Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > US elected official proposes bombing the Holy Places of Islam

US elected official proposes bombing the Holy Places of Islam (Page 3)
Thread Tools
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Ahhh! That's the point! OBL's lunacy is a contagion. He's making the WORLD CRAZY! NOW do you see why it is up to the moderate Muslims to set in motion plans to prevent him from dragging you into some deep doo doo? I recall advising you of this conclusion when we discussed this in the fall of 2004. But, as often happens, it takes the slow page by page unfolding of events to bring many people to understand what others (such as ???) can grasp in a blinding flash of insight.
He's not making the world crazy. He's just pushing the labile nations off balance. Nations like the US and Britain.

The rest of your post is the typical guilt by association. I am no more responsible for OBL than you are. I am no more responsible for the actions of his followers than you are. My and your responsibility is to make sure more Muslims don't become heretics like him. The problem is that you are making my job a hell of a lot harder when it comes to that. Every step the US has taken in this war is a step OBL wanted you to take. He's playing you(US gov and it's followers) like Kasparov would play an amateur in chess. This last comment that seems to get much support is just another badly moved piece. The endgame is near.
Not that your Swedish Air Force Ranger training isn't impressive and intimidating and all, but wouldn't the BETTER target for your threats and ire be, as I said in 2004 and I'll say again...

O frickin B azzole L??????

I think you understand now.
There's little I could do about OBL at the moment. How the US government botched the good chance they had of catching him by running of to invade another country has put him in hiding. If the US government can't find him there's not a chance in hell I could. But that is of course expecting the US wants to catch him. And compared to the half arsed attempt they made last time I can't say I'm very convinced about the US gov willingness to catch him.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by UNTiMac
Von, let's not forget that it is not the "U.S." that is hypothetically nuking your holy site any more than it's Muslims committing terrorism. Let's not forget that of the two sides that are arguing in here, I haven't seen moderates represented very well in this thread. I understand your angry, but with that statement, you just became what you hate by saying you would direct your anger at all America instead of the people responsible. Do you really think we could stop a hawkish president from doing whatever he wants with that nuke?

Angry people on both sides who keep picking up bigger sticks just ensure that more and more people will be caught in the middle. We have to get away from the ideology of a schoolyard fight and the need to hit back. Revenge will just get more people killed.
I apologised. I worded it wrongly. I'll try to explain it all in this post.

If Mecca and Madinah are bombed by any government that country would at the same second be in a war against Islam. That same second it would be the duty of every Muslim to defend Islam. It would have nothing to do with being a moderate or not. It would be my duty, just like every other Muslims, to fight the one who attacked Islam. I'm not going to be PC about this but just explain it as well as I can.

The second you(meaning the US gov) would bomb Mecca and Medinah you would be attacking Islam and would have stabbed every Muslim in the heart. The second the US gov would attack Mecca I would be starting to preparing attacks on every single US government building and employee here. You might ask why I would attack every single government employee. I would because everyone working for the government that bombed Mecca would be assisting the attack on Islam and every single employee can stop working at the government if he so wishes. Where I am now we have probably two high-profile targets(embassy and air-base) and a couple of more low-profile targets. I would hunt down and punish every single US government official in this country. I would make sure not a single US gov building here would stand the day after. And I'm a moderate.

Now imagine this in every single country with Muslim residents. Now think about those who will not show the same restraint as I when it would come to innocent civilians. To win this war your government would have to kill about 1.5 billion people because this war would not end until the annihaliation of the US government or until every single Muslim on this earth would be dead.

I can promise you that this is what would happen. This is not a guess. You would have about 1.5 billion people hunting down every single US government official and building. Of those some would not be able to show restraint when it comes to innocent civilians and some would broaden the definition of legal targets. 9/11, Israel/Palestine and WWII would all look like paradise if this would be set in motion. And unfortunately it's completely in your hands. It's unfortunate because I don't trust your government one bit.

Does this explanation still sound "extreme"? Of course it does. But it has nothing to do with being a moderate or extremist. It has to do about justice.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by malvolio
Suicide bombing was invented by the Hindu Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
The Tamil Tigers are secular.

Originally Posted by malvolio
Cult of Islam? Stunning how ignorant you are.
Yes. Cult of islam. Go do some more research into how cults operate and then compare your findings with islam.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
If they want us all dead anyway, having "One Eye Blind" is such a terrible thing???

If forgiveness is an attribute of the strong, let Mr. Laden show some strength here!

von Wrangell, why don't you go and wrangle those azzoles into true submission?
Why id it that it seems the supporters of the current US government are so against showing some strenght of character themselves? They are always comparing their actions against those of the terrorists, they want terrorists(meaning psychopathic, murderous thugs) to behave etc etc.

Why is that?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by iLikebeer
LOL, that's beautiful. You start a thread about how outrageous it is that a person would propose mass destruction of innocent Muslims and their holy sites after being asked about a hypothetical worst case scenario. Your hypothetical reaction to the hypothetical retaliatory strike to the hypothetical worth case scenario is to start world war, killing millions of other innocents. I hope you can see how hypocritical your entire point of this thread is. Context matters.

If most Muslims think like you, which I have no idea, then I'm glad we have nukes and you don't. If I had to choose between everyone on the planet dying or a lot of people and all the Muslims, ...well, I'd push for some kind of memorial to be put up in your honor after the radiation allowed it.
Perhaps you should have asked me to clarify first. See my post above.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by malvolio
Suicide bombing was invented by the Hindu Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
Nope

Dying to Win
Page 14

THE HISTORY OF SUICIDE TERORISM

"Although not the very first modern instance, the suicide car bombing by the terrorist group called Hezbollah of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon on October 23, 1983, was so spectacular - killing 241 soldiers, demolishing the building and coinciding with a near-simultaneous second attack that killed fifty-eight French troops-that the event dominated media headlines for weeks, consumed Western national leaders for months, and encouraged terrorist groups from Hamas to the Tamil Tigers to al-Qaeda to adopt this method of attack..."

(...)

"Starting in July 1990, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam began a series of suicide attacks against Sri Lankan political leaders..."
( Last edited by mojo2; Jul 21, 2005 at 06:27 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:42 AM
 

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Again, you make absolutely no sense at all.
Well, your reply makes sense because English isn't your native language and my example of intentional absurdity only makes sense in English. Pigs can't fly. Pigs won't sprout feathered wings. Pigs would not speak in a human voice. And because pigs will do NONE of these things, then there is no danger of my terrorizing a poor unsuspecting pig farmer.

