I'm not sure how many of you are aware of what is happening with Tom Tancredo, but he is a Colorado Representative, and he recently publicly announced that he believes if terrorists attack America with nuclear weapons, an appropriate response would be to bomb Islamic Holy sites, such as Mecca.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8703595/)

I am completely shocked, and upset that a man like that is representing my state. Many are calling for his resignation, which his spokesman says will not happen. He is looking at possibly running for president in 2008.

http://coloradodaily.com/articles/2005/07/20/news/news06.txt)

He is embarassing me and my state...at least...the sensible people of my state.

Sigh. If there's a sucker born every minute, there's a f***er born every second.

What I'm mad at is the media for blowing such idiotic, offensive, and hurtful statements out of proportion to make a buck. Example from good ole Norway would be (warning: Offensive stuff ahead):

Religious minister on the tsunami disaster: "A sign of God's return (...) Thailand is just one big whore-house anyway." (front page, VG)
Doctor on obese kids: "They have to be able to put up with being hungry/starving." (Front page, VG)
Some politician on violence victims: "I think they need to have more sex with their partners." (TV 2)
Michael Moore on violence victims: "If you don't have the guts to offer the slightest bit of resistance to those who attack you, you appear in most peoples' eyes as a chicken. In fact. I'd like to give you a beating myself." (Dude, where's my country?!).

I don't want to think about of many people have had their day ruined by insensitive statements like the ones above. I know one 19-year old rape victim who cried from the moronic statement about sex being a deterrant to violence.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
if terrorists attack America with nuclear weapons, an appropriate response would be to bomb Islamic Holy sites, such as Mecca.


... That... doesn't even make sense.:confused:

Put him into a drug induced coma.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
What I'm mad at is the media for blowing such idiotic, offensive, and hurtful statements out of proportion to make a buck.

I don't think the media is really blowing this one out of proportion, the man said on a talk show that we should bomb Muslim Holy sites as a proper retaliatory response. The news didn't really take too much notice of it until Coloradans started rising en masse to get Tancredo's head.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I don't think the media is really blowing this one out of proportion, the man said on a talk show that we should bomb Muslim Holy sites as a proper retaliatory response. The news didn't really take too much notice of it until Coloradans started rising en masse to get Tancredo's head.

The Vatican should be destroyed by fire and brimstone while Mecca should be desecrated by 70 whores from Heaven.

Those are proper retaliatory responses.

:p

But here's the thing, politicians don't really ever do well when they strive for, oh, morality. Everybody's vote counts the same in this country, so why try beating yourself over campaigning for everything that's needed in the world, while you could much more easily cater to those who will vote for you as long as you agree with them. Hence, Tom Tancredo says these things to excite those Christians who do feel a certain feeling of animosity towards Muslims in general, and who feel we shouldn't be taking the punches.

Or, Tancredo really believes that Islam is entirely terrorist in nature and should be violently reprimanded. Which would be much more disturbing.

Originally posted by Tyrion
Tancredo really believes that Islam is entirely terrorist in nature and should be violently reprimanded. Which would be much more disturbing. If so I say we atleast be fair and nuke the Vatican and the houses of protestant figure heads in the name of justice for abortion clinic bombings.

Everyone seems to be missing one salient piece of information: Polititions never do what they say they are going to do. If Al Quaeda really are fanatical Islamics, such a statement could dissuade them from attacking America. This does not, however, mean that the threats should be acted upon. If it is purely a bluff, it is not so terrible, although still a bad idea.

said a spokesman:
“They are a lot more upset about what he stands for, our nation’s security and border policy, than anything else,” Adams said.

Er... ok... is it me or do the "evil" muslims seem a lot more rational and coherent than the politicians?

PS/ I'm having a "dead zone" style premonition about when this guy gets to be president...:(

There's a fanatical response to fanatics going on in religion. Its as if there is a religious war being waged among the superstitious nutters on both sides. If we weren't in the middle, I'd say nuke 'em all. .... okay, no I wouldn't, but it feels to to get that off my chest all the same.

Pat Robertson recently said on the 700 Club (yes, I watch that garbage on occasion... I'm fascinated by the nutters like a visitor in a zoo):“Don’t you feel it rather interesting that every time you have a story about terrorism, it is linked to Muslim extremists? You don’t hear somebody, ‘Christian extremist killing film producers, Christian extremists blowing up trains.’It just doesn’t happen. But it’s Muslim extremists and, ladies and gentlemen, Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence. It’s there in the Quran in clear, bold statements.” -700 Club, 7/14/05

I guess he forgot about Eric Rudolph (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=545), who bombed the 1998 Olympics in Atlanta and had ties to the Christian Identity Movement (http://adamsweb.redstate.org/story/2005/7/21/01230/9803).

