Say Anything Blog

I cannot vote for Tancredo for President, but I think a credible threat by a tough, no nonsense President with a majority of Congress backing him/her up, to drop nuclear bombs on Medina, Mecca and other holy sites would cause even these Islamic terrorists to seriously reconsider attacking American targets as their actions would be condemned by millions of Muslims wanting to protect what to them are altars to Allah, and I think even financial support would dry up.

If they test us, the first Islamic Center turned into a parking lot would certainly cause them to reevaluate their military planning.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

What do we do if they won’t stop trying to kill/convert us?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert: They can try and convert us as much as they like, although I must admit forced conversions, rape, torture and murder turn me off a little bit; but hey a few little bombs, rapes and torture sessions between friends, what is that to kick up a fuss about?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

  but when our enemy are the adherents to an extremist form of Islam who are scattered in nations throughout the world is it going to work the same way?

Exactly. Invading Iraq makes no sense when you understand this very basic concept.

graybeard:
1. We attacked Iraq because of the massive evidence Saddam was stockpiling WMD’s, we know he used them, we know he was not adverse to attacking his neighbors and bombing our ally Israel. Islam was not part of the equation, nor should it have been!
2. By your logic, we cannot attack them anywhere with any kinds of weapons.
3. So, I assume negotiations and appeasement of Iraqi Extremists are on on your agenda?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Exactly. Invading Iraq makes no sense when you understand this very basic concept.

Graybeard, where does the ideology we’re fighting against spring from?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Graybeard, where does the ideology we’re fighting against spring from?

Predominantly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Next question.

...but when our enemy are the adherents to an extremist form of Islam who are scattered in nations throughout the world is it going to work the same way?

Exactly. Invading Iraq makes no sense when you understand this very basic concept.
graybeard on August 3, 2007 at 06:43 pm

Graybeard, where does the ideology we’re fighting against spring from?

Predominantly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Next question.

My question is: Which is it?  Are they scattered all over the world?(According to you, a “basic concept”.), or are they “predominately in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan”, as you also said?

Once again, which is it?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Tancredo’s idea might be logical if indeed the world’s Muslims wanted to do harm to the United States. Since it’s an extremist element within Islam that wants to see such harm done, I think the plan makes as much sense as bombing Liberty University in response to prolife terrorism…that is no sense of course.

It does accomplish the goal of doing something in the face of the terrorist threat though so I’m not surprised that such a scheme has its supporters.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Rob - Mutually assured destruction might have worked when our enemy was a definable nation (like the Soviet Union), but when our enemy are the adherents to an extremist form of Islam who are scattered in nations throughout the world is it going to work the same way?

Yes, because all Muslims all share one “country”, and that is Mecca.

graybeard said, Exactly. Invading Iraq makes no sense when you understand this very basic concept.

We’re killing tons of the radical Islamists in Iraq. It makes perfect sense. Are you sure you even understand the “very basic concept” of the war? It’s to kill our enemies. We’re doing just that in Iraq.

Lik: Often I just want to shut and let you answer all the posts!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

MikeAdamson - Tancredo’s idea might be logical if indeed the world’s Muslims wanted to do harm to the United States.

It’s also logical as a deterrent to the so called “extremist” element. We can reason that this is a Muslim problem that is upon the world, and if they don’t get ahold of it and control their own “extremist” elements, they’re partially responsible.

Since it’s an extremist element within Islam that wants to see such harm done, I think the plan makes as much sense as bombing Liberty University in response to prolife terrorism…that is no sense of course.

Your comparison makes no sense.

It does accomplish the goal of doing something in the face of the terrorist threat though so I’m not surprised that such a scheme has its supporters.

You talk in riddles old man.

Maybe if Foggy Bottom is nuked as an example someone with an actual pair can be sent to explain to certain power brokers across the Arab Peninsula, including members of the House of Saud, that controlling their radicals in house would be to their collective advantage.