Oh, and BTW, I don't eat pork, as I know you don't. So, don't think I was using THAT reference to insult you or anything.

What I was trying to say is that as long as OBL doesn't nuke any American cities, there is no danger of our harming any sacred Muslim sites. Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't attack us, we won't attack you.

Yeah, it would be "funny". It's really "funny" and something to joke about. Especially as there is a very good possibility that it might happen.

It's almost as funny as when people where warning the US about a possible large scale attack pre-9/11. Wasn't that funny?
Oh, you are one of those kinds of people who believe joking about something is as bad as actually doing the thing.

You also seem to be able to make a few little jokes about someone else...
Quote:I doubt it
...but when a zinger (a pointed joke) is directed at you, you become oh, so very sensitive. But you CAN'T be sensitive about my joking about OBL nuking Iceland.

It is not going to happen. What makes you think this could be a possibility? Did I accidentally nail a real possibility? Or are you just being too sensitive?

(Hahahahah!!! I tried to use the most absurd example for the joke but you are so, so...Icelandic!)

If I can't enjoy a bit of levity with you then we both will be the poorer for it.

Hey, I was joking about the US East Coast, too!

And finally, it's joking about a real disaster AFTER IT HAPPENS that is the wrong thing to do. It's permissable to joke about a future event that will probably never happen.

Speaking of events that will never happen, did you ever hear the joke about the 600lb. pig who sprouted feathered wings and flew to...
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Why id it that it seems the supporters of the current US government are so against showing some strenght of character themselves? They are always comparing their actions against those of the terrorists, they want terrorists(meaning psychopathic, murderous thugs) to behave etc etc.

Why is that?
It seems that way because they, by and large, consist of Illiterati with no understanding of anything outside their own shallow, greed- and power-driven reality tunnel.

Slaves shall serve, no matter what.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by malvolio
Cult of Islam? Stunning how ignorant you are.
Islam basically is Christianity without the silly stuff like virgin birth, a man/god and the Holy Trinity.
Eh, the Quran describes Jesus' birth as a virgin birth, and the rest though not in Islam is not silly stuff, considering the ability of Jesus to heal blind and lame people and other wonders, it is very understandable that the christians mistakenly thought Jesus were God in human form.

Taliesin
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Well, your reply makes sense because English isn't your native language and my example of intentional absurdity only makes sense in English. Pigs can't fly. Pigs won't sprout feathered wings. Pigs would not speak in a human voice. And because pigs will do NONE of these things, then there is no danger of my terrorizing a poor unsuspecting pig farmer.

Oh, and BTW, I don't eat pork, as I know you don't. So, don't think I was using THAT reference to insult you or anything.

What I was trying to say is that as long as OBL doesn't nuke any American cities, there is no danger of our harming any sacred Muslim sites. Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't attack us, we won't attack you.
This makes little more sense but you get your "point" across. Again you make the serious mistake of guilt by association. OBL isn't a Muslim. And the fact that you think it would be OK to bomb Mecca and Medina because of something OBL does speaks volumes about your understanding of Islam, Muslims and OBL(notice that these are three different groups).
Oh, you are one of those kinds of people who believe joking about something is as bad as actually doing the thing.

You also seem to be able to make a few little jokes about someone else...
No, I just don't think it's appropriate to joke about something that is likely to happen. Especially when it will kill thousands up to hundred of thousands. I guess I just value human life more than you.
...but when a zinger (a pointed joke) is directed at you, you become oh, so very sensitive. But you CAN'T be sensitive about my joking about OBL nuking Iceland.

It is not going to happen. What makes you think this could be a possibility? Did I accidentally nail a real possibility? Or are you just being too sensitive?

(Hahahahah!!! I tried to use the most absurd example for the joke but you are so, so...Icelandic!)

If I can't enjoy a bit of levity with you then we both will be the poorer for it.

Hey, I was joking about the US East Coast, too!

And finally, it's joking about a real disaster AFTER IT HAPPENS that is the wrong thing to do. It's permissable to joke about a future event that will probably never happen.

Speaking of events that will never happen, did you ever hear the joke about the 600lb. pig who sprouted feathered wings and flew to...
It is a likely possibility. Our government had the great idea to go against 95% of the people when it came to Iraq and joined the Coalition of the Coerced(probably had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations regarding the air-base, uhu, nope, absolutely nothing). We have sent people to both Iraq and Afghanistan that are visible. Iceland is a strong ally(I should actually say the government) of the US. And finally it is because don't have any of the security measures(or at least very few of them) that the rest of the CotC has. Our police is not armed, we have no military(just a branch of the police that is trained by the SEAL), etc etc. Hitting Iceland would be the "perfect" strike for AQ.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
OBL isn't a Muslim.
Wait. I thought we'd decided a few posts back that everyone and everything is a muslim.

Make your minds up people.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Well... If you bomb mecca then all the islamics will start fighting - it'll be all-out war. Once this war is over, the problems associated with islamic terrorism will be gone forever.
You are the exact ideological counterpart of Osama Bin Ladin, he wants to create a big war that will in his eyes end with the expelling of all unbelievers, christians and jews from the islamic countries, while you want a big war to clean Europe and America/Australia from all muslims.

Taliesin
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin
You are the exact ideological counterpart of Osama Bin Ladin, he wants to create a big war that will in his eyes end with the expelling of all unbelievers, christians and jews from the islamic countries, while you want a big war to clean Europe and America/Australia from all muslims.
Wrong. I don't want a war - I'd quite like to be left in peace to stroke kittens and play with breasts, thanks. I just know that somewhere down the line there's one coming, I know who it'll be between and I know who'll win it.

Oh. And OBL doesn't want to expel non-muslims from islamic countries - he wants to expel them from the planet.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket
It seems that way because they, by and large, consist of Illiterati with no understanding of anything outside their own shallow, greed- and power-driven reality tunnel.

Slaves shall serve, no matter what.
Why is it that Islamic leaders or Holy men such as: OBL, The Grand Mufti, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yassir Arafat, Anjem Choudary, British-born Mufti Zubair Dudha (An Islamic scholar who loathes Western values is advocating “physical jihad” in the Yorkshire home town of one of the London suicide bombers.), Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (made numerous disturbing comments about Jews ruling the world, etc. He also exhortated Islamic world to arm itself.) and Sheiks this one and that one...I could make a longer list but everyone knows that there's no shortage of Muslim leaders and teachers who are preaching and teaching hatred against the US and the Jews...

