This guy's nuts

[heyjude]

State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’ Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today stood by his previous argument that the U.S. should threat to bomb Mecca in order to “deter” future attacks on the homeland. Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” thinkprogress.org

This is a perfect way to alienate 10 billion Islamists. Only 1% of muslims are radicals. Tancredo is going to make sure they all are. Keep in mind, it was a Bushie that said he was crazy.

 

[ArmChair General]

State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’ Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today stood by his previous argument that the U.S. should threat to bomb Mecca in order to “deter” future attacks on the homeland. Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” thinkprogress.org

This is a perfect way to alienate 10 billion Islamists. Only 1% of muslims are radicals. Tancredo is going to make sure they all are. Keep in mind, it was a Bushie that said he was crazy.

The inevitability of it all, is that half the worlds population will have to be wiped from existence if the remaining are to live peacefully.

Of course that means everyone will have to live the way I personally feel is best.

Dissenters will be shot on site.

thank you.

 

[vyo476]

I've heard of this. I even know people who think it's a good idea.

Pretty scary, no?

 

[ArmChair General]

I've heard of this. I even know people who think it's a good idea.

Pretty scary, no?

I don't know. You can either recognize it and accept the fact that you can't stop progress. Or you can fight it. And maybe hold it off for a little while longer.


Even Alexander's goal was to unite the world under one banner, his. Its the constant struggle of humanity.

IN another thousand years when the world is all one government, then we can start looking to space.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I've heard of this. I even know people who think it's a good idea.

Pretty scary, no?

I could see why people think it makes sense. He didn't say he's going to bomb Mecca, but it should be used to deter future attacks.

If our President, the most powerful man in the world, stood up and said to the entire Muslim community: Look, you have radical elements in your ranks that are tearing down your religion. They are a problem. If we sustain another attack at their hands, we will take out Mecca. If they attack us again, we will take out Medina. This will continue until you no longer have any holy sites.

What do you think this will do to the "moderate" Muslims? They would start turning in the terrorists like it was going out of style.

 

[SW85]

Yeah, it is rather a gross misconstruction of Tancredo's words to suggest that Mecca ought to be preemptively nuked as deterrence against future terrorist attacks. He basically said that nuclear retaliation against nuclear terrorist attacks should remain on the table.

It is horrible policy for a leader to announce that no circumstances could possibly compel him to use the most destructive weapon in his arsenal.

For the record, why should we be concerned that the retaliatory nuclear destruction of Mecca will alienate Muslims? If they nuke us first, they have only themselves to blame for it.

 

[mustardayonnaise]

I think it's a great idea. First Mecca, then Jerusalem, then Rome, then all other holy sites of significance to the Abrahamic religions. Hopefully all full of zealots at the time...

 

[Castle]

I could see why people think it makes sense. He didn't say he's going to bomb Mecca, but it should be used to deter future attacks.

If our President, the most powerful man in the world, stood up and said to the entire Muslim community: Look, you have radical elements in your ranks that are tearing down your religion. They are a problem. If we sustain another attack at their hands, we will take out Mecca. If they attack us again, we will take out Medina. This will continue until you no longer have any holy sites.

What do you think this will do to the "moderate" Muslims? They would start turning in the terrorists like it was going out of style.

I've been in favor of something like this for quite some time. If our war on Islamic extremist terror is so unpopular and seen by so many as just another step in our quest for global domination, then lets make it simple. So simple, in fact, that there can be no mistake as to what our response will be if we are hit again. If the world demands that we leave Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe we should. Of course, we all know what will happen shortly after our departure but it is apparently the will of the global community. Let us embrace the UN approach to Iran and wait until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a nuclear arsenal which he will undoubtedly make use of. Or should we not assume that he means what he has said? Anyhow, without an American military presence in the Middle East, our reputation should improve drastically right? The chances of the US being hit again and hit much harder should decrease drastically right? Well, I'm told it would. So why am I not convinced? Maybe it is not important that I am convinced so.....lets go this route with one stipulation. In the event that the US is hammered by say a nuclear/chemical/biological device, we will not spend years debating where to place blame. We will not spend years sifting through the UN resolution mud looking for answers. The Middle East will have had its chance to work out it's issues with terrorism and the threat it poses to western countries without western interference. It will have failed and our response will be swift and final.

I wonder, if left to control their own destiny linked with the threat of complete annihilation, would they allow their radical elements to continue their quest to destroy the western world?

-Castle

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I wonder, if left to control their own destiny linked with the threat of complete annihilation, would they allow their radical elements to continue their quest to destroy the western world?

Exactly.

 

[vyo476]

I could see why people think it makes sense. He didn't say he's going to bomb Mecca, but it should be used to deter future attacks.

So, what, is "Cold War" all we know how to do? I guess the Russians had more of an impact on us than we thought.