Frankly I think Tancredo’s threat is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of - the guy is like Anna Nicole Smith or Coulter, an attention whore. Islam has so many skisms within the broad religion… what’s to stop one sect from attacking us so we retaliate against another? Furthermore, what the fuck does he think threats like that will do to our gas prices? Nuclear arms should never be used again. It ain’t like it was in the 40’s - the bombs are bigger and the world is smaller.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

The reason MAD worked was that the Soviets believed we would do it.  The present-day Dem Party has let the Islamofascists know that we are divided on this issue, so the deterrence factor is greatly reduced.  A credible threat of a massive missile launch to various parts of Islam, including Mecca, would only be effective if we can silence our own antiwar pukes.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Sparkie: In response to your usual nonsense, I must point out that we haven’t had to use nuclear weapons since 1945, and hopefully we won’t ever have to use them again.  If our enemies had to deal with the likes of you, they would walk all over us in a minute.  Fortunately, we have a real man in the White House.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

lik

Your comparison makes no sense.

I’m shocked at your response! It’s not the perfect analogy but the common element is punishing the whole group because of the actions of a minority. In practical terms, why would stirring up all of the Islamic world be a good idea? Unless you think that all of the Muslims would just roll over then it doesn’t seem very effective to me.

You talk in riddles old man.

Sorry…a small section of western society usually supports the plan that provides for the biggest and loudest statement possible. It doesn’t really matter whether the proposed action is aimed at the actual threat or whether the action is likely to yield positive results but it shows the world, and particularly the reasonable elements within western society, that the small section of western society means business.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

It’s not the perfect analogy but the common element is punishing the whole group because of the actions of a minority. In practical terms, why would stirring up all of the Islamic world be a good idea?

Yeah, I get that. I’m not saying that it is the best option, just that it is something that should be on the table.

Unless you think that all of the Muslims would just roll over then it doesn’t seem very effective to me.

No. I think that if we nuked Mecca, we’d see real quick how the “extremist” Muslim is far more common than you’re letting on. Remember Mike: Muslims follow a child-raping, war-mongering “prophet”. That’s pretty extreme to begin with.

We’re killing tons of the radical Islamists in Iraq. It makes perfect sense. Are you sure you even understand the “very basic concept” of the war? It’s to kill our enemies. We’re doing just that in Iraq.

So, we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever for a widely predicted insurgency precisely because it would create a battlefield where we could concentrate on fighting the Islamofacists.

Uh-huh. Wonder what Bin Laden thinks about that, holed up as he is, in Pakistan, directing his mission with impunity under the watchful gaze of our “ally” Musharraf.

Robert108: So right, if it is a credible threat it might achieve the ends of seriously tamping down the violence against American and Western interests around the world, the problem is exactly as you state it, the Islamic terrorists know that the Democrats would never permit first use even in defense of liberty, they know the Democrat Party is their best ally, so the threat wouldn’t work.

Now a little bitty nuclear strike on the Kabah in Mecca might get their attention. I am not in favor of throwing nuclear bombs around, it borders on the insane; but with a global Islamic Jihad going on and no state to attack and stop them, picking a highly revered, Islamic religious holy site for an absolutely devastating bomb attack has real merit. Unfortunately, our gutless Left will tie our hands because - now pay attention, because it is in the interest of the Democrat Party for America to lose in Iraq and the war on Islamic Terrorism as they see that as their path to power and that insatiable lust trumps everything, even the safety of this country.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

If our enemies had to deal with the likes of you, they would walk all over us in a minute.  Fortunately, we have a real man in the White House.

Oh yea? The ‘real man’ you refer to is letting the most prolific arms dealer in the world, capable of deliver nukes (speaking of nukes) to al Qaeda, run free. It doesn’t surprise me that you refuse to comment on that article… it undermines all your blithering BS. He might be a man, but its only on account of him having a penis and he’s a piss poor president. Ultimately, he hasn’t done much other than polarize the entire country and increase the risk of another terrorist attack.