Why is it that all these folks are such haters? How can there be any more moderates with the numbers of hate teachers turning out haters?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
This makes little more sense but you get your "point" across. Again you make the serious mistake of guilt by association. OBL isn't a Muslim. And the fact that you think it would be OK to bomb Mecca and Medina because of something OBL does speaks volumes about your understanding of Islam, Muslims and OBL(notice that these are three different groups).
Sorry, but HE thinks YOU are not a true believer. And the majority of Americans think he IS a Muslim. A radical Muslim, but a Muslim nonetheless. And he has a crew of fan boyz who agree that he IS a Muslim and anyone who isn't a Muslim like THEM will have a choice convert or die.

Oh, I don't think it's alright to bomb Mecca or Medina just as I don't approve of nukes on New York or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Miami, or St. Louis, or Dallas, or Houston, or Denver, or Albuquerque, or Minneapolis, or Phoenix or Salt Lake City or San Diego or LA or SF, or Seattle or ANY US city.

But, I don't know if your new public relations tack is going to work well enough and quickly enough to convince the American people that an attack on Mecca and Medina isn't THE thing to do IF a bomb does go off in the US.

No, I just don't think it's appropriate to joke about something that is likely to happen. Especially when it will kill thousands up to hundred of thousands. I guess I just value human life more than you.
If it makes you happy to make such a claim that can't be proven there's little I can say without sounding childish.

(Von: I value human life. Mojo2: I value human life more so than you. Von: You do not! Mojo2: I do too! Von: Do not! Mojo2: Do too! and etc.)

I didn't realize an attack on Iceland was in the realm of the possible. I thought it was like the flying pig. Well, please take my advice and choose a major American city and move here as quickly as you can where you will be safe just like we are. Oh, but that's right. You don't think it's appropriate to joke about something that's likely to happen.

OK. Then go where OBL is and then you'll SURELY be safe! If the US can't find him then it MUST be a safe place.

It is a likely possibility. Our government had the great idea to go against 95% of the people when it came to Iraq and joined the Coalition of the Coerced (probably had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations regarding the air-base, uhu, nope, absolutely nothing). We have sent people to both Iraq and Afghanistan that are visible. Iceland is a strong ally (I should actually say the government) of the US. And finally it is because don't have any of the security measures (or at least very few of them) that the rest of the CotC has. Our police is not armed, we have no military (just a branch of the police that is trained by the SEAL), etc etc. Hitting Iceland would be the "perfect" strike for AQ.
Well, then we ALL have reason to worry.

No one is safe.

Time to start talking about what to do when/if a nuke is exploded.

Because of the Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) given off by any and every nuclear explosion, any and all electronic circuitry except that of the military which is specially shielded, or electronics that use old fashioned vacuum tubes, will be fried by a nuclear explosion.

Even though you may not be directly affected by the blast, if you try to turn on your TV/Radio/Computer etc. and nothing works you should be ready to live independently for a few days.

Check these pages for a thread devoted to what to do in case of an Atomic explosion.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Why is it that Islamic leaders or Holy men such as: OBL, The Grand Mufti, Ayatollah Khomeini, Yassir Arafat, Anjem Choudary, British-born Mufti Zubair Dudha (An Islamic scholar who loathes Western values is advocating “physical jihad” in the Yorkshire home town of one of the London suicide bombers.), Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (made numerous disturbing comments about Jews ruling the world, etc. He also exhortated Islamic world to arm itself.) and Sheiks this one and that one...I could make a longer list but everyone knows that there's no shortage of Muslim leaders and teachers who are preaching and teaching hatred against the US and the Jews...

Why is it that all these folks are such haters? How can there be any more moderates with the numbers of hate teachers turning out haters?
Hmm, let's see through your list of "holy men": OBL, leader of a terrorist-group recruited and trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in a jihad, after the Soviet-army was beaten in Afghanistan he starts to think that it could be possible to defeat the US in a similar way by luring them into a conflict in the islamic world and then to slowly bleed them out.

What grand mufti, do you mean the famous Husaini, the ex-ottoman-soldier, the one installed by a jewish british commander as Mufti of Jerusalem despite his lack of religious authority and despite his anti-semitic hate-speeches and acts?

Yassir Arafat whose people are occupied, oppressed and driven out by zionists, really surprising that he could develop hate because of that.

Ayathollah Khomeini, whose country's democratically elected government was ousted in a bloody coup organized and executed by the US only to be replaced by a ruthless dictatorship...

Oppressed and wronged people tend to produce revenge-seeking rebels, and oppressive dictatorships tend to use an external scapegoat to blame for the internal problems, that shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Nonetheless teachers/preachers of hate are still way in the minority in the islamic world, but since the media is concentrating on these it forms your perception. "An islamic imam from Rabat is asking muslims to respect innocent life" is not as a good headline as "Muslim cleric calls US big satan". Even if both headlines make it into the same newspaper, it's much more likely that you will read and concentrate and therefore remember the last one over the other. Perception, media-attention and memory-selection form our reality and can at times if not most present the reality in a one-sided way.

Taliesin
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Why id it that it seems the supporters of the current US government are so against showing some strenght of character themselves? They are always comparing their actions against those of the terrorists, they want terrorists(meaning psychopathic, murderous thugs) to behave etc etc.

Why is that?
Now, now there ranger. Think about the running debate over our principled fighting in Iraq. Yes, there have been a few very well publicized exceptions, but we are a principled people. We DO show character. You just seem to be attracted to or attractive to the more common of us on these pages!



Why is it that we have a never ending succession of Muslim leaders and teachers who hate us, and who teach and preach hate toward us?

THEN tell me why with all this hate so easy to see from these many leading MAINSTREAM Muslims, why WE should be the ones who are high minded and noble? What good would that do us if we don't see any difference between the OBL terrorist hate and the hate from the more mainstream Muslim leaders?

When the shite hits the fan these haters are going to go active and you can't deny it.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:00 AM
 
Perhaps waiting a few years for the Chemical Warfare folks to develop a weapon to kill Muslins without ruining the cities would be 'better' ???

Right now, if OBL was still hiding in the mountains between Pakistan and Afganistan a few nukes in that lightly populated area of OBL sympathisers might solve the problem. Who really cares about some primative tribal thugs and their henchmen anyway?

