1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If they nuke us, bomb mecca.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Miyazaki, Jul 23, 2005.

  1. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
  2. spocktra

    spocktra
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,014
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    worcester
    Ratings:
    +40
    Just another example of the media manipulating peoples responses.
     
  3. ~Kev H~

    ~Kev H~
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    215
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Brighton, UK
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes I guess you could say the title of the story was slightly manipulated but this congressman did indeed say..

    Does this man, a senior US politician, not realise that "the terrorists" are carrying out these attacks because of a hatred of the US behavior in the past. Destroying holy sites would do nothing but generate more anger and hatred, simply accentuating the problem!

    Idiot :thumbsdow
     
  4. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    But the link is from Fox news. They are, in the main, about as right-wing as you get.
     
  5. Philly112

    Philly112
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,176
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Frodsham
    Ratings:
    +1,473
    The guy was asked a rather far fetched 'what if' question, and any half brained politician would have evaded it.

    I suspect that if you asked the same question to the general public in the UK, and gave a selection of options for response, of which bombing Mecca was one, an awful lot of people would put that at the top of the list.
    But an awful lot of the population are half brained.

    And having spent alot of time in the US, I agree with GG that Fox News is essentially the Republican right on the tele.

    Phil
     
  6. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,776
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    What funny is not according the repubs it isn't! :D The American right claims ALL the US media is 'liberal'! Yeah right:rotfl:

    Back on topic, yes that was a really dumb thing to say. However, US senators aren't that dumb. They're up to something...........
     
  7. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,791
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Care to elaborate sir? They actually seemed to have calmed down a bit recently- the number of time "Iran" has been mentioned has gone down a lot thankfully
     
  8. pringtef

    pringtef
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,049
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Ratings:
    +70
    Interesting point. They must have the intelligence to realise that if in a given situation they did that, it would result in the terrorists actions becoming a cause amonst the entire Islamic world.

    Only thing i can think he might have been trying to do by saying this is to try and create greater division between the moderates and the extremists.

    Or he could just have been ****** i suppose (as in the UK of ******)
     
  9. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Erm... are you saying it isn't?

    Fox is indeed very right-slanted (it's a Newscorp subsidiary after all), however it's very much a lone voice amongst the major networks. The only reason it gets highlighted as being right-wing though is that the other networks can't stand that this upstart relative-newcomer blew up their tacit liberal old boys club and, worse still, has overtaken all of them in news coverage viewership.

    The other networks? Oh dear, where do you begin? CBS already proved their stance and had to sacrifice Dan Rather to save the network as a whole. Peter Jennings runs the ABC desk just as you would expect a bitter Anti-American Canadian to do. CNN have reined their most liberal tendencies in a bit in the last year, probably because they knew Fox were taking them to the cleaners in the ratings department - for a while, they were known as the "Communist News Network", but they still have their cuckoos (it's always the op-ed guys that are the worst, it's the same on Fox with O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, with the occasional "guest loony" like Ann Coulter thrown in for added effect).

    No-one watches NBC anymore, so I can't comment. PBS are the worst though - for a publicly-funded body that's meant to be the epitome of neutral viewpoint, it's a disgrace. They're run by a card-carrying ultra-leftist who makes Michael Moore look like Ronald Reagan. Don't even get me started on the major newspapers - both NYT and the LAT set their political stalls out early. Many of the NYT columnists ("The Friends of Hillary") in particular epitomize the out-of-touch liberal elite who pontificate from ivory towers and act like middle-america is composed of nothing more than ignorant bible-bashing rednecks who, if they had their way, shouldn't really be allowed to vote: that's something that should only be reserved for "intellectual sophisticates".
     
  10. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,776
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Heard it all before CMG. It was pure right bias then and still is now. Having seen the US networks in action I have to laugh when stuff like that is spouted. What they really mean is these guys aren't lackies to Bush enough not that they are Liberal in the true sense of the word.

    There was a great article (by a Repub senator) recently where even he dismissed the fantasy that the US media is 'Liberal biased'. It's on one of the majority US members forums I'm in. If can search it (it was posted a while back) out I will.
     
  11. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    It depends on your own perception I suppose.

    If you are a member of the radical right, as so many US politicians are, anyone to the left of you, even the centre right, can be branded as liberals.

    IMHO it is difficult to call any facet of America liberal. They have the death penalty, even which the democrats do not want to abolish.

    I consider myself to be of the centre-left politically, but I can see the distinction between the centre-right (conservatives) and the extreme right (republicans).

    The American two party system, IMHO, isn't a great ideal as it tends to polarise opinion and doesn't leave much room for compromise, as we see all too often in American domestic and foreign policy.
     
  12. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, I've only been watching it for 6 years. What do I know?

    So you're telling me that CNN, CBS, PBS et al are actually all centrist in their views? Centrist compared to what? Mao?

    Please. Fox is unashamedly right wing. The rest are (of varying degree) moderate left (CNN) to blatantly left (PBS). Actually, HN (owned by CNN) is probably the most balanced because they don't feature much in the way of opinion-shows.
     