Furthermore, Tencredo is motivated by his attention whore-ness. Perhaps he’s out to prove that he would make the worst president ever. Attention whores should be on Broadway, not in the White House… unfortunately it never works out that way. Its looking more and more like the public reaction to Bush’s terms are going to provide us with an even worse president… Hillary. Once she’s elected I might move to Canada… or even Mexico… or maybe even North Korea… shit, Antarctica will look nice then.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Graybeard:

we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever for a widely predicted insurgency precisely because it would create a battlefield where we could concentrate on fighting the Islamofacists

That is idiotic, of course not; but the terrorists, Al Queda, chose it as their battleground to attack the Great Satan because we were there. So, in our own defense and the defense of the Iraqi people ‘we’re killing tons of the radical Islamists in Iraq. It makes perfect sense.’

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman

the Islamic terrorists know that the Democrats would never permit first use even in defense of liberty, they know the Democrat Party is their best ally, so the threat wouldn’t work

Respectfully I disagree. Not for the reasons you list. I hate Democrats more than I dislike Republicans, but I feel that republicans make Jihad recruitment easy as pie. Look at Amadinajad. If a Dem were pres… he would just be some wacknip that gets burned at the stake by his people. Instead, he has a mandate because we overreact and pump him up by responding to his nonsense.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

I wonder if all this irrationality stems from the predictions of Juval Aviv, who is going to top that assertion to please the pro-Israel string pullers?

graybeard - So, we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever…

That’s a bit of a dishonest characterization. We went into Iraq and defeated the 4th largest military and toppled a dictator while sustaining light losses in a campaign that lasted a grand total of three weeks. You’re selling the U.S. military men and women short. Far short.

...for a widely predicted insurgency precisely because it would create a battlefield where we could concentrate on fighting the Islamofacists.

That’s part of it. Don’t forget the disposed dictator and the now-voting freedom loving Iraqis.

Uh-huh. Wonder what Bin Laden thinks about that, holed up as he is, in Pakistan, directing his mission with impunity under the watchful gaze of our “ally” Musharraf.

What are you going on about? What is he directing in Iraq? Keep in mind that Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group that is separate from his. Also keep in mind that this Al Qaeda in Iraq group is dying. People are fed up with the violence.

Sparkie: I understand what you are saying, I really do and in some ways it appears to make some sense; but, <- and you knew a ‘but’ was coming didn’t you?

1. These nut cases were killing Americans all over the globe way back to Reagan’s Administration. On 9/11 they really hit us hard. So, absent Bush and Iraq, these guys still hated us and were killing us. In Iraq although it was not our initial purpose, Al Queda decided to engage us there and we are killing them in large numbers. If they keep sending them in, we’ll keep killing them until they get damn tired of it all.
2. Muslims are by their religion dedicated to the forced conversion of the world and the vast majority of them, not just extremists, see signs that their Mahdi is coming soon and they feel they must get busy converting or killing all infidels before he arrives on the scene. Thus Bin Laden, Amadinajad (Imabadhandjob) and a myriad of extremist, radical, militant groups were going to come to the fore whether we fought back or not; and they were, no matter what we did, going to increase attacks on the West and especially the Great Satan (America).
3. If Gore had become President in 2000, he would have tried negotiations and appeasement, it is the nature of liberalism, they cannot help themselves; and Islam has always viewed negotiations and appeasement as signs of weakness, thus they would have attacked our homeland again and again with relative impunity.
4. Your position, respectfully, seems to me to say that if a mobster kills a member of my family and if I find and kill that bastard, I will only be inviting more attacks on my family and so it is better to suck it up, not take it personally and let it go, which means there is no justice and no hopes of discouraging them from killing other innocent people.
5. I can see the appeal of economic sanctions to stop them: a. Such sanctions almost never work and since no state is involved, such sanctions won’t work even more so this time. b. We could give them something they are demanding in hopes of getting them to stop killing. I assure you that would mean we sell out Israel and let Islam murder every Jew in that country. But, as we have seen a zillion times (I know I’ve promised a gagillion times not to exagerate), Islamic miltants and even countries like Syria, Egypt and others take what we give them, promise peace and then shortly after ramp up their killing again demanding even more concessions, until we give everything to them. That is why Reagan was right, no negotiations with terrorists. c. That is why, I believe it was likwidshoe that said, we must kill them until they realize they will never gain one inch of ground or one tiny concession until they forever stop the use of violence as a means of intimidation.

