Where's the "Nuke Mecca" crowd today??

Me ^ | April 9th, 2003 | Me

[The Lake City Gar]

I've been going through posts all day today and have been absolutely overjoyed. It seems as if we're finially making in-roads on preventing another 9-11 or worse. I wish I could bookmark this entire day...This place has it ALL covered, it should be used as a History lesson in years to come...The American Internet at it's FINEST!

But I just thought of something...

Where is the "Nuke Mecca" crowd? The "The only good muslim is a dead muslim" crowd? The "Islam is a death cult" crowd? The "Intern all Arabs" crowd? The "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd?

I've had a few run-ins with these people over the past few months. I've tried to make the obvious case that not ALL 1.6 billion muslims in the world are blood thirsty animals. And I've been called everything from a muslim to a communist to a democrat to a traitor. I've taken a beating for standing up against what I saw as bigotry...And many others have gone through the same.

But today we saw muslims handing flowers to our troops, kissing pictures of President Bush and waiving American Flags.

Is this just an act? Are they trying to lull us into a false sense of security while they are plotting to kill every last one of us in the name of their "Moon God"? Or are many of them simply held against their will by brutal dictators and/or religious fanatics who have warped their muslim ideals and ways?

I choose to believe it's the latter. And I hope the above mentioned crowds are gone for good.

[Jhoffa_]

Say what... ?

I should have been more clear I suppose.. My focus was mainly on the title, but most of the first paragraph was what caught my eye.

Specifically:

Where is the "Nuke Mecca" crowd? The "The only good muslim is a dead muslim" crowd?

It's not a little ironic that broad brushes are decried even as they are used. Of course Mecca shouldn't be nuked, nor should all Arabs be interred. Muslims, like any other group, are going to be a mixed bag.

Of course.

I didn't paint anyone with a broad brush however, there is a crowd (who shall remain nameless) that offer up nukes and oppression for every real or perceived problem that's deemed to be (broadly) "Muslim" in nature.

I can't count how many times I have seen these sentiments expressed as a one line rant here. I know some of it is just blowing off steam, people are outraged and I can appreciate that.. but some of these people are very series. They go to great length in an effort to justify this kind of thing, have given it a great deal of thought, and I have no reason not to take them at their word.

That Iraqis have welcomed US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere is heartwarming. It shows that we have the potential to reach Muslim hearts and minds across vast cultural barriers.

Exactly. It is heartwarming.. I loved seeing them drag Saddam's "head" around town like they did. It's great.

A sidenote: the past few weeks, I've noticed a lot of the "why isn't the so-and-so crowd on this thread?" jeers... as though that means anything. --

-- My suggestion is that if you see a thread that illustrates some point you've been trying to make in an ongoing debate with some particular poster, flag them to it..

No, no.. I didn't flag the "Nuke Mecca" crowd here. I didn't even flag anyone here to debate. I left them out of it, their minds are made up and I don't think there's any changing them.

On the contrary, I only flagged people of like mind ("Valis" was a mistake though, I don't know where he stands. I meant to flag "Valin") because they were right.

What we saw yesterday would have never happened if the "Nuke Mecca" bunch had their way. Giving Iraq a glass landscape would not have resulted in the celebration we witnessed.

The much maligned, "cooler heads" prevailed where the "nuke em'" guy's would not.

[eleni121]

Thanks for this sane, appropriate comments.

Muslims of any kind and variety and that includes American born - need to be managed/controlled/expelled/questioned etc. Muslims are like Communists - if they are preaching violent overthrow of the government they should be monitored. If they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy - they should be arrested and duly prosecuted and incapacitated.

IN times of peril such as they are do we need strong and effective laws to do these things? YES!

[Luis Gonzalez]

The types of barbaric actions that you describe go on anyplace where the people are brutalized, where people lack the education to know better. Haiti is such a place, and Haiti is not a Muslim country, but the brutality of the Duvalier regime matched that of most brutal Islamic nations of today. Then there was Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Nazi Germany not all that long ago.

Radical Islam survives in barbaric places, but in the absence of Islam, they would murder and enslave one another anyway, like they were doing before the arrival of Islam.

It’s the capacity of man to do evil that is the enemy, not ideas or inanimate objects. It's the Muslim terrorists who perpetrate atrocities in Islam's name who are the enemies here.

Left alone, Islam is no more dangerous than a loaded gun on a table. While some ideas are inherently good and others are inherently evil, it is only when people act on the evil ideas that the problem arises. Similarly, while you know that you can use a gun for self-defense, to hunt, as a collectible item, or just simply to admire, you are also fully aware that it can do something as evil as being instrumental in the murder of an innocent person. It’s the action of picking it up, pointing it at that innocent, and pulling the trigger that’s evil, not the gun itself. Once that decission is made, and that action taken, do we punish the gun, or the criminal? Do we violate the right of all to own guns, or do we remove the rights of the individual who perpetrated the crime?