It seems "Reasoning" is not an option here.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin
Hmm, let's see through your list of "holy men": OBL, leader of a terrorist-group recruited and trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in a jihad, after the Soviet-army was beaten in Afghanistan he starts to think that it could be possible to defeat the US in a similar way by luring them into a conflict in the islamic world and then to slowly bleed them out.

What grand mufti, do you mean the famous Husaini, the ex-ottoman-soldier, the one installed by a jewish british commander as Mufti of Jerusalem despite his lack of religious authority and despite his anti-semitic hate-speeches and acts?

Yassir Arafat whose people are occupied, oppressed and driven out by zionists, really surprising that he could develop hate because of that.

Ayathollah Khomeini, whose country's democratically elected government was ousted in a bloody coup organized and executed by the US only to be replaced by a ruthless dictatorship...

Oppressed and wronged people tend to produce revenge-seeking rebels, and oppressive dictatorships tend to use an external scapegoat to blame for the internal problems, that shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Nonetheless teachers/preachers of hate are still way in the minority in the islamic world, but since the media is concentrating on these it forms your perception. "An islamic imam from Rabat is asking muslims to respect innocent life" is not as a good headline as "Muslim cleric calls US big satan". Even if both headlines make it into the same newspaper, it's much more likely that you will read and concentrate and therefore remember the last one over the other. Perception, media-attention and memory-selection form our reality and can at times if not most present the reality in a one-sided way.

Taliesin
Well, I guess it's good that my list of haters wasn't any longer (though it easily COULD have been) or else you'd be spending a lot of time explaining away their hatefulness. Or denying they are true believers.

von W says OBL isn't a Muslim. Does that mean none of the haters are really Muslims?
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:25 AM
 
I think we are all in agreement (well MOST of us, anyway) on this one thing. Nukes going off in America or Mecca or Medina or anywhere else can't be a good thing unless it's a nuke up in the mountains where OBL squats with his thug friends.

So, I'm gonna ease up from this provocative line of debate and trust that God's will be done. Do your best von W and Taliesin to help we scared Americans understand that OBL isn't a real Muslim and that if he nuks an American city we shouldn't strike out at the TRUE Muslim's holy cities.

And not only should we not strike the Holy cities because it would break the Muslim's hearts around the world, but that as soon as we did we'd have a situation like what's going on in Iraq happening instead in the USA and all over the world by Muslims of all shapes, sizes and skin colors...1.5 BILLION of them would be mobilized as that is a Muslim's duty to defend the religion.

With that our lives would get pretty interesting as there would be no single method we could use to avoid constant and unremitting attacks by Muslims large and small and etc. And we'd have to nuke everyone or else devise a way to read people's minds the way we are able to read a sign. Instantly and at a safe distance.

Good luck to us all.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:46 AM
 
Logic knows the entire stink he's raising is over a complete hypothetical, He just likes to start shite.

BTW, Logic, your WWIII would never happen if the US were to do something like that, as the vast majority of ME Muslims would cease to even exist in that eyeblink - as that would have been the whole point in the first place. That would be because the US government would look at every possible scenario first, come to the same conclusion you did, and decided to just create the Sea of Glass™.

It's not going to happen.

The entire thing, once again, was Tancredo's personal opinion based on a hypothetical situation posed in a question by a reporter.

For the sake of "shock value" Ole Illogic rather conveniently ignores the FACT of what it would take to get 535 people in Congress (or a majority thereof) to choose to nuke anything in the first place.

But, then again, he couldn't look matyr-like if he dealt with those nasty facts, now could he?

He knows fully well how ridiculous this discussion even is, which is why I am going over the top with it. I mean if we are going to deal with cartoon scenarios, I may as well behave like a cartoon, eh?
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
iLikebeer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I apologised. I worded it wrongly. I'll try to explain it all in this post.

If Mecca and Madinah are bombed by any government that country would at the same second be in a war against Islam. That same second it would be the duty of every Muslim to defend Islam. It would have nothing to do with being a moderate or not. It would be my duty, just like every other Muslims, to fight the one who attacked Islam. I'm not going to be PC about this but just explain it as well as I can.

The second you(meaning the US gov) would bomb Mecca and Medinah you would be attacking Islam and would have stabbed every Muslim in the heart. The second the US gov would attack Mecca I would be starting to preparing attacks on every single US government building and employee here. You might ask why I would attack every single government employee. I would because everyone working for the government that bombed Mecca would be assisting the attack on Islam and every single employee can stop working at the government if he so wishes. Where I am now we have probably two high-profile targets(embassy and air-base) and a couple of more low-profile targets. I would hunt down and punish every single US government official in this country. I would make sure not a single US gov building here would stand the day after. And I'm a moderate.

Now imagine this in every single country with Muslim residents. Now think about those who will not show the same restraint as I when it would come to innocent civilians. To win this war your government would have to kill about 1.5 billion people because this war would not end until the annihaliation of the US government or until every single Muslim on this earth would be dead.

I can promise you that this is what would happen. This is not a guess. You would have about 1.5 billion people hunting down every single US government official and building. Of those some would not be able to show restraint when it comes to innocent civilians and some would broaden the definition of legal targets. 9/11, Israel/Palestine and WWII would all look like paradise if this would be set in motion. And unfortunately it's completely in your hands. It's unfortunate because I don't trust your government one bit.

Does this explanation still sound "extreme"? Of course it does. But it has nothing to do with being a moderate or extremist. It has to do about justice.
Now substitute any US city nuked for Mecca and Madinah, Americans for Muslims, switch the numbers of people going after whoever......and now do you see how it's hypocritical? Both sides say something that is astonishingly horrible but could possibly happen. You can't claim the right of vengeance and justice over something and then get mad when the other side feels the same way about their country and people as you do about the Holy sites being bombed. I guess you could, but that's why I'm saying it's hypocritical.

The more disturbing thing, imo, is that you seem to be placing more worth on the actual holy sites than on the millions and millions of people who live in the cities.

Slightly off-topic: Correct me if wrong, but are Buddhism/Taoism/Confucianism the only major religions that don't have an end of the world myth?
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 09:01 AM
 
Sure he can, he's one of the very same people who keep claiming the Palestinian attacks on Israel the keep breaking the ceasefire are in vengeance (or retaliation) for something Israel supposedly did first.

