise you that we would!" we includes yourself therefore I assumed that you would be "absolutely ballistic" and that you would "shoot first and ask questions later". I'm feeling to lazy to dig all the way through the thread but I recall others who used the word "I" when discussing violent reactions towords Muslims/Arabs in recation to this hypothetical event and I assumed that you were placing yourself among them. And trust me, in this hypotetical situation this is a group that I would be shooting at every chance I got. If you did not mean that you yourself would engage in this type of barbaric behavior perhaps you should have said SOME Americans would have reacted in this manner.

Any more I missed?

Yes. I'd become president of Austria, abolish neutrality and declare war on the USA. Nuke Mecca?! what about religous freedom???? :mad:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

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

Better yet, the Vatican too!

Nah, americans are protestants, Serbs are greek ortodox, I know this since i am from the balkans ethnicly[bosniak, bosnian moslem what ever]

Anyway, in that case you should nuke, emmmm....

Beograd :confused:


Maybe we should just stop the nuking, and terror, then we would all be happy
And massacres, I mean give us a break, we are massacred every 50th year by the serbs :(

make love not war
:fluffle: :fluffle:

Yep. The fact is that many people, or at least many Americans don't like nuance. They don't deal well with shades of grey when considering complex issues. Why do you think Bush got re-elected? Most people who voted for him, i think, chose him because he oversimplified things so they could understand without too much effort.

Those same people will oversimplify the issue of terrorism and say that all muslims are guilty.


EXACTLY!!! Someone finally understood what I was actually saying all this time!

in case most haven't noticed it yet...most americans seem to want to let others do their thinking FOR them. They don't want to have to think, and they want to be led. And they wanna hear what they wanna hear...even if they know it is lies, they don't care, as long as you spoon-feed them what they wanna hear. Pathetic, really.

Then you have used faulty grammar, earlier in the thread you stated that "We Americans would go absolutely ballistic, I'm telling you we would. We'd shoot first and ask questions later, I promise you that we would!" we includes yourself therefore I assumed that you would be "absolutely ballistic" and that you would "shoot first and ask questions later". I'm feeling to lazy to dig all the way through the thread but I recall others who used the word "I" when discussing violent reactions towords Muslims/Arabs in recation to this hypothetical event and I assumed that you were placing yourself among them. And trust me, in this hypotetical situation this is a group that I would be shooting at every chance I got. If you did not mean that you yourself would engage in this type of barbaric behavior perhaps you should have said SOME Americans would have reacted in this manner.

then I apologize for my faulty grammar and syntax, Professor. when I said WE...I meant, collectively...as a country...enough of us WOULD go ballistic to where you could say collectively, WE as a country, had come unhinged...and that the following were some of the reactions that could be expected when WE came unhinged, as a country...as a society...when rationality and social order went out the window, as it would, in the event of an American city getting nuked.

Obviously, someone ELSE understood exactlyt what I meant, but, obviously, you, Professor need everything spelled out for you, so I hope that cleared it up for you...Professor.

Yep. The fact is that many people, or at least many Americans don't like nuance. They don't deal well with shades of grey when considering complex issues. Why do you think Bush got re-elected? Most people who voted for him, i think, chose him because he oversimplified things so they could understand without too much effort.


Sounds like the average American mentality is "Duh! Me stupid. Me like being stupid. Thinking...hard!" doesn't it?

A lot of Americans have the moronic idea that anything we do that pisses off the terrorists must be good because we hate the terrorists and therefore anything that pisses them off is good for us. This couldn't be further from the truth. They thrive on anything that keeps them pissed off. Their world view is based on the West persecuting Muslims. Psychologically, something that reinforces this view is pleasing to them even if it is harmful in other ways (be it strategically: ie invading Iraq or spiritually: ie nuking Mecca.) They would respond with anger if we nuked Mecca, but it would strengthen their cause and deepen their resolve. It would do negligible damage to their material ability to wage war and would give them an edge in morale and recruitment.