When I make comments about the old Biblical passages, I do it to point out that Jews decided long ago to forego the explicit instructions on the punishment of sinners detailed to a great extent in books like Leviticus, and ignore G_d’s stern warnings against not following His commands. Instead, they have made a choice to allow secular laws to rule matters such as adultery, or to even do little more than to show disapproval of people working on the Sabbath. In a sense, with the passing of time, Jews have decided not to put into practice actions that non-Jews would most certainly perceive as evil.

That’s where I see that part of the Muslim world that has made the choice to live and grow within the scope of Western civilization. In effect, they are choosing not to use the gun for evil; they are walking away from the evil aspect of Islam.

It was no coincidence that the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, and not from a Western country. The extremists within Islam see the relentless advance of Western civilization, and they see their people moving away from the repressive life under the Mullahs, and towards a westernized version of Islam. An Islam where the Mosque does not command so much as it obeys, and if they can’t get them to return, then the only choice left is to make us reject them, so they find fanatics in their ranks to carry out their plans.

And it isn’t even about religion either, the geopolitical aspects of this issue are titanic in scope, and like so many times before, people who seek power over other people are using religion as a tool to incite strife.

Who is the enemy then?

It's the evil that men can do in their search for power.

[TopQuark]

Are you sure this post was supposed to be addressed to me?

[Luis Gonzalez]

LOL!!

No, it wasn't.

It was actually directed at epow's #101, but I write these long responses on word, then copy and paste so that I have a spell check.

Sorry, I clicked on the wrong post.

[andysandmikesmom]

Regarding your post 143.....as always you are eloquent, and have expressed for me, what I feel, but am just unable to express, as well as you do...

Thanks for what you have said, and the way in which you have said it...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thank you for your kind words, I simply try to put into words that which I believe to be true.

[Sabertooth]

There are anti-mislim/anti Arab bigots running around here and a lot of the time they get a pass.

I don't know what was wrong with my original comments but maybe that one was better.

Well, I think that you're overreacting to hyperbolic bluster, and understimating the intrinsic problem with Islam. Frankly, the politically correct, "Islam means peace" line is a greater danger to the country than someone barking "nuke mecca" just to yank some oversensitive chains. Much of the dialogue on FR is in the vein of a bull session, and should be taken with a grain of salt. I've got a friend who's a rare conservative public school teacher, and he told me of a like-minded regular substitute who drops jaws in the teachers' lounge any time Iraq is discussed by chanting the slogan, "kick their ass, take their gas!" The gag is all the more amusing when those who don't get it are all bent out of shape.

In similar fashion, there are many in this forum who waste no time in presuming that a dim view of Islam as a religion/ideology/culture implies a desire for a Muslim holocaust. It's a strawman, an evasion to avoid dealing with some difficult truths about the Clash of Civilizations in which we find ourselves.

For example, the "nuke Mecca crowd" isn't as you described it, nor is it as silently absent as you claimed, yet it seems to me that you've spent more of this thread trying to justify its very shaky premises, than you have in dealing with the posts from a variety of Freepers that quite reasonably explain why the rose-colored view of Islam isn't universally shared.

[The Lake City Gar]

Well, I think that you're overreacting to hyperbolic bluster

No...I'm not.

And I can't belive I'm having to explain this...

Did you NOT read post number 15? Of course you did.

Have you not seen the other numerous examples of bigotry permiating this site? Of course you have.

[Sabertooth]

Well, I prefer not to let my buttons be so easily pushed. I'm also very cautious before tossing around epithets like "bigot," etc. It's way too easy, and too often inaccurate. More often than not, it's just used as an excuse to shut down debate, and avoid thinking.

Again, there have been numerous posts to you, not by myself alone, that your characterizations of the so-called "nuke Mecca crowd" are in error. You have also diligently avoided addressing a number of genuine problems with Islam. A lot of the posters struck me as yanking your chain, knowing it was easy to get under your skin in that way (your headline and post at the top of the thread gave a lot away). A sense of humor can sometimes be a better response than sanctimony.

[sarasmom]

Re your #42. Love the pictures! Thanks!
BTW, Mecca is not in Iraq.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Hey "tooth", good to be exchanging posts with you again.

i am decidedly not of the "Nuke Mecca" crowd. At least not with sufficient provocation. The Nuclear use doctrine of the United States is clearly defined, and has been for years. While i may not be literally accurate, it can be summed up as follows:

1) A nation uses WMD against American property, land or people.
2) Use of nuclear weapons prevent excessive loss of life on the part of both an enemy, and American military, (e.g. Japan, WWII).
3) The deterrent value is necessary to prevent a power from using force against the United States (e.g. possible Soviet attack on NATO during the cold war)

At present, NONE of the above condidtions have been met. At the present time, none of the criteria are met.

Should one of the criteria are met in our future, then i would advocate the use of Nuclear weapons against identified offenders.

i have serious reservations about the treatment of those persons already in our country legally. It is a truism that the rights that our nation conferrs on individuals within the borders of the United States are not based on their citizenship status. Rather, those rights, which according to the Declaration of Independence are given on the basis of our humanity.