Or the 18 bombings of abortion clinics by anti-choice groups in 1984. Or the 1,700 acts of violence against clinics from 1977 and 1994. Robertson and his "moral allies" gave monetary and verbal support to these terrorist operations just as surely as Saddam Hussein did the PLO and Hamas.

And need I even mention the Christian nutter, Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK? He was tied to a Christian fundy group that believed in arming itself and opposing the government in the name of god.

Want to read some silly Fundamentalist Christian nutter garbage? Visit the Christian Exodus Website (http://christianexodus.org/). These boneheads want to move into South Carolina and take over the government and eventually succeed from the United States, establishing a theocracy. They would have to succeed, since their desires are Unconstitutional. It sounds like a terrorist organization of fanatics to me.

Abroad, outside the U.S., Christian organizations are, today, committing attrocities against humanity. In Uganda the group called “Lord’s Resistance Army” systematically uses children soldiers and murders civilians. In India the “Nagaland Rebels” carried out several attacks very similar to those in London.

Both Christian leaders and Jewish Israelis have used terrorism as a weapon against the Palestinians, including bulldozing villages and the occupation of Lebanon that killed 20,000 civilians.

It is religion that is the enemy. Not Middle-Easterners or hicks from West Virginia or South Carolina.

And, lest we forget, the bible also teaches us to:
Stone your kids to death if they disobey you (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html)

Destroy towns of other religions, killing everyone and burning them to the ground (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html)

Exclude people of other races (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/racial%20tolerance/dt23_03a.html)

Stone rape victims to death (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_23a.html)

Kill all male POWs and take any women you want (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html)

Supports slavery (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/slavery/ex21_02a.html)

and of course states that if you follow your own morals (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/following_your_own_moral_compass/dt29_19.html) you will be damned... so any modern priest who tell you different are going to hell.

So it is obvious that the Quran is evil and full of instructions for violence, but the bible is all lovely and full of fluffy bunnies...

my fave: not cutting your hair or having tatoos (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/fashion/lv19_27a.html)
:D

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/male_genital_injury/dt23_01a.html)

Oh comon...

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/incest/lv18_07.html)

No, if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and Three daughters, and that's all they had, wouldn't their five children and any descendants commit incestry by having sex at all? No, I didn't steal it from Mencia, I thought of it LONG before...:p

But what's with the massacres? I would figure that Christianity be a little less...ruthless...in their conquering. And by "less ruthless" I mean not doing an Anakin on every kingdom they come across. :p

Originally posted by Tyrion

But what's with the massacres? I would figure that Christianity be a little less...ruthless...in they're conquering. And by "less ruthless" I mean not doing an Anakin on every kingdom they come across. :p

They're quite notorious for murdering everything they came across.
The only king that forbid a massacre (that I know of) is the great Saladin and he was a muslim.

No, if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and Three daughters, and that's all they had, wouldn't their five children and any descendants commit incestry by having sex at all? No, I didn't steal it from Mencia, I thought of it LONG before...:p
No, their children did not commit incest. Just because Adam and Eve are documented to be the first created, it doesn't mean that others were not created elsewhere. In Genesis it talks about other villages and the like. Take a gander every now and again and some things make more sense. ;)

@ET: Too bad about this Tom Tancredo. I hate war. I hate that so many people die. I also hate all the opinions on why it's necessary or not necessary. I'm tired of hearing about it; I've basically stopped reading the news because it just bothers me. I only hope that someday some sort of resolution can be made in the world. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't care. I'm sick of death and fighting.

No, their children did not commit incest. Just because Adam and Eve are documented to be the first created, it doesn't mean that others were not created elsewhere. In Genesis it talks about other villages and the like. Take a gander every now and again and some things make more sense. ;)

Then how does original sin effect us? Only Adam and Eve would have it, so overall there would be quite a few people living in secluded islands which would be sin-free, right? Even then, go on a few hundred/thousand years past Adam and Eve and there's Noah. Only his family, and maybe a few other humans survived. There definitely was no survivors, since it was a global flood. For them to reproduce, there would have to be incestry on some level.

Which is why biblical mythology is best read with an understanding that it is to teach morals and not factual history. Aesop's Fables are of similar value, as is Moby Dick.