Lastly, the whole damn world has hated us for a very long time (jealousy mostly), it is just that the Democrats and some Republicans liked to pretend they didn’t and tried to play nice so they would love us, we’ll they never will love us or even like us, so I say screw them; and, when it comes to Islam that same thing applies in spades, or hearts or something dang card.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

You’re selling the U.S. military men and women short. Far short.

Do you have any substantive rebuttal, or are you simply content to employ cheap rhetoric. I haven’t said anything that could be remotely construed as denigrating our military; that’s what you’d like to turn it into, based on your denial of who is chiefly responsible for the debacle in Iraq - your president and his supporters.

That’s part of it. Don’t forget the disposed dictator and the now-voting freedom loving Iraqis.

...who are now engaged in a civil war with our U.S. military men and women stuck in the middle.

Take off your blinders just for a second and ask yourself: how does our being in Iraq in any way defeat Al Qaeda worldwide, as that organization continues to gain strength OUTSIDE Iraq(according to the NIE<>/a).

These nut cases were killing Americans all over the globe way back to Reagan’s Administration.

Since Bush has increased recruitment for them the problem has become much much more widespread and worse. The moderates have been polarized.

Muslims are by their religion dedicated to the forced conversion of the world

SO are Christians. THey are the only ‘good’ people acc. to them. I live in Philly now. There are tons of Muslims here… full burkas on the subway… and no conversions or violence that is ‘muslim violence’.

If Gore had become President in 2000, he would have tried negotiations and appeasement

You cannot say what would or would not have happened for sure. You speculate only to back up your stance. (Not that I am a Gore apologist, I just want some non-question begging responses from you!)

Your position, respectfully, seems to me to say that if a mobster kills a member of my family and if I find and kill that bastard, I will only be inviting more attacks on my family and so it is better to suck it up

That’s not what I’m saying at all. We haven’t found or killed ‘the bastard’. We have retaliated in bizarre, unpredictable, irrational, unrelated, and pre-emptive manner. That doesn’t solve shit. In Iraq, we still don’t have a plan. Who can defend that? Puh-lease.
As for your #5… whatever.
Surgical retaliation is what was needed. Fast, accurate, and effective. Starting an unending war in a moderately related country for seemingly economic reasons cannot be compared to sanctions or an educated, effective responce. It has been showboating and all appearance with no result. Jihad is in full effect. Bin Laden is alive and well. Afghanistan poppy production, that funds terrorists, is being produced now more than it ever has been. On our watch… and we are anti-terror? It all doesn’t add up and you guys spout rhetoric, bullshit, and lies. I am all for kicking the terrorists asses. we just aint doing it.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Sparks: “Whatever?” What a truly clever retort. You disappointed me.

I agree we kick the bad guys asses, but why aren’t we doing it? How about because the Left imposes politically correct rules of warfare that handcuff our troops and keep the President from ‘locking and loading” and just getting it the hell over with. Plus, I believe the Democrats are allies of these terrorists in many ways, daily giving them aid and comfort and assurances that once they get the power, we will cut and run, leaving the field and victory to them.

I said: Muslims are by their religion dedicated to the forced conversion of the world. You said: SO are Christians.

I am really shocked Sparkie, that is a bald faced lie and you know it. Christians lay down their lives to share the love of Christ, but they do not use rape, torture, murder or intimidation of any kind in witnessing for Christ. No suicide bombers, terrorists or killers among Christians (a microscopic few nut cases excepted). I am truly saddened that you would lie like that, I respect you more than that but what you are saying is a lie.

Graybeard: We, our miltary won the war in Iraq in swift and decisive fashion. You say we are caught up in a civil war, while I say that after taking out Saddam and his murderous sons, we had an obligation to secure the country to a void a bloodbath. You and the Left are committed to snatching defeat from the Jaw of victory, and if Bush had made a quick strike and just bugged out of Iraq the subsequent bloodbath would have raised such a riot in this country he would have been impeached. The price of stopping a mad man with stockpiles of WMD’s (Yes, that was what all the intelligence data said) was the risk involved with securing the peace.