Sounds like the average American mentality is "Duh! Me stupid. Me like being stupid. Thinking...hard!" doesn't it?

We don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

:confused:
Maybe someone has already said this, but I don't think that nuking/bombing mecca or any religious site will do any good.

Here's why.

Religion is NOT about the places. It's about the people and the beliefs and the faith that they have. You can destroy a building, a city, a town or even a country. So what?!? As long as one person believes, cares, and has faith in what they believe in (yes - even serial killers have a belief such as killing is ok or whatever - though we may not all agree with it) it can and will continue.

Think about it - how many times has the walled city (now the wailing wall) in Jerusalem been destroyed? How many times have the Jewish people been enslaved, faced massive persecution and so on? Yet they perservere, believe, and continue on.

How often have Christians been killed and become martyrs? Think of the Spanish Inquesition... think of the Romans and their actions towards Christians... Yet Christianity still exists - vatican and pope or no.

The same is true for the Islamic religion, and just about every other one in the world.

Personally, I think the congress person whom said this (I will not say congress man because they are NOT A MAN since they don't respect beliefs!) is extremely prejudiced, racist, narrowminded, and ignorant. It's a shame that we have someone like that running our country. I do not agree with it, and am glad the decision is not solely up to them. I will note that I will defend to my death his right to say what he believes, but I don't agree, and I think that the majority of the population of this country agrees it's stupid. I'd even go so far as to call this a possible publicity stunt - it's just a matter of seeing where he wants to go with it.

Blessed Be!
~Rose

which makes the nuke mecca idea less appealing.I like the way you say "less appealing." Very clever. ^_^

Nukeing all religious sites isn't such a bad idea as it is the root cause of a large number of the worlds problems. It means those of us with a gram of brain matter who know all religion is total crap can live our lives in a much safer, happier and more tollerent world.

Yes, any more posts on this topic would be useless.

Its just a stupid (spelt with two noughts) idea

Well enough with this thread already, amazing that there can be so many extremists on both sides... in any case I won't bother advocating any form of action (noone would listen anyway, most people have opinions that are too firmly set, and fanatics don't listen to reason anyway). I don't know about you guys, but this is what I am quite sure will happen, given long-time US policy on retailiations against the use of weapons of mass destruction on them:

1. US WILL nuke back, not necessarily at the direct perpetrators, given their current hard-line stance,
which leads to:
2. A widespread Muslim jihad against the US and other Christian/supporting nations, probably further nuclear attacks on US,
which leads to:
3. World War III - with nukes. Majority of earth's population find out whether there is actually heaven/paradise (wouldn't it be a hoot if there wasn't, or God decided to send them ALL to hell :P)
which leads to:
4a) Post-apocalypse: earth in ruins, everyone too busy to survive to worry about religion (even religious fanatics need to eat and try save their kids from radiation poisoning), civilisation set back by a thousand years,
OR
4b) Nuclear winter, everyone dies. Religion/nations are a moot point. Rats and cockroachs most likely survivors, and evolve and set up a civilisation a few million years later. They dig up our records and laugh themselves silly.

Not advocating actions people, but if the US gets nuked better run for the vaults straight away, might survive for a few more years before the radiation or eventual breakdown in protective technology breaks down. It's in the interests of the world population to... prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction on the US, not because we like them, but because it will begin a chain of events that will most likely kill all of us.