He wants to pontificate about his "eye for an eye' scenario, but simply ignores the fact that someone has to suck it up and quit the endless "vengeance" attacks, then - just maybe - we could all move toward peace in the first place.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
The second the US gov would attack Mecca I would be starting to preparing attacks on every single US government building and employee here. […] I would hunt down and punish every single US government official in this country. I would make sure not a single US gov building here would stand the day after.
Aren't you doing the very same thing you are accusing that US politician of doing? Speculating about some hypothetical worst case scenario. He says "In case 'they' nuked us, we could bomb their holy sites." You say "In case 'they' bomb our holy sites, we will kill them all." Where's the difference?
     
megas
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 11:24 AM
 
Ok im another Muslim, new here. And too bad English isn't my native language, its hard to communicate.

@All those Muslim guys here:
I think most of you guys are acting weird or not the right way. Some of your replies are, a little stupid or funny. Referencing huge chunks of verses from Quran isnt always a smart idea. Also dont reference an islamic idea or verse from quran when it doesnt make a common sense. Also dont get emotional about defending islam. Ofcourse I am not surprised why some people are making fun of your posts.

TO THE TOPIC:
The idea of destroying Mecca does not look genius; even a 9 year old kid can get such idea. If America does destroy it, then automatically it will be in trouble. Economic situation will start becoming bad and bad. America will receive huge pressure from world. This will give chances for rise of new super powers. And I don’t think America will be able to recover it self for next many centuries.

I think that America is responsible country; at least for its citizens. They aren’t going to do that. While many Americans will like the idea of nuking Mecca but there will be many to oppose it. Look how many people opposed war of Afghanistan and Iraq;;; How American political opposition will handle it. War is always the worst option, and in which no one wins, just losses. See how many people died in Word War 1&2 and how many families and their lives ruined.

Look how Hitler tried to kill all innocent Jews. But today you can see they live with pride and power. Israel affects the international politics and policies of USA. In the same way the more you try to use BruteForce the situation will become worse. And you cannot wipe-out a nation, country or religion.

Also I request people on this forum to avoid offencing a religion in such a way that would hurt followers of that religion. You should show respect to other people's belief and their religions, no matter what they are, what they say about you or if you found their religion bad etc. Respect for others religions and belief is really necessary to make a good, positive and constructive discussion. You can and should still make replies of "objections against Islam or something related to it". But not in harsh way, in a formal and positive way.

From a personal point of view, Mecca contains the central holy symbol Qabbah or HouseOfAllah/God. It’s the job of Allah to protect his house, why do we care?

In last as an intro to my self, I'm not a regular on this forum. I came from gamedev.net forums. I have seen hundreds of religion threads. But I have seen many people are very responsible when making discussion on this subject. Moderators are very good to make sure that people are not flaming others religions in harsh way. There were problems there also but now theses days, things are much regulated on gamedev's forums.
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
No offense, but it's a good thing you aren't! This place would have NO visitors if you curtailed this level of discourse. This is pretty tame. And, as you mentioned, how bad can the discourse get if no one's safety is threatened?

I think there are people who haven't taken the threat of OBL seriously until now. However, the conservatives seemed to GET IT even in my earliest posts here.

I think there are some moderate Muslims who felt they were distanced physically and emotionally from OBL, his terrorist tactics and philosophy such that they could sit, seeming neutral observers able to peer down and pontificate on what the US was doing wrong and saying little about OBL's flaws or attacking him as strongly as they did those efforts to combat him AND THE TOTAL WoT.

I said early on that this fundamental terrorism WAS a problem for the moderate muslims and it would be so increasingly as time went on. That because it would be THEY who would have much to lose, so it would behoove THEM to do something about OBL and come out against terrorism like their lives depended on it.

From the cool, detached and antagonistic responses from many of the muslims here I got the idea that they didn't really see or feel this whole thing would really impact THEIR lives.

Now, I get the feeling that they get it.

It's about time they joined us (in real heartfelt sentiment, at least) in this WoT rather than being smug and criticizing everything we did. Hey, and you liberals might want to pay attention to what's going on here, too.
It's impossible to have a real discussion when people are saying some variation of "If x happens, I'll destroy all the y's." or "If x happens, than my side will win anyway and I don't care if your side gets wiped out because my side is better."

That's complete and utter idiocy and it's repeated in this thread time and again. Have you ever noticed that there aren't any moderates in these threads because they get shut out by you extremists? Our linguistically challenged newcomer is one of the first people in this thread to actually talk about tolerance and forgiveness instead of this you vs. me, good vs. evil crap.

The level of discourse in this forum has gone far, far downhill from its roots and no, it's not because there are more conservatives...etc. It's because there are more people who are so inflexible and so attached to an ideology that they will personally attack, threaten, or otherwise depart from actual debate so much that it drowns out the real responses.

As for your contention about moderate muslims, THEY are the ones who have suffered at the most at the hands of radical Islamist terrorism, not us and we are seeing the effects of that reflected in polls around the world. Regular people want regular lives and the vast majority of muslims are regular people who want nothing but peace and the ability to live out their lives without interference from terrorists or foreign governments. They'll take whatever route they can to achieve that and that's why when any dangerous movement arrives on the mainstream's doorstep, it's finally beaten down.

Terrorism will not be destroyed by western ideology or even by moderate clerics or their followers. It will be destroyed by regular people who want their lives back and it won't matter what their religion is.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
I have to disagree. One of the major gripes they have is that the majority of Muslims aren't taking their side. If this(bombing Mecca) would be the official policy Al Qaida & co would do everything they possibly could to do something to make the US do that. Because the second the US would do that we would have WWIII on our hands and it would mean the end of the world as we know it. An escalation like that is something the OBL crew(and unfortunately the extreme right in the West) wants. USA(or anyone else) bombing Mecca would make every single Muslim on this world rise up against the West. And that is exactly what OBL wants
WWIII? Hardly.

The ME countries and their population aren't capable of a WW. You need industry.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
WWIII? Hardly.

The ME countries and their population aren't capable of a WW. You need industry.

cheers

W-Y
The minority of Muslims live in ME IIRC

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
The minority of Muslims live in ME IIRC
What countries populated and controlled by muslims are capable of heavy industry? Now I'm all curious.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
Aren't you doing the very same thing you are accusing that US politician of doing? Speculating about some hypothetical worst case scenario. He says "In case 'they' nuked us, we could bomb their holy sites." You say "In case 'they' bomb our holy sites, we will kill them all." Where's the difference?
I never said kill them all. I said a war against the US government and their supporters. Bombing Mecca is an attack against Islam and is due to that against every Muslim.

