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

Me ^ | April 9th, 2003 | Me

[epow]

I'm not biased against Arabs, I'm not biased against nominal Muslims, I am biased against radical fundamentalist Muslims, and they come in a variety of ethnicities beside Arabian.

I don't want that kind of fanatical Muslim over here. I read their bloody, occultic book and I know what they believe and what they want. When I say something like that I usually get a reply saying the God of the Jewish Old Testament also commanded His followers to kill infidels. I'm not interested in debating something that happened 3000 years ago, what matters now is that Christians and Jews of today don't kill "infidels", but radical Muslims most assuredly do.

True fundamental Islam is a bloody, cruel, occultic religion. Many thousands of "infidels" have been murdered or enslaved in recent years by radical Islam in places like Sudan, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Philipines, and other places I can't recall offhand, in just the last few years. If you don't believe it you need to read more instead of using your time to make accusatory vanity posts. The truth is there to be found for anyone who wants to know it, but those who are into feel-good political correctness don't want to see it.

I don't want to nuke Mecca, I don't want to kill Muslims, I just don't want them over here waiting for a call to slaughter "infidels". I think the number of Muslims in America who would heed such a call is miniscule, but why should we risk losing more skyscrapers full of Americans to find out how many would? I don't even want Muslims already here thrown out, except for a relatively few known radicals such as that professor in FL and those caught in Buffalo. I just don't want to let in any more Muslims of any stripe, because that will inevitably allow more radicals to slip in with the others.

And BTW, unless I have been given some bad info Spencer Abraham is of Lebanese Arab descent, but not a Muslim. In any case he certainly isn't a radical Muslim.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So you believe we should not use nukes under any circumstance...I see."

No, you don't see.

But what I DO see is you changing the topic here.

You and I had been discussing the topic of this thread and of this discussion, you brought up the fact that Bush warned Hussein that if he decided to use chemical weapons, we would use nukes.

Nice try to obfuscate the discussion, better luck next time.

[higgmeister]

Objectivist Heinlein Libertarian.

Haven't been to church in probably
15 years.

That's why I'm against a "Religion of
Peace" that wants to destroy me and
everyone I've ever known.

I don't see how you think you should
blame this on Jesus.   Those people
turn the other cheek as I understand.
 

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, when you state your beliefs, we are to consider them facts, but when I state mine they are to be discounted?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I don't see how you think you should blame this on Jesus."

I don't see where you got that.

[EternalVigilance]

So, when you state your beliefs, we are to consider them facts, but when I state mine they are to be discounted?

I simply compared your statement, as follows:

I also do not believe that President Bush would have used a nuke, even in the face of a chemical attack.

...and compared that opinion to the President's stated postion.

It is not me who is obfuscating.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I stated that the people in this thread still supported the nuking of Mecca, you said that I put up a straw man.

You refused to simply acknowledge their posts.

Now, whether the administration would have carried out the threat of a nuclear attack on a city of 5 million human beings or not, is a matter of opinion, as the events never came to be.

I offered a verifiable argument, and you are attempting to assert something which since it never came to be, can't be proven.

As I said, obfuscating.

[higgmeister]

"I don't see how you think you should blame this on Jesus."

"I don't see where you got that."

I got it from your #69 where you
implied that the Nuke'um crowd
were Christians.

"And they are alive to love America in spite of Christians such as the "Nuke them" crowd, not because of them."

Just letting you know when you
are wrong about something since
you asked..

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I got it from your #69 where you implied that the Nuke'um crowd were Christians."

They are posting right on this thread, why didn't you simply ask them if they consider themselves Christians instead of questioning my statement?

[EternalVigilance]

Well, I'll restate my position, then I'll leave it at that:

Anyone who seriously advocates nuking innocents without cause is insane, and can't possibly be an obedient Christian. I seriously doubt there are more more than a bare handful on FR who would advocate such an action, except as a bit of pressure-releasing hyperbole.

I agree with the policy of the United States and of this President, i.e. that the use of WMD against our country will be considered identical to the use of atomic arms, and will be retaliated against in kind. In other words, I approve of the policy of deterrence.

This President has also come to another conclusion that I agree with; that the radical elements of Islam are in all likelihood not susceptible to the threat of retalitation, since they have as much regard for their own people as they have for ours--none. Therefore we have determined to pursue a policy of preemption against these animals--in other words, we are going to get them before they have the power or the ability to get us.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I seriously doubt there are more more than a bare handful on FR who would advocate such an action."

There are ten on this thread alone.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I got it from your #69 where you implied that the Nuke'um crowd were Christians."

You must have missed posts #5, 6, 15, 20, 23, 33, 39, 43, 72, and 83 on your way to my #69.

Otherwise, you could have simply asked them if they considered themselves Christians or not.

[FreeReign]

recognize that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Period. It's written in their Holy Book.

Certain things that are written in the Koran are not peaceful -- not all Muslims practice and believe all that is written in the Koran.

Look at the pictures.......

[EternalVigilance]

There are ten on this thread alone.

In the interests of accuracy, I went back through and counted six--and of that six, I am simply going by their one post on this thread; without further questioning them to see if there are any provisos in their advocacy of nuking Mecca. If pressed, I have a hunch that at least most of those six would not just drop the bomb on them without provocation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886762/posts?page=133#133

[Luis Gonzalez]

I listed them on post #112.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If pressed, I have a hunch that at least most of those six would not just drop the bomb on them without provocation."

Now, let me get this straight...I say that Bush would not have dropped a nuke on Baghdad, but you say that I am wrong because he said he would, and the people on this thread say that they would nuke Mecca, but you say they won't...in spite of the fact that they say that they are in favor of it?

[EternalVigilance]

If you can't tell the difference between PO'd Americans with no personal military power blowing off steam at those who perpetrated 9-11 on a website, and an official policy of the POTUS, I despair of explaining the difference.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...and an official policy of the POTUS..."

Where is this stated as an "official policy" of this administration?

[EternalVigilance]

It's common knowledge.

That has been the policy of this country for years. We don't use chemical or biological weapons, and therefore the only possible response we have is nukes.