Well enough with this thread already, amazing that there can be so many extremists on both sides... in any case I won't bother advocating any form of action (noone would listen anyway, most people have opinions that are too firmly set, and fanatics don't listen to reason anyway). I don't know about you guys, but this is what I am quite sure will happen, given long-time US policy on retailiations against the use of weapons of mass destruction on them:

1. US WILL nuke back, not necessarily at the direct perpetrators, given their current hard-line stance,
which leads to:
2. A widespread Muslim jihad against the US and other Christian/supporting nations, probably further nuclear attacks on US,
which leads to:
3. World War III - with nukes. Majority of earth's population find out whether there is actually heaven/paradise (wouldn't it be a hoot if there wasn't, or God decided to send them ALL to hell :P)
which leads to:
4a) Post-apocalypse: earth in ruins, everyone too busy to survive to worry about religion (even religious fanatics need to eat and try save their kids from radiation poisoning), civilisation set back by a thousand years,
OR
4b) Nuclear winter, everyone dies. Religion/nations are a moot point. Rats and cockroachs most likely survivors, and evolve and set up a civilisation a few million years later. They dig up our records and laugh themselves silly.

Not advocating actions people, but if the US gets nuked better run for the vaults straight away, might survive for a few more years before the radiation or eventual breakdown in protective technology breaks down. It's in the interests of the world population to... prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction on the US, not because we like them, but because it will begin a chain of events that will most likely kill all of us.

I like whow you think :p

War never changes.

War never changes.

War: I can change! Really!

I still remember that retort. =p

Anyone else get it?

If Mecca is nuked then the Hajj--the fifth Pillar of Islam--is thrown down. The Qu'aran becomes wrong in a great many of its statements.

Destroying Mecca is pretty much the only sure-fire way of bringing down Islam as a religion.

We don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

lmao, its the new board game kiddiez, retardoly!

If Mecca is nuked then the Hajj--the fifth Pillar of Islam--is thrown down. The Qu'aran becomes wrong in a great many of its statements.

Destroying Mecca is pretty much the only sure-fire way of bringing down Islam as a religion.That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Destroying Mecca and making the Hajj impossible does not make the Qu'ran *wrong*. Any more than destroying the World Trade Center made all those pre-9/11 books and articles about the World Trade Center *wrong*.

And why should we be seeking to 'bring down Islam as a religion'? Who gave YOU the right to decide what people should believe and what they should not? Why is your aim of destroying that faith any more acceptable than the intention of VERY FEW 'Muslims' to destroy others? Answer: it isn't. In entertaining notions like this you are becoming what you profess to oppose.

But such is always the case whenever people choose the option that requires the least thought.

If Mecca is nuked then the Hajj--the fifth Pillar of Islam--is thrown down. The Qu'aran becomes wrong in a great many of its statements.

Destroying Mecca is pretty much the only sure-fire way of bringing down Islam as a religion.
Proving parts of the Bible wrong doesn't stop Christianity from flourishing, why would proving the Koran wrong stop Islam?

I can't beleive this thread's still active.

Sounds like the average American mentality is "Duh! Me stupid. Me like being stupid. Thinking...hard!" doesn't it?
More like I'm busy thinking about how to make ends meet, organize the family's schedule, and keep my job. I don't have time to study every political issue in detail, so I'll pick the candidate who explains things in a simple fashion.

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
Why not just nuke the whole world right now? It'd sort out everyone's problems (by being dead, they wouldn't have any more). I guess I've succumbed to the whole 'kill them all and let God sort them out' kind of thinking, but it does make a kind of distasteful sense. ;)

Sounds like the average American mentality is "Duh! Me stupid. Me like being stupid. Thinking...hard!" doesn't it?

Actually, that isn't oo far off, really. Except they don't THINK that...they THINK they are smart, but they are brainwashed and like it that way. Most of my countrymen/women do not want to think for themselves, because they don't want the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with it.

They'd rather be able to blame someone else when things go wrong because of something they did.

Look at Bush for proof of my words. He got to blame "bad intelligence" that he damn well KNEW was bad. Look at the people who voted for Bush. Mostly corporatist buttholes. And what do corporatist buttholes spend most of their time doing? finding a way to cover their own ass by shifting the blame for their mistakes!

Understand now?

:confused:
Maybe someone has already said this, but I don't think that nuking/bombing mecca or any religious site will do any good.