If OBL bombs America he isn't(as per usual) a representative of Islam. Hunt him down, hunt his followers and supporters down and punish them accordingly. This is something I hoped the US would do but so far that hasn't been on the top of their list. Punishing all of Islam for the deeds of a man who is in no way a representative of Muslims is wrong. Punishing 1.5 billion people for something they 1) had nothing to do with and 2) couldn't do anything about is wrong. Punishing the elected government of a nation and their supporters for an act made by them is not wrong. If you don't like what your employer does(in this hypothetical case bombing Mecca) you can quit. Do that and you'll be safe. Stay on working for them and you are as guilty as the men who ordered the bombings.

Just wait until this comment makes it to the Muslim world(which it is doing at this exact moment). The Quran flushing is nothing compared to the outrage this comment will cause. OBL's recruiting team will have too much to do the next few days.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
What countries populated and controlled by muslims are capable of heavy industry? Now I'm all curious.

cheers

W-Y
A few examples would be Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey. Then it would be important to remember that together the Muslim countries control much of the oil produced in this world and we could be pretty certain that the major producers would rather side with the Muslim countries(economically) rather than the US if it came to this. Some examples of that would be Venezuela and Russia. Then we have huge "minorities" in countries like India and other.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
A few examples would be Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey. Then it would be important to remember that together the Muslim countries control much of the oil produced in this world and we could be pretty certain that the major producers would rather side with the Muslim countries(economically) rather than the US if it came to this. Some examples of that would be Venezuela and Russia. Then we have huge "minorities" in countries like India and other.
So, no countries capable of HEAVY indutries eh? Thought so

You realize the difference between Egypt and the UK, Indonesia and France, Iran and Germany, Libya and Russia, Malaysia and Spain, Pakistan and the United States.

This wouldn't be a war. It would be a slaughter.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
So, no countries capable of HEAVY indutries eh? Thought so

You realize the difference between Egypt and the UK, Indonesia and France, Iran and Germany, Libya and Russia, Malaysia and Spain, Pakistan and the United States.

This wouldn't be a war. It would be a slaughter.

cheers

W-Y
Whatever

If the West would be prepared to slaughter 1.5 billion people to defend the US then so be it.

"Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe! "

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Whatever

If the West would be prepared to slaughter 1.5 billion people to defend the US then so be it.

"Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe! "
Defend the US? No.

Defend the West. Yes.

However an all out war between the ME and the West is just a wet dream of some fanatic muslims. It will never happen. The fanatic muslims control nothing and the ME and islamic countries are all -/+ 100 years behind the military technology of the West and totally dependant upon it anyway.

Apart of some reverse engineered missiles and semi-automatic rifles they have nothing.

It would be like Germany vs. Poland in 1939. Over before you know it.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Defend the US? No.

Defend the West. Yes.

However an all out war between the ME and the West is just a wet dream of some fanatic muslims. It will never happen. The fanatic muslims control nothing and the ME and islamic countries are all -/+ 100 years behind the military technology of the West and totally dependant upon it anyway.

Apart of some reverse engineered missiles and semi-automatic rifles they have nothing.

It would be like Germany vs. Poland in 1939. Over before you know it.

cheers

W-Y
If the West would strongly condemn the USA and sever their ties with them after the hypothetical bombing of Mecca there would be no war against the West.

And it's not just the wet dream of the fanatics on the Muslim side. Both sides want it. The fool that is the reason I started this thread is one of them.

And I promise you that the second it happens(bombing of Mecca) the war would start. Wouldn't matter about the technology. If the US would want to win that war they would have to slaughter each and every single Muslim on this earth.

And no, they aren't all ± 100 years behind. Pakistan has Teh Bomb™, Libya was close to developing it, Iran is accused of being able to develop it, etc etc. 260 Americans would all have to be mobilised to withstand the human waves that would attack them. That is if that many would support the US government if they bombed Mecca. My guess is that at a stretch about 50 million would support such an action. Hiding behind the two oceans would be the only chance they had.

Like I've said before. The only thing bombing Mecca would result in would be in WWIII. It might be short but it would be the most costly war(in human terms) in the history of mankind.

So lets hope this man does not win the presidency as he aims for.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
iLikebeer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2005, 09:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
If the West would strongly condemn the USA and sever their ties with them after the hypothetical bombing of Mecca there would be no war against the West.

And it's not just the wet dream of the fanatics on the Muslim side. Both sides want it. The fool that is the reason I started this thread is one of them.

And I promise you that the second it happens(bombing of Mecca) the war would start. Wouldn't matter about the technology. If the US would want to win that war they would have to slaughter each and every single Muslim on this earth.

And no, they aren't all ± 100 years behind. Pakistan has Teh Bomb™, Libya was close to developing it, Iran is accused of being able to develop it, etc etc. 260 Americans would all have to be mobilised to withstand the human waves that would attack them. That is if that many would support the US government if they bombed Mecca. My guess is that at a stretch about 50 million would support such an action. Hiding behind the two oceans would be the only chance they had.

Like I've said before. The only thing bombing Mecca would result in would be in WWIII. It might be short but it would be the most costly war(in human terms) in the history of mankind.

So lets hope this man does not win the presidency as he aims for.
Sounds more like you want it to happen so you can tell everyone "I told you so." Maybe you should sign off for a few days and go to the park or your local mosque. If a message board like this can make you believe all that and act so paranoid, maybe you're losing sight of reality a little bit. If you go to the park, don't wear one of those The end is near sandwich boards though. That's not what I mean.
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 04:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by iLikebeer
Sounds more like you want it to happen so you can tell everyone "I told you so." Maybe you should sign off for a few days and go to the park or your local mosque. If a message board like this can make you believe all that and act so paranoid, maybe you're losing sight of reality a little bit. If you go to the park, don't wear one of those The end is near sandwich boards though. That's not what I mean.
Thanks for sharing.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not."


(bring on the spins as to what this Surah means )

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 07:53 AM
 
I guess it's TOO MUCH to hope that the "reasonable Muslim's" would step in and silence the radicals beore their way of life was destroyed? Hasn't happend so far.

IF the west and Muslims got into war, think Interment camps.