I am getting tired, I get up early to go to the gym and so, you guys can fight among yourselves. No need to stand up and salute as I leave.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

graybeard - Do you have any substantive rebuttal, or are you simply content to employ cheap rhetoric.

Did you miss it? Your “we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever” is dishonest. In reality, we went into Iraq and defeated the 4th largest military and toppled a dictator while sustaining light losses in a campaign that lasted a grand total of three weeks.

There’s the “substantive rebuttal”. Why are you only focusing on my closing remarks? Are you avoiding my rebuttal? Sure looks like it.

I haven’t said anything that could be remotely construed as denigrating our military…

You ignore their success and instead denigrate it by lying.

...that’s what you’d like to turn it into…

No, this is what you are turning it into.

...based on your denial of who is chiefly responsible for the debacle in Iraq - your president and his supporters.

There, you do it again! “Debacle in Iraq”. You just don’t quit.

...who are now engaged in a civil war with our U.S. military men and women stuck in the middle.

No. Why are you lying? The now-voting freedom loving Iraqis (the vast majority of them) are working with the Americans. We’re not “stuck in the middle”. The Iraqis are realizing that we are not the enemy, despite what you Democrats have been trying to tell them. They now realize that we don’t want to be there.

Take off your blinders just for a second and ask yourself:

Blinders? Please. You don’t even know what the situation is. You keep on misstating it.

how does our being in Iraq in any way defeat Al Qaeda worldwide, as that organization continues to gain strength OUTSIDE Iraq (according to the NIE<>/a).

It helps to defeat the Al Qaeda in Iraq. It’s impossible for the war in Iraq to defeat the Al Qaeda in Pakistan (per your link).

Why would you ask such a silly and nonsensical question? Talk about blinders…

Sparkie Arbuckle - SO are Christians [dedicated to the forced conversion of the world].

Where? Point out where in Christianity it says to force conversion.

You’re not going to get very far with those kinds of comparisons. Christianity doesn’t have bloody borders all over the world. Islam does!

Sparkie, you may not like Neiman or his Christian kind, but they’re not trying to force conversion onto anybody. It’s really disingenuous to compare the two religions and their methods as if they were anywhere near the same in that area. The majority of Islamic countries either force conversion or force the non-believers to live as second class citizens. There is no equivalent Christian example.

Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the the left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time the right were outraged over the failure, failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “The War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Terrorism is a tactic, you can’t have a war against a tactic. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout all of history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Ron Paul

One big problem with trying to apply a MAD policy to the Islamic fascists is that certain members of the terrorist elements in Islam may be more than happy to see Mecca become a smoldering hole in the ground, if only to draw more recruits to the organization.

I think the proper course is what we’re doing now.  React to those who actually attack us while simultaneously promoting freedom and representative government in the middle east by putting boots on the ground.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

“WETBACK” - Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

If only we were doing that.

You start from a false premise.

They will attack each others’ Mosques to further their psychotic agenda.

No Free Lunch

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-

That’s the reactionary position, not the Conservative one.  Think of the Monroe Doctrine, and apply it to the whole world.  We owe it to the oppressed peoples of the world to assist them in obtaining self-determination; what they do with it is up to them.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I guess I wasn’t clear enough: If us using nukes is a credible threat, it will deter the murdering Islamofascists.  If the Defeatocrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, keep broadcasting that we won’t do it, we lose that credibility, which makes the actual use of nukes more likely.  Revealing our strategy to the enemy is incredibly stupid.
If they are captured and think they might be tortured, it will give us an advantage, but when the Demopansies insist on telling them that we won’t torture them, we have lost that edge, which makes real torture more likely.
Get the idea yet, lefties?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

They will attack each others’ Mosques to further their psychotic agenda.

Sure, right after they’ve killed all the infidels.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It would be a good idea to nuke Iraq, Iran, Aghganistan, and Palestine if it weren’t for the fallout floating over China and Russia. The winds blow that way. Perhaps Pakistan as well. As for Israel, they are not our friends as much as people like to think they are. They do more infiltration and spying on the U.S. than anyone else.

My question is: Which is it?  Are they scattered all over the world?(According to you, a “basic concept”.), or are they “predominately in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan”, as you also said?