...Plus I also heard if you commit incest, It will do wierd things to their genes and the babies will end up with two heads and stuff...


Edit.. I hope nobody will be dumb enough to vote for a guy who Advocates nuclear war. Remember in the cold war, both the US and Russia were at eachother's throats with weopoons that can destroy the world. Neither civilizations wanted that. If it hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

On the other hand, In the cuban missle crisis, JFK used his smarts to avoid nuclear war. then there was this missle luanced by accident. Einstien said "there was never a weopon man hasn't eventualy used." There were times when It almost happened, (knock on wood).



It is religion that is the enemy. Not Middle-Easterners or hicks from West Virginia or South Carolina.

"Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich"- Napoleon Bonaparte

Religion is nothing but organized and standardized spirituality.

And my theory on it is this:

Any time you get a group of people united around a common idea and organized behind a charismatic leader, there is apt to be trouble. I don't think it necessarily needs to be religious to be dangerous. As the number of people in any group grows, the average IQ plummets exponentially, and all the very stupidest ideas rise to the top to be accepted by the masses, and exploited by the (most likely corrupt) leadership.

...Plus I also heard if you commit incest, It will do wierd things to their genes and the babies will end up with two heads and stuff...

That only happens after generations of inbreeding. A single generation of inbred children here and there wouldn't cause harsh genetic defects at all.

...Plus I also heard if you commit incest, It will do wierd things to their genes and the babies will end up with two heads and stuff...
That's something of a common misconception, that inbreeding causes strange mutations, which is a fallacy.

The reason inbreeding is genetically frowned on is because continual inbreeding means recessive genes aren't filtered out of future generations, and in fact are more likely to eventually be the only genes available, and when those recessive genes are disease causing, you get a genetic disorder that is typically recessive become dominant, and occurs in all future generations.

There are some other reasons, but that's the main one.



Of course..this is all off-topic..

It is religion that is the enemy. Not Middle-Easterners or hicks from West Virginia or South Carolina.


I'm going to have to reply by quoting Pogo here and say "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I'll quote Tanto and say, "what you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?" :cool:

Einstien said "there was never a weopon man hasn't eventualy used." There were times when It almost happened, (knock on wood).

er. Hioshima? Nagasaki? (sic)

But what's with the massacres? I would figure that Christianity be a little less...ruthless...in they're conquering. And by "less ruthless" I mean not doing an Anakin on every kingdom they come across.

Why would you assume christianity was any less violent than any other religion?
Most major religions (with the exception of a few eastern ones) seem to have grown up from the same origins, in the same area and with very similar cultural influences... they pretty much all include the same viewpoints on slavery, prisoners, heretics and women.

The only difference is that the Muslim religin is currently going through a phase similar to the crusades period of christianity (where they take everything very literally and try and spread the word), whereas the christain religion (in the west at least) is now being interpreted in a more liberal fashion. (in defiance of the rules on "following your own morals" above).

If you look at christians in africa (for example), who are now attempting to send misionaries BACK to a west that they see as a lapsed and failed church, you will see that they are quite willing to promote large amounts of violence when the bible demands it. Much like muslims when they feel the quran demands it.

Why would you assume christianity was any less violent than any other religion?
Most major religions (with the exception of a few eastern ones) seem to have grown up from the same origins, in the same area and with very similar cultural influences... they pretty much all include the same viewpoints on slavery, prisoners, heretics and women.

It was my poor attempt at being sarcastic.

I'll quote Tanto and say, "what you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?" :cool:

By "we" I mean "us."

*quickly consults Indian Dictionary to be sure he wasn't just called a "horse's rear end"!* :laugh6:

That only happens after generations of inbreeding. A single generation of inbred children here and there wouldn't cause harsh genetic defects at all.
It's not too great that you'll have a horribly deformed child but even first generation inbreeding can have small effects like various mental diseases. Nothing too serious but it leads to greater risks if more inbreeding happens.

Hold on, when did this turn into a Biblical mythology and inbreeding debate? :confused: Back on topic, Tancredo should really apologize for those sick remarks. To me it sounds like the additude of a psycopath.

Yeah. Sort of like that Russian politiker a few years back who (supposedly) said if elected he'd nuke Japan (or purposely burry nuclear waste along the boarders to keep people out).

I doubt he'll appologise, and i doubt voters will do anything if he doesn't. So he'll just carry on being an idiot. What more is there to say?
You guys better make sure he doesn't get to be president some day though....

er. Hioshima? Nagasaki? (sic)



I know about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, What I meant was that the whole world has not been destroyed yet, dispite how close we came. With the Cold war and The cuban missle crisis and all.