The ME's can't agree on very much since most are overly emotional hot-heads with GIANT egos anyway. I don't see them able to have a big grand strategy, and the intel to be able to modify plans the way thats needed in a war. Think Suicide.....
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
I guess it's TOO MUCH to hope that the "reasonable Muslim's" would step in and silence the radicals beore their way of life was destroyed? Hasn't happend so far.
and how should we do that?
IF the west and Muslims got into war, think Interment camps.
So? Is that supposed to be "scary"?
The ME's can't agree on very much since most are overly emotional hot-heads with GIANT egos anyway. I don't see them able to have a big grand strategy, and the intel to be able to modify plans the way thats needed in a war. Think Suicide.....
only a minority of Muslims live in the ME

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
If the West would strongly condemn the USA and sever their ties with them after the hypothetical bombing of Mecca there would be no war against the West.

And it's not just the wet dream of the fanatics on the Muslim side. Both sides want it. The fool that is the reason I started this thread is one of them.

And I promise you that the second it happens(bombing of Mecca) the war would start. Wouldn't matter about the technology. If the US would want to win that war they would have to slaughter each and every single Muslim on this earth.

And no, they aren't all ± 100 years behind. Pakistan has Teh Bomb™, Libya was close to developing it, Iran is accused of being able to develop it, etc etc. 260 Americans would all have to be mobilised to withstand the human waves that would attack them. That is if that many would support the US government if they bombed Mecca. My guess is that at a stretch about 50 million would support such an action. Hiding behind the two oceans would be the only chance they had.

Like I've said before. The only thing bombing Mecca would result in would be in WWIII. It might be short but it would be the most costly war(in human terms) in the history of mankind.

So lets hope this man does not win the presidency as he aims for.
The biggest problem with your scenarios is that noe one is going to fault the United States for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike after the initial criteria put forth in the hypothetical - one or more US cities nuked by Muslim terrorists - is met.

And if they do, are you seriously under the impression that ANY of them would actively aid, or permit your Great Muslim Army™ to operate from, cross throuigh airspace, or march through their countries in order for you to even reach the United States?

Any such war would be fought almost entirely in your (Muslim's) backyard (or what's left of it) since the US would clamp her own borders shut tighter than a virgin's legs and export the fight to you with air strikes and US Navy carrier task forces.

This little WWIII scenario of yours is a pipe (perhaps wet) dream.

As has already been pointed out to you - none of your fighters possess weapons that are even manufactured in your own countries, much less ammunition for them. Are you so deluded that you think even Russia would court the enmity of the US after a first strike nuclear scenario by selling or providing munitions?

Use your brain and not your emotions and you would realize that this "war" would last less than 30 days and result in the virtual extermination of your people.



For instance, in one of your replies, you claim these countries are not +/- 100 years behind because "Pakistan has teh Bomb™." Maybe so, but Pakistan has no delivery system for teh Bomb™ capable of reaching the United States. Not so, t'other way round. The B2 can take off from Whiteman AFB in Missouri (the middle of the North American continent, and obliterate Pakistan in one pass, on its way around the world, and they would never see it coming. Are you beginning to see the ridiculous aspects of your WWIII yet?

The bottom line is that if the United States were anything like the militaristic, imperialistic power all you haters like to claim she is, none of you would exist in the first place to make the claim, because you would already be exterminated - something NONE of you takes into account when making your accusations.
( Last edited by Macrobat; Jul 22, 2005 at 10:07 AM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat
The biggest problem with your scenarios is that noe one is going to fault the United States for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike after the initial criteria put forth in the hypothetical - one or more US cities nuked by Muslim terrorists - is met.
They are going to fault you for attacking one of the most important historical sites, that is in the hearts of about 1.5 billion people around the world. I know some of you Americans don't understand the importance of history but luckily most of the rest of the world does. If you knew OBL was hiding in a town, close it down, tell the people to either hand him over or face obliteration. Heck, even bombing the mountain area between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be understandable(not something I'd like to happen but understandable). But to try to destroy something that is in the hearts of 1.5 billion people that had NOTHING to do with a nuclear attack is just unbelievably stupid.
And if they do, are you seriously under the impression that ANY of them would actively aid, or permit your Great Muslim Army™ to operate from, cross throuigh airspace, or march through their countries in order for you to even reach the United States?
We don't need to march through "their" countries. We already live in "your" countries. You think any US embassy would be safe in Europe if it would come to this?
Any such war would be fought almost entirely in your (Muslim's) backyard (or what's left of it) since the US would clamp her own borders shut tighter than a virgin's legs and export the fight to you with air strikes and US Navy carrier task forces.

This little WWIII scenario of yours is a pipe (perhaps wet) dream.
Perhaps you lack the intellect to understand what I have been saying. If I wanted this I wouldn't have complained about that tw*ts comments. If I wanted this I wouldn't be asking you guys to do something about this. The reason I posted about these comments was to prevent this. How can I make it more clear to you?
As has already been pointed out to you - none of your fighters possess weapons that are even manufactured in your own countries, much less ammunition for them. Are you so deluded that you think even Russia would court the enmity of the US after a first strike nuclear scenario by selling or providing munitions?

Use your brain and not your emotions and you would realize that this "war" would last less than 30 days and result in the virtual extermination of your people.
And still the Mujahedin in Iraq is able to kill US soldiers on a daily basis. And still the Mujahedin in Afghanistan was able to get Russia out of there. The list goes on. Technology won't help you in this scenario until you've slaughtered 1.5 billion people. That is what I'm trying to tell you. Bombing Mecca will result in you being required to slaughter 1.5 billion people just to survive(again for those with problems, "you" mean US government and their supporters). Is bombing Mecca worth that?
For instance, in one of your replies, you claim these countries are not +/- 100 years behind because "Pakistan has teh Bomb™." Maybe so, but Pakistan has no delivery system for teh Bomb™ capable of reaching the United States. Not so, t'other way round. The B2 can take off from Whiteman AFB in Missouri (the middle of the North American continent, and obliterate Pakistan in one pass, on its way around the world, and they would never see it coming. Are you beginning to see the ridiculous aspects of your WWIII yet?
AQ has been able to deliver blows to the US, Britain, Spain, and the list goes on without using any modern technology from their "own" territory. You don't need technique for that.
The bottom line is that if the United States were anything like the militaristic, imperialistic power all you haters like to claim she is, none of you would exist in the first place to make the claim, because you would already be exterminated - something NONE of you takes into account when making your accusations.
Neo-Imperialism works wonders from hiding the truth from people like you.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat
The biggest problem with your scenarios is that noe one is going to fault the United States for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike after the initial criteria put forth in the hypothetical - one or more US cities nuked by Muslim terrorists - is met.
No one is going to fault the US for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike as long as it's launched at the people responsible for the attack on US cities.
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
No one is going to fault the US for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike as long as it's launched at the people responsible for the attack on US cities.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 04:12 PM
 
Sorry State of the Muslim World Not Due to the West
Armstrong Williams
Friday, July 15, 2005

Since terrorists detonated a series of bombs across London's mass transit system last week, killing 52 people, there has been a tendency to wonder whether the war in Iraq is making the world more, not less, dangerous.