If our President, the most powerful man in the world, stood up and said to the entire Muslim community: Look, you have radical elements in your ranks that are tearing down your religion. They are a problem. If we sustain another attack at their hands, we will take out Mecca. If they attack us again, we will take out Medina. This will continue until you no longer have any holy sites.

So you want the President of the United States to threaten innocent bystanders and ancient cities full of priceless history?

What do you think this will do to the "moderate" Muslims?

Outrage them? Incense them? In the end...radicalize them.

They would start turning in the terrorists like it was going out of style.

So now we're going to use fear of indiscriminate attacks to motivate otherwise peaceful people? Sound like the tactics of anyone else you know?

And by the way, threatening something like this would only make our terrorist friends more prone to do what they will. They'd probably love to see us blow up Mecca - think of all the martyrs that'd make.

I can't believe we're even discussing this.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

So, what, is "Cold War" all we know how to do? I guess the Russians had more of an impact on us than we thought.

Would you prefer preemption?

So you want the President of the United States to threaten innocent bystanders and ancient cities full of priceless history?

Look, this is war. You either have to fight it 100% or you don't fight it at all. We can win this war militarily. We still do military well, we just don't do politics and bureaucracy well.

When did we start insisting that we concern ourselves with ancient cities and holy sites? And secondly, a threat to bomb Mecca might actually make some of these "innocent bystanders" stand up to (what they claim) the minority of Islamic fundamentalists.

Outrage them? Incense them? In the end...radicalize them.

We really can't "alienate" the Muslim community any more. They already hate us for some reason that they can't even agree on (only that it has nothing to do with their religion and something to do with our foreign policy).

If I was a peaceful Muslim and the U.S. provided me with a choice of allowing the terrorists to continue their war against the West with the possibility of my holy site being bombed or starting to take on the extremists in my own religion to preserve said holy site, I have a very easy decision.

So now we're going to use fear of indiscriminate attacks to motivate otherwise peaceful people? Sound like the tactics of anyone else you know?

We're providing them with a choice. Either continue to allow the radical elements of your religion wage their war against the West but expect a serious response or actually do something about it before your religion is destoryed.

And by the way, threatening something like this would only make our terrorist friends more prone to do what they will. They'd probably love to see us blow up Mecca - think of all the martyrs that'd make.

If they are stupid enough to attack us after we issue a warning that says "if we are attacked by people in the name of Islam, we will take out Mecca" then they deserve to have their holy site obliterated.

I can't believe we're even discussing this.

Why? This is nothing new. Yes, our society has grown incredibly soft and possibly has lost the will to fight wars, but all options must remain on the table. Nothing else is working.

 

[heyjude]

If the US had been occupied and governed by a foreign country for 150 years, setting up puppets to do their bidding, and exploiting every thing we had of value, how do you think you would feel? How would you feel if every time we tried to get out from under, we were bombed, our friends and families killed, our homes destroyed? If it was 117 degrees and you had no water for days, no electricity? Would you love those people? Want to be friends with them? England did it for 140 years. Now we do it. How would you feel about someone like us?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

If the US had been occupied and governed by a foreign country for 150 years, setting up puppets to do their bidding, and exploiting every thing we had of value, how do you think you would feel? How would you feel if every time we tried to get out from under, we were bombed, our friends and families killed, our homes destroyed? If it was 117 degrees and you had no water for days, no electricity? Would you love those people? Want to be friends with them? England did it for 140 years. Now we do it. How would you feel about someone like us?

Of course I would be pissed. Not at America, not at England, but at my own religion leaders. For hundreds of years Islam was on the vanguard of advancement and progression, but in the last 200 years or so virtually all progress has stopped. What went wrong? Failed leadership and religious indoctrination.

Stop trying to blame America for everything. Some Iraqis don't have running water and that's somehow our fault? Give me a break.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

State Dpmt: Tancredo ‘absolutely crazy.’ Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today stood by his previous argument that the U.S. should threat to bomb Mecca in order to “deter” future attacks on the homeland. Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” thinkprogress.org

This is a perfect way to alienate 10 billion Islamists. Only 1% of muslims are radicals. Tancredo is going to make sure they all are. Keep in mind, it was a Bushie that said he was crazy.

I just want to post the exact quote so there is no misconception about what he's saying:

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature [nuclear] would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do." -- Tom Tancredo

 

[mustardayonnaise]

Of course I would be pissed. Not at America, not at England, but at my own religion leaders. For hundreds of years Islam was on the vanguard of advancement and progression, but in the last 200 years or so virtually all progress has stopped. What went wrong? Failed leadership and religious indoctrination.

Stop trying to blame America for everything. Some Iraqis don't have running water and that's somehow our fault? Give me a break.

Nobody's blaming America for everything, just the things America is responsible for.