...And I DO hope HE don't be president someday.

Tancredo's statement was rediculous...and so typical of politicians nowadays, it's just further evidence that we should get rid of all incumbents and elect people with common sense.

I found the MSNBC article to be very amusing...they basically just slung around charges & said that people were offended without offering up the actual quote...if you hadn't also included the other article, I'd think that MSNBC was pulling a Dan Rather and making it up.

But personally, I don't care what Tancredo said. I've heard Senate democrats (including but not limited to Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Chuckie Schumer) say even more outrageous things about the war, the President, the administration, and conservatives in general.

And that's without even getting into remarks made by Dem party chairman "Crazy Howie" Dean.

I've heard Senate democrats (including but not limited to Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Chuckie Schumer) say even more outrageous things about the war, the President, the administration, and conservatives in general.

Democrats have said that they should bomb the homes of conservatives?

But personally, I don't care what Tancredo said. I've heard Senate democrats (including but not limited to Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Chuckie Schumer) say even more outrageous things about the war, the President, the administration, and conservatives in general.

Maybe YOU don't care, but he is representing MY state, so it has something of an affect on me.

And I really can't think of any possible thing I've heard said about the war, el presidente, or anything else for that matter more outrageous than "Bomb Muslim holy sites"

Honestly, I'd like to know what has been said, because they could have accused the president of witchcraft and it would seem more sane than Tancredo.

Democrats have said that they should bomb the homes of conservatives? Only if conservative people bomb abortion clinics...and we're only supposed to take out Rush Limbaugh. ^_^

Especially when "Bomb muslim holy sites" can be used as propaganda for the muslim extremists.

"Hey, look what the americans want to do to us!"

So what's worst? Insulting american conservatives or help in the creation of more terrorists?

Living in New York City, I can honestly say if a 5 kiloton device is detonated in Downtown Manhattan, you can be damn sure I will be expecting a quick and rapid response by the strategic nuclear arm of the U.S. military. If I'm not already DEAD from radiation or the initial blast. If it means removing their most holiest of sites from the face of the earth then so be it. And I'm a moderate, but I know damn well that one of the major factors which has resulted in a nuclear war not happening is the idea that both sides will be destroyed.

Honestly though, what do you expect the US government to do? Allow the country to be nuked without any sort of reprecussions? And just what do you expect the vast majority of this countries opinion to be? The loss of a major city in a terrorist caused nuclear fireball will more than likely have most Americans out for blood. Remember how quickly we were in Afganistan after 9/11? We didnt even give the Taliban time to reconsider their "No we arent going to hand Osama over to you" stance.

The Muslim world needs to look deep in on itself and fix its own damn problems and redress why their youth turns to terrorism. Should the unthinkable happen, then the Muslim world has no one else to blame but themselves. Especially the oil rich countries who can afford to pay their citizens money, and not tax them but actually give them money. A nuke goes off in a major US city, and the Muslim world should be prepared for serious reprecussions.

COOL. Next time some random guy from NYC shoots anyone abroad I'll be all up for going to NYC and shooting a few random priests in the churches... sounds like fun.

The Muslim world needs to look deep in on itself and fix its own damn problems and redress why their youth turns to terrorism. It's ignorance like THIS that causes wars. Honestly. Do you honestly believe that Muslims have anything to do with this? Muslim extremists who are using religion as a tool, yes. But regular muslims?

Howsabout this, the next time the Christian Fundamentalist groups bomb an abortion clinic, we napalm the Vatican. That's cool, right? The christians need to fix their problems.

A nuke goes off in a major US city, and the Muslim world should be prepared for serious reprecussions.Thomas Jefferson said that education is a paramount force in democracy: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Offering "serious reprecussions" to an entire religion for the actions of a very small minority of its most extreme elements evidence of under-education. The experiment in democracy is failing in our own nation... what in the world makes us think we can spread it to theocratic lands like Iraq?

COOL. Next time some random guy from NYC shoots anyone abroad I'll be all up for going to NYC and shooting a few random priests in the churches... sounds like fun.

No, just get it over with and drop the bomb on NYC because that's the logic this guy seems to be using anyway. Remember, you'll be fighting the terrorists in the process because after it's all over NYC will no longer be a target for ANYBODY! Safest place in the world! How many other big cities would be able to say that, ehh?