Here's why.

Religion is NOT about the places. It's about the people and the beliefs and the faith that they have. You can destroy a building, a city, a town or even a country. So what?!? As long as one person believes, cares, and has faith in what they believe in (yes - even serial killers have a belief such as killing is ok or whatever - though we may not all agree with it) it can and will continue.

Think about it - how many times has the walled city (now the wailing wall) in Jerusalem been destroyed? How many times have the Jewish people been enslaved, faced massive persecution and so on? Yet they perservere, believe, and continue on.

How often have Christians been killed and become martyrs? Think of the Spanish Inquesition... think of the Romans and their actions towards Christians... Yet Christianity still exists - vatican and pope or no.

The same is true for the Islamic religion, and just about every other one in the world.

Personally, I think the congress person whom said this (I will not say congress man because they are NOT A MAN since they don't respect beliefs!) is extremely prejudiced, racist, narrowminded, and ignorant. It's a shame that we have someone like that running our country. I do not agree with it, and am glad the decision is not solely up to them. I will note that I will defend to my death his right to say what he believes, but I don't agree, and I think that the majority of the population of this country agrees it's stupid. I'd even go so far as to call this a possible publicity stunt - it's just a matter of seeing where he wants to go with it.

Blessed Be!
~Rose


How about calling them by the name employed by my sometimes-friend, sometimes-nemesis, Ricki? She calls them ALL "Congresscritter." She actually does that so as to not have to differentiate between MAN or WOMAN, but, nevertheless, I ended up picking up on that, and liking it, and mostly, I tend to refer to Members of Congress now as Congresscritters, too.

Nukeing all religious sites isn't such a bad idea as it is the root cause of a large number of the worlds problems. It means those of us with a gram of brain matter who know all religion is total crap can live our lives in a much safer, happier and more tollerent world.

Ah, come on...you know better than that. Religion is not the culprit. Religion just makes good cover for what is REALLY at the root of intolerance...fear, ignorance, and hatred. If they couldn't have religion to cover for it, they'd just find something else to cover for it. The REAL root cause of the world's problems is lust of power/money/resources, fear, intolerance, an insistence that your own ways be accepted as the dominant ways, etc, etc...you get the point, I think.

Everyone is basically the rock demanding everything else change it's shape to conform to the shape required by the rock...rather than that the rock should change IT'S shape to conform to the shape everything else requires.

lmao, its the new board game kiddiez, retardoly!

Don't you mean Retardopoly...or was that Bushopoly?? Ah, never mind, same game.

That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Destroying Mecca and making the Hajj impossible does not make the Qu'ran *wrong*. Any more than destroying the World Trade Center made all those pre-9/11 books and articles about the World Trade Center *wrong*.

And why should we be seeking to 'bring down Islam as a religion'? Who gave YOU the right to decide what people should believe and what they should not? Why is your aim of destroying that faith any more acceptable than the intention of VERY FEW 'Muslims' to destroy others? Answer: it isn't. In entertaining notions like this you are becoming what you profess to oppose.

But such is always the case whenever people choose the option that requires the least thought.

But Americans don't think they ARE becoming like those they oppose, because, after all, God is on THEIR side, didn't you know that? Just ask Bush, he'll tell you! And haven't I already said Americans will almost ALWAYS choose the option requiring the least thought? Americans are not a thinkin' people, really. More an "action" sort of people...couldn't be bothered to think, it gets in the way.

And, mind, I am an American saying this. I'm just an exception to the rule. Again, though, I understand my own citizenry well enough to stand by all the statements I have made on this thread about the likely results of a nuclear attack on an American city.

How was it?

"An Eye for an Eye makes the World blind".

:look:

It'd sort out everyone's problems (by being dead, they wouldn't have any more)...
Why would the afterlife be peaceful?
It seems to be a generally accepted assumption, but considering that people can't stand each other down here, why would that change up there?