  13. Gary D

    Gary D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    7,770
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +826
    If they nuke us, bomb mecca. - to give it another name - World War 3 :( ****s!

    Gary
     
  14. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Know what's f*cked up about this thread? All the focus is on "Bomb Mecca". Didn't anyone notice the conditional preposition? You know, that minor item entitled "If they nuke us"? At that point, I think it would be considered WW3 regardless of response, no?

    No, never mind that. I think that tells you all you need to know about where some people's mindsets. Where the hell is your head at? You're going to tell me that if London, or New York, or wherever is reduced to a nuclear wasteland, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, wiped out in an instant, you're going to be standing around rubbing your chin pondering "not going too far" in a response and making sure we don't upset anyone?

    Yeah, right.

    Tell you what... should that day come (God Forbid), you walk out into the street and tell all the passers-by of your views about why the most important thing now is that we shouldn't "overreact". It'll take about two minutes for the lynch mob to form, after that it's really down to how fast you can run.
     
  15. Gary D

    Gary D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    7,770
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +826
    The US and UK need to hold its collective heads in shame at the foreign policy they have pursued in the name of oil.

    and if anyone is going to use "nukes" then only one country has a history of using them against civilians. i wonder who that might be? and with a chimp in the white house who knows what can happen?


    Gary
     
  16. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    As I said on another thread, I've met GWB in person, and wasn't impressed by him in the slightest. I hate to stereotype, but he filled every measure of the one filed under "dumb Texan hick". However, it wouldn't be him making the decision (everyone knows he's a figurehead only) - he doesn't tie his shoelaces unless the smarter ones tell him to. Only thing is, the people who he does listen to (Cheney, Rice) are probably of the mindset that they would indeed tell him to pull the trigger.

    As for historical precedent... well there's a cliche there I think. Records are made to be broken? I've no doubt that should the terrorists come into possession of a nuclear device, they will have no qualms about using it and certainly won't be as picky as to use it in an area where only military personnel will be affected. That's why they're called "terrorists", to state the obvious.
     
  17. Gary D

    Gary D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    7,770
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +826
    I think repubican USA really worries the rest of the world - especially the more liberal democracies of Europe. but we realy worry about the republicans with Haliburton shares.

    if you go back 15/16 years to the times of the fall of the soviet union and eastern europe - we in the west patted ourselves on the back as we "won" the cold war. i bet now they would like to still be in the "cold war" - at least then we KNEW where all the warheads were.

    Gary
     
  18. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,776
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Depends on your view point to start with! :rolleyes: If you (as seems fairly clear) already have a right wing mindset then, 'hey' 'surprise' the GOP are right! I have had US members on another forum constantly claim the UK media is left wing! Our press, left wing!? :eek: Only compared to 'Der sturmer'. ;)

    The right never ceases to amaze me in what they see as 'liberal' or 'left wing'............
     
  19. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would say my mindset has definitely moved more to the right. Funny thing is though, it was only after moving to the US that I felt that way. As for the GOP though - actually, they wouldn't find a willing supporter in me because they have too many nutjobs. I'm afraid I've become more of the opinion that all politicians are a complete waste of time and are only out for themselves. Even those who may go to Washington with lofty ideals are chewed up in the backroom party grinding machine and become good little unquestioning automatons doing the bidding of the upper echelons of their party.

    Just to throw that one further off track, the guy I would really like to see as the next POTUS is a democrat - Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). He impresses me greatly, and seems to have an ability to work constructively with both right and left. He may be too young still for 2008, but if the Republicans hold on in three years time and as such will contest 2012 from the minority position again, that might be his time. I rather suspect that could be the case mainly because there's a real factional split developing in the Democratic party between the hardline left wingers (historically led by Ted Kennedy with Howard Dean now taking over the mantle) and the moderates (who look not to have a figurehead with Liebermann increasingly marginalized). The wildcard in all of it is Hillary - she's playing a very tactical game by trying to appear as middle-of-the-road as possible, but does a leopard change its spots? I think she's the Dems biggest strength as well as their critical weakness, and what I think will ultimately cost them 2008 - too many people consider her and her husband entirely just entirely too artificial.

    I haven't read the UK press in some time, so I can't comment on how things are these days. From memory, the Sun (obviously), the Express and Mail were always pretty right wing, as were the Telegraph and Times. The Mirror, Guardian and Indepenent balanced that out. However, that could all have changed now. I would say on the whole the UK media has been fairly split down the middle, but again, I'm not familiar with it anymore. That leaves the BBC, who I do still catch occasionally. It seems to go in cycles - for the longest time it was very much an establishment body, but its old guard has gone within the last 10 years and it seems now to be largely centrist but with a few elements who'd like to see it continue a move to the left.

    Just my opinion, though.
     
  20. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    So true. The euphoria over the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a lackadaisacal attitude, especially in (or rather towards) the intelligence sector, and we're paying for it now in spades.
     