The whole prospect of not only blaming, but punishing, a majority based on the judgement and actions of a minority is ridiculous to say the least. I don't have a problem with people justifying their anger, but using anger as the justification, or even a justification, is as backwards as any fanaticist in itself.

Are you three kidding me? You're kidding me right?

What does the Muslim world have to do with it? They shield them thats what. Iran? Supports Hezzbollah and Hamas, Saudi Arabia is home of 14 of the terrorists on 9/11 and while its now begun to crack down on its internal militants they still dont realize the full scope of the problem. Dont get me started on Syria. Pakistan, can be summed up in the following: Is Mussaraf dies you can expect a power vaccum thats going to make Pakistan a warzone with nukes and a highly religious militant section attempting to take over. Algeria suffers a similar problem. The Sudan..well they're too busy killing Africans but at one point they were home to OBL before they were worried he would try to take over and kicked him out for another group. Libya throughout the 1980s was a training ground for groups from FARC to the PLO, the list goes on and on and on. I'm not ignorant, I'm realistic. When was the last time muslim clerics decried terrorist bombings in an Arab country? Muslims in the UK and Spain spoke up against terrorism only after the looking glass was placed over them. Heck it took the Madrid bombings before the Spanish muslim clerics declared a fatwah against Osama Bin Laden. But nothing but silence from the rest of the Arab muslim community.

You call me ignornant because I said the entire Muslim world needs to redress issues as to why their youth goes out and become terrorists. You dont see 12 blonde blue eyed guys from Sweden committing acts of terrorism around the world do you? The majority of terrorism we deal comes from one source. It might not be the majority, but hey guess what? The majority isnt doing much to correct their own internal problems. And I'm not the only one who sees it like this. There are plenty of Muslims who are now saying they need to redress issues within their own culture. Its not like these nations are poverty stricken. They certainly have the resources to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

COOL. Next time some random guy from NYC shoots anyone abroad I'll be all up for going to NYC and shooting a few random priests in the churches... sounds like fun.

You're welcomed to try, when some cop puts four in you realize that this analogy is completely bunk. Its a simplistic arguement to, there is a difference between religious fanatics who hide behind Islam and some random nut.

Similarly there is a massive difference between a shooting spree and a nuclear weapon detentionation.

Thomas Jefferson said that education is a paramount force in democracy: "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Offering "serious reprecussions" to an entire religion for the actions of a very small minority of its most extreme elements evidence of under-education. The experiment in democracy is failing in our own nation... what in the world makes us think we can spread it to theocratic lands like Iraq?

Do you think someone who bases their entire war on religion would be more inclined or less incline to use a nuclear weapon on their enemy if it meant the loss of one of their holy cities? Do you think the Muslim world would me more inclined or less inclined to try and reel in their "minority". But hey what do I know..I'm under educated for offering an opinion..

Oh your quote is taken out of context as well..Jefferson said:
Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

He was saying that a well informed public should set the government straight whenever it gets out of line. He wasnt supporting your narrow view of people who have the opposite opinion.

And since we're quoting Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt said: There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb, and that can best be made with the Winchester rifle.


As for just dropping a bomb on NYC, you missed my entire point. Read it again. I'm advocating a reponse in full should ANY US city be attacked with a nuclear weapon. What do you think the Muslim reaction would be if the US was attacked with nuclear weapons and didnt respond in kind? It means OBL was right and the US is a paper tiger which wont fight. Meanwhile if we do we rob a religion of a holy site...hmm..damned if we do damned if we dont..frankly, its already set in stone. The Clinton presidency had a list of targets in the middle east should a terrorist nuke go off in a US city. I'm sure Bush has a similar list maybe with a few new countries, and a few countries removed.

Well, the majority of the london bombers last month were british, so i guess we should bomb Leeds?
Or when the IRA set of bombs in london we should bomb northern ireland catholics? Or churches in the irish republic? Or irish bars in boston where most of their money came from?
The "Muslim World" as you describe it is 1000s of different factions in 100s of different countries... ranging across the spectrum from insane extremists to perfectly sensible moderates. So if the insane extremists from one country do something we should wipe out the holy places of the sensible moderates in another country? How, under any logic, does that make sense.
It isn't even "an eye for an eye" - its "lots of body parts from random people for an eye".
Even if it did make sense then how do you think 1.3 Billion muslims are going to react to having their holiest sites atom bombed? I'm suspecting it won't make a lot of the moderates and undecideds become more moderate.