Why would the afterlife be peaceful?
It seems to be a generally accepted assumption, but considering that people can't stand each other down here, why would that change up there?

(tongue firmly in cheek) Ahhh, but don't you see...the only people who get to go "up there" are people JUST LIKE ME!!! Everyone who isn't just like me goes the other way... (tongue out of cheek now)

See, everyone hates everyone who isn't just like them, and they assume that they, alone, are the ones who are on the right path, and who will be in Paradise...only them and people who think, act, and believe as they do...and so of course they will get along "up there."

I think a lot of people are in for one hell of a rude awakening, personally.

Why would the afterlife be peaceful?
It seems to be a generally accepted assumption, but considering that people can't stand each other down here, why would that change up there?
Well, I did assume there wouldn't be an afterlife (everybody being dead==everyone's problems solved). But that's a valid point I guess.

The moral of this thread is: don't be thoughtlessly aggressive for political reasons.

Something I don't believe has been covered: Prevailing winds. Should Mecca be nuked, depending on the time of year, there is a fairly good chance that the radiation will spread over a large portion of the middle east (inlcuding the nuclear power Israel), as well as further east (including nuclear powers Pakistan and India) and may even go northeast (possibly getting as far as China).
Aside from the whole every-muslim-in-the-world-will attack-America thing, you may well also have to deal with China, which is one of the more powerful nations on Earth.

You don't want to deal with India, China, Indonesia, Turkey and Israel, all at the same time. Together they make up about half the world's population. If you send out that many nukes, then the world will go into nuclear winter, and everyone dies.

It could be a good idea actually, the threat anyway to nuke Mecca, if Islamic terrorism doesnt halt worldwide.
Of course the threat would have to be followed through, with Medina being the next on the list.
I like it.

Something I don't believe has been covered: Prevailing winds. Should Mecca be nuked, depending on the time of year, there is a fairly good chance that the radiation will spread over a large portion of the middle east (inlcuding the nuclear power Israel), as well as further east (including nuclear powers Pakistan and India) and may even go northeast (possibly getting as far as China).
Aside from the whole every-muslim-in-the-world-will attack-America thing, you may well also have to deal with China, which is one of the more powerful nations on Earth.

You don't want to deal with India, China, Indonesia, Turkey and Israel, all at the same time. Together they make up about half the world's population. If you send out that many nukes, then the world will go into nuclear winter, and everyone dies.

Don't forget, we gave Israel their nukes :p

Just bombard mecca with a few c-130s full of pigs, all the islamic types would be so busy cleaning their holy city for the following few years that you wouldn't have to fear any more attacks...

(for those of you close-minded liberal types that frequent these forums, that was something I like to call a joke :p)

It could be a good idea actually, the threat anyway to nuke Mecca, if Islamic terrorism doesnt halt worldwide.
Of course the threat would have to be followed through, with Medina being the next on the list.
I like it. What exactly would that do to all the Muslims in the US, Europe, all around the world? Think how Catholics would react if you nuked the Vatican… or put an antimatter bomb under it.

What exactly would that do to all the Muslims in the US, Europe, all around the world? Think how Catholics would react if you nuked the Vatican… or put an antimatter bomb under it.
Not as strongly as those Muslims would if you bombed Mecca...

But anyways, why is there even a debate about this? You would punish the inncoent. Surely that's against everything America used to stand for, and maybe still does.

It could be a good idea actually, the threat anyway to nuke Mecca, if Islamic terrorism doesnt halt worldwide.
Of course the threat would have to be followed through, with Medina being the next on the list.
I like it.
Okay, so you work down the list of Muslim Holy Cities. What if they don't stop once you've taken out Medina? What's next?

The Third Holiest City in Islam is Jerusalem, where the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven. You're not seriously considering nuking Jerusalem, are you? 'Cause then you'd have Jews and Christians attacking you, in addition to the Muslims. Who else do you want to take out?