Once again, which is it?

Looks like you guys can use a little help. The region where Muslims are most numerous, hands down, is Indonesia.

We are talking about the Islamofascists, Larry.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

ews48 - As for Israel, they are not our friends as much as people like to think they are. They do more infiltration and spying on the U.S. than anyone else.

They would be remiss not to. Just as we would them.

“Friendship” between countries is different than friendship between people. All countries of capable means spy on each other. It’s part of the country’s defense.

Neiman

I agree we kick the bad guys asses, but why aren’t we doing it? How about because the Left imposes politically correct rules of warfare that handcuff our troops and keep the President from ‘locking and loading” and just getting it the hell over with.

It’s true. We have been wronged, there is nobody to enforce civility, and things need to get a bit nasty. None the less, I do not make conceptual leaps when I consider who is responsible for this. Like someone or not, primary (and perhaps secondary) actors in the wrong against us are THE ONLY appropriate targets of the ‘civility enforcing’. If someone ‘looks at you funny’ you cannot invade them. There is absolutely no appreciable ‘pre-emptive’ actions unless you have the explicit plans or evidence in hand. The ability to do something is different than doing it. If the Muslims overrun Somalia, or another country we wish they wouldn’t overrun, that’s tough shit. I like kittens and rainbows, but if all you wacknips think I am going to fund the safeguarding of the world, you are all effing nuts. Until someone infringes on your negative autonomy, they should have their positive autonomy. This whole political bulletproof glass over Waziristan is effing bullshit too. We are off on the Red Sea, getting revenge for 9/11, pre-empting an arbitrary member of the large group of wacko world leaders. Its all bluster and no buss. You want a really expensive depressing show or some results?

Like I said, Tancredo is foolish. “Leave me alone or I’ll blow up your church.” How ‘crusades’ is this dude trying to make it?

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

For What It Is Worth:
There was some discusion about this several years ago. The people interviewed were jihad supporters in Saudi, and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The upshot was: since Islam’s prime tenet is that Allah is the only ture God, and that his dictation to Muhamad was the last Word, and that Allah is there for the only God, this means that Allah is supreme over all other preceeding revelations of God. Anything which disproves the power of Allah would mean that Allah is not God and false.

In effect the respondants said that nuking Mecca/Medina would cause them to look for another religion or convert to either the Christain or Jewish faiths; moreover, Islam would cease to exist since none of them would be willing to subject themselves to humiliation by praying toward a radioactive pool of glass and the false God which it proclaimed.

“As for Israel…They do more infiltration and spying on the U.S. than anyone else.”

That would be true, if you discounted China, Russia and France. And speaking of China, I believe that right ater they acquired the Klystron Switch (the thing which makes thermonuclear bombs work) from Bill Clinton (free gratis for future contributions), they tested their now working new neutron bombs on the country’s remote muslim villages several times. Very successfully according to the intel. PS: Clinton cancelled our neutron bomb projects - we don’t have any.

China’s Super 863 Program dwarfs all other countries combined spying efforts - including the US.

I said: Muslims are by their religion dedicated to the forced conversion of the world. You said: SO are Christians.

I am really shocked Sparkie, that is a bald faced lie and you know it. Christians lay down their lives to share the love of Christ, but they do not use rape, torture, murder or intimidation of any kind in witnessing for Christ. No suicide bombers, terrorists or killers among Christians (a microscopic few nut cases excepted). I am truly saddened that you would lie like that, I respect you more than that but what you are saying is a lie.

What I find most amusing here is that both Islam and Christianity are offshoots of Judaism.
Furthermore, all of the acts denied above (except suicide bombings and terrorism), happened against Islam in the Crusades.
Trying to make out that Islam is a fundamentally “worse” or “more evil” religion than Christianity will get you nowhere.
A small minority of Muslims may actively dislike the US/Christianity/West, this does not however provide evidence for Islam’s non-existent violent, terrorist nature, nor does it provide moral ammunition for corrupt politicians (need I spell it out?) to declare war on countries for material benefits.
I daresay that many Muslims who were previously either entirely neutral or somewhat inclined to agree with the US in Iraq, etc. are now much less so, now that the US razed chunks of Iraq to the ground, and subsequently entirely failed to secure/stabilise it in a timely manner.
Christianity has recently shown that it too is capable of committing atrocities for no good reason, Gitmo, Iraq, etc. however, neither does this reflect badly on Christianity, even though such acts were done in it’s name.