Nothing could be further form the truth. Long before the United States stepped foot in Iraq, al-Qaida agents spent their days thinking about how to rip apart Western culture. They claimed innocent lives in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt and, yes, New York on September 11.
The war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – these are flashpoints in the war; they are neither the cause nor the effect. Remember, terrorist attacks were planned during the Clinton administration, when the United States was engaging in the most active efforts to facilitate Middle East peace talks. In 1998 al-Qaida blew up the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 they detonated a bomb alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 servicemen.

These terrorists declared war on our way of life long before we entered Iraq. So it would be naive to think that pulling out of Iraq, or changing our policies regarding the Middle East peace process, would somehow stem the violence.


The problem is larger than Iraq. It is larger than Israel or Palestine. It's not about political polices. It's about the fact that for much of modern history, the Muslim world has occupied a dominant role on the world stage. This is no longer the case. Over the past 200 years, the Muslim world has fallen far behind the Western world in terms of military power, science and economic prosperity. In a very real way, the Muslim world has had to confront the reality of having lost a war – of having witnessed the slow recession of its culture.


Of course the root cause of the Muslim world's erosion over the past 200 years is not Western culture. The Muslim world's tendency toward a monolithic, totalitarian model of leadership has stifled economic development, thrusting much of the Muslim world into poverty.


What's particularly disgusting and disgraceful is the way that Muslim leaders repudiate America and Europe, but cannot bring themselves to find fault in the Muslim dictatorships that are responsible for so much of Muslims' poverty and death. Instead, the spokesmen for Islamic extremism refer to their terror attacks as part of a holy war. This rhetoric gives young people the feeling that they are liberating their homelands (they are not).

This sort of pathology is maintained through social and religious myths that indoctrinate the youth to extremism. School rooms are decorated with pictures of suicide bombers, who are praised and glorified by teachers. One of the most popular pastimes amongst school kids is a card game called "how to be a suicide bomber."

From a young age, these children are taught to blame the ruin of their lives on a nexus of crippling political decisions handed down by America, Europe and Israel. In a land where large pluralities of the populace are starving and lack a sense of future possibilities, this kind of social conditioning holds a special appeal. It suggests an alternative to their poverty.


Meanwhile, the problem gets worse, not better. Much of the Muslim world is impoverished. Muslims lack many basic rights we associate with happiness. This won't change if we pull out of Iraq. It won't change if we alter our policy regarding Palestine. As long as Islamic tyrants continue to control the flow of information in the Muslim world, they will continue to condition the children to believe that the Western world is responsible for the ruin of their lives.

The only way this will change is if we facilitate democracy throughout the region. The only way to marginalize the Jihadist ideas is to make sure the people have access to alternative viewpoints. We cannot defend against every terror attack. But if we break the stranglehold of ideas in the Muslim world, then maybe children will stop strapping bombs to their bodies and detonating themselves in our subways and on our streets.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
No one is going to fault the US for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike as long as it's launched at the people responsible for the attack on US cities.
Notice to those harboring OBL: IF any of our cities are nuked, we WILL be looking for SOMEONE'S ass. And if you don't give him up, then on the JUSTIFIABLE PREMISE that we are going after OBL based on our best guess as to his location we may not use a smart bomb, but a DUMB bomb and maybe a HUGE one. And maybe several of them if we miss getting him the first or second or third or...times.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2005, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Notice to those harboring OBL: IF any of our cities are nuked, we WILL be looking for SOMEONE'S ass. And if you don't give him up, then on the JUSTIFIABLE PREMISE that we are going after OBL based on our best guess as to his location we may not use a smart bomb, but a DUMB bomb and maybe a HUGE one. And maybe several of them if we miss getting him the first or second or third or...times.
Fair enough, but when you can't figure out who was harboring OBL, just don't use a nuclear attack on US cities as an excuse to nuke an enemy unconnected to the attack that you previously haven't yet had an excuse to nuke.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2005, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Fair enough, but when you can't figure out who was harboring OBL, just don't use a nuclear attack on US cities as an excuse to nuke an enemy unconnected to the attack that you previously haven't yet had an excuse to nuke.
If we get it wrong and drop some bombs (NOT SAYING WHAT TYPE) on the wrong areas or countries I think it just MIGHT light a fire under the asses of SOME groups of people or nationalities so they will be a little more enthusiastic about helping us find the person(s) responsible for the nuke attack(s), not to mention 9/11.

See, there's more than one way to increase worldwide support for the WoT.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2005, 05:44 AM
 
GLOBAL JIHAD
Al-Qaida`s spectacular
`Ramadan Offensive`
Bin Laden plans for terrorist strikes
against U.S., Europe next month
Posted: September 8, 2005
9:02 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Raising new concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, al-Qaida is planning spectacular attacks next month against the U.S., Russia and Europe in what it is calling the "Great Ramadan Offensive."

The offensive, designed to overshadow the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, was first referenced in a May 30 letter written by al-Qaida's Iraq commander Abu Musab Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden. It is the subject of a report written by terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, to government officials. Bodansky's report was first exposed in a story by CNSNews.com reporter Sherrie Gossett.

Ramadan, the holiest period in the Muslim calendar, begins Oct. 4 this year and lasts a month.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=46235

I hear that Nov. 2nd is called by the Muslims, the "Day of Determination" a holy day.

"The next attack, according to al-Qaida defectors and informants, will take place simultaneously at various sites throughout the country," he writes.

"Designated targets include New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Houston, Las Vegas, and Valdez, Alaska, where the tankers are filled with oil from the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

To orchestrate such an incredible event requires not only the shipment of the nukes into the United States but also the establishment of cells, the training of sleeper agents, the selection of sites, and the preparation of the weapons without detection from federal, state or local law enforcement officials. Unlike 9-11, that cost less than $350,000, this event already has cost a king's ransom, and bin Laden will not waste the billions in expenditures, the years of planning and his coveted 'crown jewels' on an attack that is ill-planned, poorly timed and carelessly coordinated."
( Last edited by mojo2; Oct 5, 2005 at 05:53 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,