Punjab might be an idea - it's in Pakistan, a major Muslim power; it's got a lot of Hindus; plus it is where Sikhism arose. Hell, then you can take out Lhasa or Mount Everest to get the Buddhists offside - just because their religion is all about peace doesn't mean Buddhists haven't been known to fight.

Okay, so you work down the list of Muslim Holy Cities. What if they don't stop once you've taken out Medina? What's next?

The Third Holiest City in Islam is Jerusalem, where the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven. You're not seriously considering nuking Jerusalem, are you? 'Cause then you'd have Jews and Christians attacking you, in addition to the Muslims. Who else do you want to take out?

Punjab might be an idea - it's in Pakistan, a major Muslim power; it's got a lot of Hindus; plus it is where Sikhism arose. Hell, then you can take out Lhasa or Mount Everest to get the Buddhists offside - just because their religion is all about peace doesn't mean Buddhists haven't been known to fight.

Have you ever considered writing "A Guide to Pissing Everyone Off in Three Easy Steps"? :D

That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

Well that's patently bullshit. If I had said "German people are Chinese" or "All-star clown shoes denounce yam gray + 41!" then you might have a case.

Exaggerating time-wasting, Orc'. Not necessary.

Destroying Mecca and making the Hajj impossible does not make the Qu'ran *wrong*. Any more than destroying the World Trade Center made all those pre-9/11 books and articles about the World Trade Center *wrong*.

-BZZT!- Incorrect, Orky-boy. Thing is, Islam is a religion. It's established pillars for itself, prophecies, requirements. If the sun was somehow extinguished the old Egyptian religion would have become "wrong", so to speak. If Israel was über-n00ked and sank beneath the waves or something, Revelations would (if I remember the events right) be impossible, and Christianity would become "wrong".

Similarly, without a Hajj, Islam falls flat on its face.

Now, I appreciate your WTC comparison, really I do. But there's something you've missed. You see, the WTC was a collection of buldings. Buildings, religion. Religion, buildings. I know the difference is subtle, and hey, maybe it's just beyond your grasp, and if so I offer my condolences.

But they're not the same thing, 'kay? Cool, I knew you'd understand. :)

And why should we be seeking to 'bring down Islam as a religion'? Who gave YOU the right to decide what people should believe and what they should not?

Stop waggling your finger like that, bud'. It's most unbecoming. Whoever said I'd been given any rights? I made a statement. Ending the Hajj effectively disproves Islam as an ideology. Still, I think you're being, putting it mildly, a dumbass. You don't need some incarnate deity to come down from the Heavens and give you a RIGHT™ in order for you to do something. Who gave you the right to tell me that I'm wrong? Who gives the courts the right to say rape, murder etc. are wrong?

It's a stupid line of argument, Orky.

Why is your aim of destroying that faith any more acceptable than the intention of VERY FEW 'Muslims' to destroy others? Answer: it isn't.

Well now, you're starting from a false premise there: that all faiths and religions are somehow inherently "good" and should be tolerated. Well, I'm sorry, but if Latinos were still butchering virgins on altar-tops it wouldn't be OK just because it was a religion.

Personally, I feel that a faith that urging: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) and "...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-) and, most notably in today's world: "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-) ...is a shit faith and a dangerous faith, and should be taken apart for the good of future generations and the safety of those who do not adhere to it. People say Christianity is no good all the time. I think I've got a pretty solid case against Islam, too.

And by the way, it's not "VERA FYOO!" at all. I wish people would stop saying that. It's a significant minority with a far from negligible popular support.

In entertaining notions like this you are becoming what you profess to oppose.

Where in this thread did I profess to oppose anything? Seriously.

But such is always the case whenever people choose the option that requires the least thought.

Actually, Tertius, I've put plenty thought into this. A damn sight more than you clearly have. Go away, mull over the root causes of the issues being raised here again and again and again, and then you can come back to me.