As for the actual question of using nuclear warheads against Mecca; the US would even less intelligent than I had previously suspected, to commit to such a rash and consequential action.
It will definitely compound the problem of general animosity against the US (not just of Muslims though).
I would say that other nations (and the UN) would look upon such an act extremely disfavourably, and may become “neutral” towards the US instead of tentatively allied.
What if the nations the US relies upon (Saudi Arabia, China), decide that they have had enough, and threaten to cut of the supplies until the US screws its head back on?
Major problems… The US is globally unpopular enough already without suggesting such acts of incompetence as nuclear bombing Mecca (or anywhere for that matter). No doubt it would violate a bunch of treaties as well (but since when does US pay attention to the UN, but that is another story…)

LikwidPomPom:

Did you miss it? Your “we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever” is dishonest.

No, mis-quoting my original statement “So, we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever for a widely predicted insurgency ” is dishonest, and frankly the rest of your “rebuttal” is similarly pathetic.

The majority of Iraqis don’t want us there. Our being there inspires the insurgency. George Bush wants to continue the war there simply because he doesn’t have the stones to admit he made a mistake.

Neither do you.

Furthermore, all of the acts denied above (except suicide bombings and terrorism), happened against Islam in the Crusades.

The Crusades were a response to Islamic imperialism in the Holy Land.  The technique used against the indigenous peoples there was called “conversion by the sword”.  Islam declared war against the rest of the world 1300 years ago.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The majority of Iraqis don’t want us there. Our being there inspires the insurgency.

grayshrivelednads: The question is timing. Long term, I’m sure 100% of Iraqis want us to leave, just as, long term, 100% of Americans want us to leave (not being Imperialists or anything like that!).
Short term, a majority of Iraqis want us to stay! At least, when we ask them, not some aging hippie leftist enclave, most Iraqis want us to stay until we have achieved greater stability. Then, by mutual consent, we will leave.

BTW, graynads: If our being in Iraq inspires the insurgency, did our being in New York inspire 9/11?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

First, other than possibly Tancredo, no one is seriously suggesting we should initiate a nuclear attack against Mecca, this was just an interesting debate about whether or not such an attack might cause much of Islamic terrorism to stop. In that regard, PIF made a very interesting and I believe incredibly meaningful observation; to wit; since Islam’s prime tenet is that Allah is the only true God, and that his dictation to Mohammed was the last Word, and that Allah is therefore the only [true] God, this means that Allah is supreme over all other preceeding revelations of God. [So], anything which disprove[s] the power of Allah (To protect his most holy site) would mean that Allah is not God and [Islam] is a false religion. This would have a very unsettling impact upon Islam and PIF is right that destruction of Mecca and it becoming a nuclear wasteland would all but destroy that faith.

Second to JGR: You said, “What I find most amusing here is that both Islam and Christianity are offshoots of Judaism.” That is wrong, it was roughly 610 AD that Mohammed had his first revelation, but the pagan Arabs had long worshipped the Moon-god Allah by praying toward Mecca several times a day; making a pilgrimage to Mecca; running around the temple of the Moon-god called the Kabah; kissing the black stone; and etcetera before Mohammed decided that among the many pagan gods in the Kabah, Allah was to be the Supreme god and then later destroyed all the other idols including that of Allah. The Muslim’s claim that Allah is the God of the Bible and that Islam arose from the religion of the prophets and apostles is refuted by solid, overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is nothing more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. It has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god. So, please let us cease at last from the silly lie that Allah and Elohim are one and that Islam has any connection whatsoever to Judaism or Christianity.

JGR also said:

I daresay that many Muslims who were previously either entirely neutral or somewhat inclined to agree with the US in Iraq, etc. are now much less so, now that the US razed chunks of Iraq to the ground, and subsequently entirely failed to secure/stabilise it in a timely manner.

