Posted on 07/28/2005 9:39:56 AM PDT by rdb3
How you doing?
The very fact it is in the public square being written and talked about is a sign that things are heating up.
Finally, someone gives a strategic and intellectual rational for opposing the nuking of Mecca as opposed to an emotional based opposition. I tend to agree with the author.
I think so. Since everywhere they look is a "holy site" and UBL supposedly used the US soldiers stationed in Saudi as a "recruting tool" for his skyjackers, then it's not a big stretch to believe they value the real estate more than they do human lives in any quantity. They sure as heck revere that black rock more than all the human life in the world, combined.
It seems unlikely in the extreme — and that fact nullifies all the value this thread may have had as a deterrent. Nuke Mecca? Why bother? It wouldn’t work.
Two assertions that the author completely fails to back up with so much as an explanation, let alone evidence. I think they would all shoot themselves harmlessly if the rock were rendered into melted glass.
Oh, how you doing, rd??
Look, I know that FrontPage is a conservative site but I have to point out something...when the lead sentence, which is what is quoted above, doesn't contextualize Tancredo's remarks for the average reader (much like what AP does) it doesn' give a fair portrait of the comments. Tancredo said 'if a nuke goes off in an American city *THEN* we should bomb Mecca'.
Not that we should just arbitrarily 'bomb Mecca'. Get it right!!
I think that most readers read the first few sentences of AP stories or pieces and draw conclusions.
When heard in context, Tancredo's comments are perfectly reasonable.
Affirmative. That's why I said that it was fair. Dispassionate reasoning is a rare commodity these days.
Glad to see you're up and typing.
You got that right, FRiend.
Well, if CAIR opposes it, then I'm most likey to be FOR it.
So easy to say that nuking Mecca in such a circumstance would be the wrong thing to do when one has no alternative idea.
And "bringing the individual terrorists responsible to justice" just isn't going to cut it if hundreds of thousands (at least) of Americans are incinerated and dying of radiation poisoning.
BUMP for later.
I have yet to hear someone give a rebuttal to this "bomb mecca" arguement: The threat of Mecca's destruction may put more pressure on moderate muslims to root out the badguys.
Hugh? Captain Ed? Bueller?
Clean up your mess, or someone else will.
www.hughcantwinemall.blogspot.com
It appears to me that the genie is out of the bottle. Obviously no American president can withstand the vaporizing of NYC and tens of millions of Americans. Something will have to be done to respond in kind. You can be sure that there are plans for such contingencies or there had better be.
How about not posting the full article or linking to just the printable version?
If a site produces a good article, at least give them a chance to earn some $$$ as a reward.
Even in context they're wrong, for the reasons stated above.
Oh yeah! Destroy the site they pray to on mats 3 times a day! Destroy the most holiest of places that the Koran says every Muslim must go to at least once in their lifetime! Destroy their most sacred site and you destroy their God! The only reason we have not been attacked with nukes is that the terrorist fear this type of retribution.
But for the anti-Tancrado crowd: What is the proper response to Muslims nuking Washington DC or even the Vatican?
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.