While we do have complete control of who may enter our country legally, we cannot deprive them of the rights that are derived from their humanity. Certainly, other Constitutional Rights are defined as requiring certain criteria, but most are not.

While the Constitution makes provision for extraordinary situations such as war, insurrection, and rebellion, it remains the Supreme law of the land under all of those situations. Historical precident does not change that fact. For example, many of Lincoln's actions during the Civil are and were recognised as Unconstitutional, and therefore void.

If a resident, citizen or not commits a crime, he or she should be subject to the penalties of the law of the land. Similarly, one who has been law abiding should not be subjected to penalties for crimes that they may or may not committ. So i oppose blanket deportation.

[FreeReign]

"Islam means peace" line is a greater danger to the country than someone barking "nuke mecca" just to yank some oversensitive chains.

Sabes, you seem to be taking the president's use of the phrase "Islam means peace" quite literally. Yet, you seem to offer the nonliteral translation for "nuke mecca" crowd -- offering provisos.

IMO, a president who says "Islam is peace" as he simulataously goes around the globe fighting radical Islam, does not mean to misrepresent the current state of Islam.

I believe the presidents intentions are to destroy radical Islam and to promote a reformed Islam.

[FreeReign]

"Islam means peace" line is a greater danger to the country than someone barking "nuke mecca" just to yank some oversensitive chains.

IMO, a person who goes around barking "nuke mecca" is more dangerous than somebody who goes around saying "Islam means peace" as he simultaneouly attempts to physically remove the radical Islamists from this planet.

[Sabertooth]

I believe the presidents intentions are to destroy radical Islam and to promote a reformed Islam.

I think he would agree. I don't, because I am of the opinion that if it is reformed to the point where it is genuinely peaceful, it will no longer be Islam. The Koran is a bloody, delusional screed, written by Mohammed to justify his conquests.

[Sabertooth]

IMO, a person who goes around barking "nuke mecca" is more dangerous than somebody who goes around saying "Islam means peace" as he simultaneouly attempts to physically remove the radical Islamists from this planet.

Fair enough. Where we disagree is on whom we take seriously. I generally don't believe the "nuke Mecca crowd" is as crazy as has been characterized; I think what we're reading is mainly trash-talking bluster, though they correctly identify Islam as an intransigent foe. In any event, they're powerless.

OTH, those of the "Islam means peace" persuasion do not accept the "Clash of Civilizations" model for the conflict in which we find ourselves, and hold great sway in this Administration. While I have no major complaints with how the War on Terror has been conducted thus far, "Islam means peace" may prove to be problematic as events unfold.

[tpaine]

Where's the "Nuke Mecca" crowd today??

The use of "overwhelming force as a deterant crowd" is right where it always was.
Hiroshima worked, and I have always supported their type of strategy, rather than that of the "limited war for political goals crowd".

If the USA would have responded to 9/11 'in kind', with a show of force, the Iraq war would have been unnecessary, imo.

The 9/11 religious fanatics that attacked us were proveably supported by an overwhelming majority of their faith, based in Mecca. We could have given an ultimatum due on 10/11.
-- Renounce these criminals, turn over their leaders to our justice; - or; -- we will deliver a small tactical 'dirty nuke' over the heart of Mecca making it inhabitable for 40 years.

'They' would have folded, or - suffered a hiroshima type loss, - then folded. This crisis would have been resolved, at a minimal loss of non-fantical life. Islamic terrorism would have been given a lesson not easily forgotten.


It is not now resolved. The Iraq stituation is far from being over.
In my opinion, the fanatics/terrorists will use Iraq to get even more support for their irrational causes.
The big stick will still be needed. We have won just another campaign, not our enemies 'hearts & minds', which is a futile goal in any case.
They will only understand raw power.

[tpaine]

History will show it was only in the 23nd year of World War Three [9/11/01] that the West began to face, reluctantly and grudgingly, the magnitude of the threat confronting it. It was only then, led by Britain and America, the West began to mount a true offensive to counter the radical Islamic attack. Whether this offensive will be too little, too late is still to be determined. The outcome is by no means certain.

Like the European Thirty Years War, which pitted all of Europe's Catholics against its Protestants, this War pits two opposing worldviews, which are not only irreconcilable, but also mutually exclusive. That one of these worldviews, radical Islam, is informed by an irrational religiosity bent upon extinguishing Western Civilization, makes it an absolute necessity for the West to treat this World War much more seriously and much more urgently.

This Third World War may very well become a 50 year, a 75 year, even a 100 year War, but it would be a grave mistake to believe the War just began on September 11, 2001, or is only now about to begin, or end, with Iraq.

About the Author:
Sal Rosken is a private investor living in New York. He survived the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

A Short History of World War IIIA Lesson of the Future.
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/864108/posts?page=36

[OperationFreedom]

Ping to read later so I can learn how some people here on FR are brainwashed into thinking Muslims are good people.

[The Lake City Gar]

and what about these muslims? Blood thirsty animals just taking a break from being blood thirsty animals?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891858/posts