| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/15/2005 10:48:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked. |
Posted on 07/15/2005 9:34:12 AM PDT by underwiredsupport
Perhaps we survived the Cold War based upon the time-proven deterrence of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
If we are unwilling to target at the same level of collateral damage as the Islamofacists, then they will by default defeat us.
If however President Bush were to come forward, and simply state. "Enough is enough. We will not tolerate threats against American cities. If any attack occurs on American soil, our list of targets is as follows.
1. Nuclear attack of suspected Bin-Laden Hideout.
2. Next, key cities known to be hot-beds of Islamofacists.
3. Highly visible targets, of public knowledge. (Holy Sites)
You need to read the koran where dear ol allah itself claims that if mecca was ever destroyed, it would prove islam to be false, ergo, no more islam.
While I do not want anyone/anything nuked, I would love to see mecca destroyed.
July 15,2005 - "After London attack, cleric urges: 'Annihilate infidels' Less than a day after the terrorist bombings in London, the Palestinian Authority's official television channel broadcast a sermon calling for extermination of all non-Muslims. "Annihilate the Infidels and the Polytheists! Your [Allah's] enemies are the enemies of the religion!" said Suleiman Al-Satari in a July 8 broadcast translated by Israel-based Palestinian Media Watch, or PMW. "Allah," the cleric continued, "disperse their gathering and break up their unity, and turn on them, the evil adversities. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one."
Wouldn't a better strategy to stop terrorism in its tracks be to ban the importation of oil from any ME country that refuses to clamp down on terrorists or who funds terrorists?
Sure it would be costly, but at least we wouldn't have to kill a bunch of innocents, both in the target country, and everyone downwind (nukes aren't exactly clean).
I'd rather pay higher prices at the pump while encouraging domestic production and let the terrorist-sponsors go back to living in the 12th century financially to match their 12th century philosophy.
"No misquote, you can listen personally."
I agree with you - we need to just sit on our a&&es and let these bastards murder a few million Americans then we'll call a focus group together and try to figure out what we did wrong!
Hmm maybe like your buddy paul begala.
So we should use Fuel air bombs on their mosques.
I agree Mr. Chamberlain, we should attempt to understand our enemies, not destroy them.
BUMP!!!
I hope al jazeera trumpets it to every hadji in the mideast.
The only reason there was no 'Operation Coronet' in 1945--predictions were of tens of thousands or more American casualties--was that the Japanese lost Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and didn't want to lose another city.
Like most Americans I'm fed up with these people talking out of both sides of their mouths while they kill women and children and our troops from hiding.
It should be made clear to them that if they detonate a nuclear device, at very least Mecca and their damned rock are spun glass.
Well, people can throw rocks at Tancredo if they want, but he is THE ONLY HOPE IN WASHINGTON TO CURE THE ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM AND RESTORE OUR BORDERS!!!!
And he is PERSON NON GRATA at the White House too, because of his anti-illegal-alien, pro-borders, pro-America first stance. ** THE BUSH DYNASTY DOES NOT LIKE THAT **
"These Tancredo threads certainly show who the "moderates" are. They're the ones who immediately adopt the liberal tactic of name calling."
They are quite entertaining, arent they? "Mental Patient", "Fringe"....all because the guy wants to do something about the borders. How DARE you criticize this administration.....VIGILANTE!!!!
Seems extreme but if things got nasty enough many people who otherwise consider themselves to be reasonable people would be calling for internment camps and the bombing of holy sites. Ultimately these holy sites may be the only real assets where we could threaten our would be attackers with MAD.
Would your opinion change if millions of U.S. citizens were murdered in an attack on America, such as the scenario he cites is predicting? Just wondering...
(1) I find it hard to believe that terrorists have nuclear devices and they have not yet used them anywhere.
(2) No nuclear device they are capable of deploying could kill millions.
A dirty bomb, perfectly deployed, would probably be less lethal than 9/11.
(3) Nuking Mecca in response to a dirty bomb would result in (a) the complete and total ostracism of the US by every other nation in the world and (b) would be the catalyst of bin Laden's dream - it would probably result in Taliban-style governments overthrowing every secular Muslim state and would unify all the squabbling Arab governments against the US.
It would be a enormous strategic blunder.
The rational response to a dirty bombing would be a large-scale partial deportation of Muslims from the US and the swift execution of thousands of radical Muslim activists.
Warpaint, and also:
The reason's use dfor bombing Japan was the number of US Service men that would die if we had to invade! Well think of the number of US lives that would be saved now if we nuked Mecca.
Tancredo just cemented himself as a kook, a moron and a $hithead....
you want an unending war, nuke all their holy sites....that makes absolutely no sense. This guy is well on his way of going Buchanan on you all and I will laugh when he DOES NOT get the nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.