It may be that there are a lot of dodgy islamic states and extremists out there, but there are nearly as many dodgy christian states and extremists out there. Numerous countries in africa have christian armies fighting and bombig each other over religious differences.
Luckily for us our forefathers were smart enough to seperate religion and state... but in countries where it isn't seperated christianity is just as extreme as islam.

80% of british muslims (and a lot of the world's) come from the sunni sect who are entirely moderate and don't support terrorism or believe that religion should control politics. But you never hear about them in the papers because they only ever mention the 2% who are extremist firebrands who make a lot of noise.
If you based your views on the news you would think all british muslims were terrorist supporting extremists, when the reality is the exact opposite.

Unfortunately when a group is feeling put upon they tend to become defensive and defend any actions of any members of their group, when under normal circumstances they would not do so.

You're welcomed to try, when some cop puts four in you realize that this analogy is completely bunk. Its a simplistic arguement to, there is a difference between religious fanatics who hide behind Islam and some random nut.
I'm fairly sure thet just proves my analogy. And no i don't think there is much difference between religious fanatic terrorists and random nuts.

If the UK HAD threatened to bomb boston if they kept funding the IRA it might actually have reduced some funding, or it might have pissed off the bostonians and increased funding. Probably the latter. And if the UK actually HAD gone through with it then the US response (in terms of public feeling and military backlash) would have been pretty damn terrible. I suspect the "muslim world" might react fairly similarly.

Are you three kidding me? You're kidding me right?

What does the Muslim world have to do with it? They shield them thats what. Iran? Supports Hezzbollah and Hamas, Saudi Arabia is home of 14 of the terrorists on 9/11 and while its now begun to crack down on its internal militants they still dont realize the full scope of the problem. Dont get me started on Syria. Pakistan, can be summed up in the following: Is Mussaraf dies you can expect a power vaccum thats going to make Pakistan a warzone with nukes and a highly religious militant section attempting to take over. Algeria suffers a similar problem. The Sudan..well they're too busy killing Africans but at one point they were home to OBL before they were worried he would try to take over and kicked him out for another group. Libya throughout the 1980s was a training ground for groups from FARC to the PLO, the list goes on and on and on. I'm not ignorant, I'm realistic. When was the last time muslim clerics decried terrorist bombings in an Arab country? Muslims in the UK and Spain spoke up against terrorism only after the looking glass was placed over them. Heck it took the Madrid bombings before the Spanish muslim clerics declared a fatwah against Osama Bin Laden. But nothing but silence from the rest of the Arab muslim community.



Yes, it's all one big Islamic conspiracy to destroy us! This perceived utter silence from Muslims must be them silently condoning terrorist atrocities...yeah, that's it. I guess if I don't speak out against world hunger or stifling patents on much needed drugs I'm fully in support of those too and watching people die....yeah, that must be it. See my point?

If not, it's this: people are generally apathetic. If rich industrialized worlds can't band together for something like world hunger, how do you expect the populations of these third world countries to pull some sort of cultural and intellectual revolution out of their pocket and throw it in the face of hundreds of years of history? That's a tall order to ask of them...why don't you go out and do it?

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe there isn't a single faithful Muslim that detests the terrorists "fighting" for their religion. But frankly, I find that unrealistic.


You call me ignornant because I said the entire Muslim world needs to redress issues as to why their youth goes out and become terrorists. You dont see 12 blonde blue eyed guys from Sweden committing acts of terrorism around the world do you? The majority of terrorism we deal comes from one source. It might not be the majority, but hey guess what? The majority isnt doing much to correct their own internal problems. And I'm not the only one who sees it like this. There are plenty of Muslims who are now saying they need to redress issues within their own culture. Its not like these nations are poverty stricken. They certainly have the resources to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.


Sure, those countries might be rich and have resources, but who's controlling them? Not the people, because most of those countries don't have a democratic system in place. And countries that don't have democratic systems in place generally aren't places you can stir up a lot of trouble in without having trouble brought down on you.





Do you think someone who bases their entire war on religion would be more inclined or less incline to use a nuclear weapon on their enemy if it meant the loss of one of their holy cities? Do you think the Muslim world would me more inclined or less inclined to try and reel in their "minority". But hey what do I know..I'm under educated for offering an opinion..



So basically hold the nuclear card over a bunch of peoples heads. Is this what you people really want? Cold War Redux? This is sick. When the hell did Osama bin Laden announce he had thermonuclear fission weapons anyway? What yield and how many do the CIA believe he has right now? Iran? Iraq? Syria? North Korea? I'd like at least one link, please.