It is false to say that Muslims have ever been neutral towards the Great satan (America) and most of them could care less about what happens in Iraq, except the most radical murderers among them using Iraq as an excuse to fight us there.

Graybeard said:

The majority of Iraqis don’t want us there. Our being there inspires the insurgency. George Bush wants to continue the war there simply because he doesn’t have the stones to admit he made a mistake.

I get very weary of the kool aid drinking Left regurgitating their partisan nonsense. 1. Of course the majority of Iraqi’s don’t want is there, no nation wants another nation to occupy their land; but I daresay that is a great deal different question from their wanting us to leave before the country is secure and safe that they might prosper thereafter. 2. Had Bush not invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam and had the latter used the WMD’s the entire world’s intelligence services said he had, against American interests, Bush would have been and should have been impeached for not fulfilling his oath to defend this country and its interests. Once there, we won quickly and would have long been gone except Al Queda and Bathists decided to confront the Great Satan there and defeat us. Had Bush left anyway and a bloodbath occured, then Bush would have been and should have been impeached for allowing such a massive numbers of deaths to occur, as we became responsible for the lives of the Iraqi people by deposing Saddam.

Lastly, someone about spoke about the U.N. having been an ally and now mostly against this country. The United Nations have always been a wholly anti-American organization, and long ago we should have stopped all funding and kicked their butts out of this country.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

“Major problems… The US is globally unpopular enough already”

Nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki worked pretty good, ending the Japanese Imperialist fantasy, and now they love the west. Get rid of the 7th Century lovers and all that baggage and the peoples of the middle east will have a chance to step into the 21st Century.

Meanwhile, as to the popularity in the world contest - forget about it. If it wasnt for the existance of the US those counties who express dislike would be either dead, enslaved or worse. Those that aren’t ashamed of their own country’s inadaquacy are just jealous of what the US has and has created which enables those countries to live in relative peace and prosperity.

Same goes for the short sighted and historically challenged posters which denigate the US herein

PIF: As the members of the British Parliament kight yell after a particularly rousing speech by one of their leaders, might I offer a loud -

H E A R -  H E A R !

That was rather an excellent commentary old boy!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

“H E A R - H E A R !
That was rather an excellent commentary old boy!”

Thanks, Neiman. We Try.
PIF

JGR - Trying to make out that Islam is a fundamentally “worse” or “more evil” religion than Christianity will get you nowhere.

One only has to look to the beginnings to realize that Islam is fundamentally more evil. One can then go further and look at the actions since then.

Honestly - what has Islam brought to this world?

A small minority of Muslims may actively dislike the US/Christianity/West, this does not however provide evidence for Islam’s non-existent violent, terrorist nature…

It’s “non-existent”? Why are you denying reality? Islam has been violent since day one. It has been spread by the sword since day one.

...nor does it provide moral ammunition for corrupt politicians (need I spell it out?) to declare war on countries for material benefits.

Spell it out. What are you talking about?

Christianity has recently shown that it too is capable of committing atrocities for no good reason, Gitmo, Iraq, etc. however, neither does this reflect badly on Christianity, even though such acts were done in it’s name.

Gitmo and Iraq were done in Christianity’s name? Since when? Where is the evidence? Why are you making shit up?

graybeard - LikwidPomPom

Was that supposed to be cute or something?

No, mis-quoting my original statement “So, we went into Iraq without any plan whatsoever for a widely predicted insurgency ” is dishonest, and frankly the rest of your “rebuttal” is similarly pathetic.

Don’t blame me for your misuse of the English language. I read it as it was written. As for your non-response to the rest of my rebuttal - this is not surprising. You were called on a bunch of lies and misinformation. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to answer for that.

The majority of Iraqis don’t want us there. Our being there inspires the insurgency.

They want us there until the job is done. The average Iraqi is not the “insurgency”. You act as if they are.

George Bush wants to continue the war there simply because he doesn’t have the stones to admit he made a mistake.

Neither do you.

Mistake? Make a better argument. Convince me instead of running away from my questions. Looks like you’re the ones without the stones.