...He wasnt supporting your narrow view of people who have the opposite opinion.

I don't think SkinWalker said Jefferson was supporting his view. SkinWalker used what Jefferson said to support his side of the argument. The two are different, at least from my perspective.



As for just dropping a bomb on NYC, you missed my entire point. Read it again. I'm advocating a reponse in full should ANY US city be attacked with a nuclear weapon. What do you think the Muslim reaction would be if the US was attacked with nuclear weapons and didnt respond in kind? It means OBL was right and the US is a paper tiger which wont fight. Meanwhile if we do we rob a religion of a holy site...hmm..damned if we do damned if we dont..frankly, its already set in stone. The Clinton presidency had a list of targets in the middle east should a terrorist nuke go off in a US city. I'm sure Bush has a similar list maybe with a few new countries, and a few countries removed.

This may have worked twenty or thirty years ago had it been the Soviets dropping the bomb. The Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy works wonders when your opponent's survival instincts are still at least partially intact. People who fly planes into buildings and dream about the day they can die "gloriously" for their religion don't fall in that category. Waving nukes around and hinting you've got the nerve and backbone to push the button does not impress as it used to. Start slinging them at a religion that has already produced countless people who had no regard for their life or the lives of others and you could just make a bad situation worse.

Note I'm talking about non-state actors here. If the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea were to start readying nuclear weapons tomorrow, that'd be different. That is an entity on which the threat of nuclear annihilation might hold some weight.

Provoking a religious following into clamping down on their more "extreme elements" by threatening to blow lots of them up.....well, you think a little more about that one.

If muslims nuke the US I am SO cutting off my roommates head.

Of course, if any christians bomb abortion clinics, I expect you to find your nearest church and start shooting.

You're welcomed to try, when some cop puts four in you realize that this analogy is completely bunk. Its a simplistic arguement to, there is a difference between religious fanatics who hide behind Islam and some random nut.

Similarly there is a massive difference between a shooting spree and a nuclear weapon detentionation.





I actually agreed with you here for a moment, but after a few minutes I realized that the same outlandish leaps in logic can be made in both cases. Watch:

Terrorists nuke us > terrorists are a terminal danger to us and will be stopped > nuke terrorists > don't know where they all are so nuke high profile target that terrorists may or may not value enough to stop nuking us > hope for the best

New Yorker shoots some of us > New Yorkers are dangerous to us > go to NYC and shoot lots of people > lots of people probably pissed off now > hope for the best

Both instances involve a retalitory attack being made that hinges on the hope that its wanton death and destructiveness will take their will to fight as a kick to the gut takes one's breath. The return fire in these cases won't be surgical by any means and will likely increase the enemy's appetite for revenge. I think toms is right here; some street cop might put four in this hypothetical raid, but you did prove his point.

There's no denying a nuke is gonna kill more people than any shooting spree. The latter is a tragedy and the former an immense strategic threat. That does not dilute the point that if you can't find the real target you should be aiming for, there aren't many reasons to fire the gun at all. I think that goes double or triple for giant bombs, right?

Fortunately, I know the policy makers in Washington are aware of this. Our nukes aren't going to start falling on populated cities unless our very immediate survival is at stake, and it'll take more than one nuke going off to put everyone's future in doubt like that. The Middle East is not going to be irradiated by the United States anytime soon, much to some people's dissappointment.

Oh my god. The Saint. You can't be serious.

Let's say a group of crazy rogue Socialists really hate America. They hate our democracy. They hate our capitalism. They hate our freedom. Whatever. So they set off a dirty bomb in New York.

Later, we found out this elite team of nutbars consists of 12 British, 13 Chinese, 14 Germans, and 15 Russians.

Are we supposed to nuke random locations in Britain, China, Germany, and Russian in response on the premise we may hit the homes and perhapsa favorite restaurant of these Socialists? Keep in mind that these men have ABSOLUTELY NO AFFILIATION with their native country except perhaps moles and plants in the governments.

You're welcomed to try, when some cop puts four in you realize that this analogy is completely bunk.I find it amazing that you make a statement that proves the analogy, and then declare it on this basis to be nonsense. Let me extent your analogy a little more explicitly (others have done so, but only implicitly). "New Yorker shoots people. People shoot New Yorkers. Cop 'puts four' in people." as opposed to "Terrorists attack US. US bombs Mecca. Muslims 'put four' in US." and you think your statement refutes this analogy?

This entire discussion seems rather hypothetical. No terrorists are gonna get their grubby hands on any nukes anytime soon, anyway.

Are you three kidding me? You're kidding me right?

What does the Muslim world have to do with it? They shield them thats what.

And I must wonder at the psychology that allows you to justify the accusation you later direct toward me for being "narrow-minded."

Your entire premise is but one big non sequitur. Destroying a religious site because of the actions of a member or members of that particular religion still doesn't follow a from premise to conclusion any sense of logic. And the reasons are many.

First, the loss of innocent life would be outrageous, particularly with the use of the "nuke" option that you so readily suggest.

Second, it would likely create a martyrdom and fuel the fire of hatred between the religious group itself and the west. It would certainly create hatred among those that didn't originally have it.

Third, it would lend justification to the actions of the terrorists in the eyes of those that doubted the actions of the extremists within their cults.

Fourth, it would degrade our own position to that of "terrorist."

Fifth, the very thought of responding in such a manner is morally deviant and has the appearance of being psychologically unsound.

Sixth, WWJD?.... etc.

The majority of terrorism we deal comes from one source.

For now. Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. When I was in the service, in the early eighties, terrorism had "one source" then as well. It was communism. But are you sure "the majority of terrorism comes from one source," or do you only see "one source" in the media? Here are some non-Islamic terrorist organizations:

Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR)
National Liberation Army (ELN)—Colombia
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (AUC-Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia)
Zviadists
Revolutionary Nuclei (RN)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
Morzanist Patriotic Front (FPM)
Kach and Kahane Chai
Aum Supreme Truth (Aum)
Chukaku-Ha (Nucleus or Middle Core Faction)
Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Real IRA (RIRA)
Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path)
New People's Army (NPA)
Army for the Liberation of Rwanda (ALIR)
Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
First of October Antifascist Resistance Group (GRAPO)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

Some of these are "inactive" but all are still considered threats as terrorist organziations often have periods of inactivity/activity depending on many factors. None of these are Islamic as far as I can tell. Many have been very active and deadly since 9/11. But more often than not, their actions were directed to their homelands and not toward U.S. interests. The United States media just isn't interested in terrorism in the world that isn't from Al Qaeda and therefore doesn't offer them publicity. Which is a very likely reason for the lack of activity in many of these organizations.

If you really want to nuke an organization or site that will eliminate future terrorist actions, nuke Fox News. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course, but Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc are all responsible for much of the actions of terrorists. Part of terrorizing a populace is getting publicity.

Do you think someone who bases their entire war on religion would be more inclined or less incline to use a nuclear weapon on their enemy if it meant the loss of one of their holy cities?

I try not to make *any* assumptions about those blinded by religious nonsense. Be they Muslim or Christian. But threatening to bomb Holy Sites should terrorism (nuclear or otherwise) increase or continue invites terrorism to increase or continue. What better justification for your actions as a terrorist than to say, "look! The Western Infidels are evil! They bomb our Holy Sites and declare war on Islam." Suddenly we have a billion-man Islamic army to deal with instead of a few hundred terrorists.

Do you think the Muslim world would me more inclined or less inclined to try and reel in their "minority". But hey what do I know..I'm under educated for offering an opinion..

No. If, indeed, you're undereducated it is forming an opinion without an educated perspective that reveals it.

Oh your quote [of Thomas Jefferson] is taken out of context

I don't think so. Even with the additional context you applied, it still appears valid. More so perhaps.

And since we're quoting Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt said: There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb, and that can best be made with the Winchester rifle.

You have to love Presidential quotes. Here's another that is relevant to this point in our discussion: "We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives—like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write." Care to guess which genius of the Oval Office said that?

Foreign Policy 101: Nuclear Deterrent (or MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction): The idea that it is possible to deter aggression, whether conventional or nuclear by being in a position to destroy utterly the source of agression using massive nuclear overkill. This defensive doctrine rests on three fundamental assumptions:

1) That the potential enemy is rational. Teheran is. Moscow is. Brussels is. Pyoniang may be. Comrade Osama certainly isn't.

2) That the potential enemy has assets which can be destroyed by nuclear attacks. Again this is manifestly lacking as pertains to Al Qaeda and co.

3) That it is possible to utterly destroy the potential enemy and their assets in a single attack. This, again, is manifestly impossible where AQ is concerned.

Skinwalker: Is that a comprehensive list of all non-Islamic terrorist organizations, or just a selection?

Just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Actually, its just a few from a government list I found somewhere.