  21. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,776
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Could be the company............ :D
    With you all the way there.
    Probably not. However, she is seen as a strong draw for the Dems and is likely to be the next hot candidate for the leadership in 2008. She can pull in the womens vote, and if she keeps playing the MOR card she may be able to pull in the Dem right and fed up Repubs. If Bush keeps offending people at the current rate it'll make life difficult for the next Repub PC. Still, he's got three more years to go.............


    The Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times, Sun (but hates backing losers at elections), Independant (went Tory in 93') are all Right wing. The Guardian is liberal, but urges people to vote Tory at elections, the Mirror pretends to be Labour. I don't see that balancing out?:confused: ;)

    :D Fair enough..
     
  22. Squiffy

    Squiffy
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Ashford, Kent
    Ratings:
    +2,790
    Absolutely not.

    Why would we bomb Mecca under those circumstances? Are all those people there guilty of anything other than just being Muslims? Are you advocating that should the terrorists ever manage to commit such an atrocity, the countries of the west should ethnically cleanse all Muslim nations and communities?

    No wonder they are willing to commit such atrocities when people here in the West seem equally keen to wipe 'them' out.
     
  23. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Possibly. The area I live in is more right-slanted. Although California is always a "blue state", there's big differences within it. If you looked at a county-by-county map, the Dem. support is concentrated almost completely in the big coastal cities (SF, San Diego, and especially LA). Inland... it turns red the further you go.

    The women's vote isn't assured for Hillary. There's a lot of women who can't stand her because of her stance on social programs (which basically amount to "I know what's best for you"). As far as holding onto the MOR... she'll have to fight within the Democratic ranks for that, even moreso now Dean is running the show. A lot of Dems blamed losing the last election on being too centrist and that they needed to return to more left wing stances. Totally misguided IMO (it was a centrist ticket that got Clinton in), but there you go.

    Like I said, I've not been able to keep up with the state of the UK print media, so that there's been some realignment doesn't really surprise me. However, the BBC has definitely leftwards leanings now, and as its sphere of influence outweighs more or less the entire print medium combined, I'd say the overall effect is pretty much MOR. All that said, traditional media sources are on the wane - the internet will be the death of them.
     
  24. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Guilty of anything other than just being Muslims? No. I never said they were. What were the people on the 7/7 tubes and bus guilty of?

    Advocating such a response? Erm... did I? Sorry, I can't see where I did. I'm simply pointing out that should such an event come to pass, I guarantee you that will be exactly the response that many, likely the majority, will want. My point is that to sit here RIGHT NOW and say "it would be terrible if we responded like that" is complete fantasy bull*****. If such a day should come, the collective mindset of the country attacked will be completely different and to try to project what feelings we'd have at that time at this time is pointless. I'm also making a point that I find it curious that all the focus seems to be on the "bomb Mecca" phrase, not the "if they nuke us" one. Bombing Mecca seems to be treated (in this thread) as the greatest of all sins, the fact that millions just died in a nuclear attack seems to be seen as an afterthought.

    As for ethnic cleansing... please don't put words in my mouth. No-one, not me, not Tancredo, ever mentioned ethnic cleansing, at least in my understanding of the phrase (a systematic policy to eliminate a race or creed from an area).

    Ah yes, there it is again. It's all the West's fault. Only now, it's our fault because of something we COULD, maybe, potentially do, and that is full justification for the terrorist actions: "You might bomb us! Damn, we'd better blow up some commuters!".
     
  25. Squiffy

    Squiffy
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Ashford, Kent
    Ratings:
    +2,790
    Why are you mixing the two issues?

    You've denied it, but yet again you seem to be advocating a "they kill some of us, so we should kill some of them" attitude.

    What does it matter about the victims of 7/7? What on earth does that have to do with a hypothetical situation where we would ethnically cleanse Mecca?

    You really expect us to believe those aren't your views that you are spouting? Even in the post I'm quoting, your viewpoint is quite clear.

    And I find it curious that a rational person could think it reasonable that if a small number of people who just happen to be Muslims commit such an atrocity, you think we should wipe out a Muslim city in revenge.

    So you think that under those circumstances, bombing Mecca would NOT be a sin? Murdering many innocent people purely for being Muslims, just because a small group of Muslims elsewhere killed millions of our people?

    How else would you characterise it? Advocating nuking a Muslim city IS genocide.

    Or are you saying that destroying Mecca would not eliminate Muslims from that area?

    Fault? I'm simply illustrating how intolerance breeds intolerance on BOTH sides. Can you really not see how Muslims might feel apart from our society when such views are put forward? So... How big an attack do you think a Muslim terrorist group has to make before we'd be justified in wiping out one of their cities?
     
  26. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    Because that was how the question was posed to Tancredo? A pretext, followed by a condition. Not two separate events. I'm responding with a comment on how he responded to the question he was asked, not the question you wish he was asked.

    Ah, so now I "seem" to be advocating? Previously I was advocating (no seem). If we keep this up, maybe we'll get rid of "advocating" as well. Again, where is my advocacy of bombing Mecca? Please, go find it, quote it. I want to see it.

    You're really trying, aren't you? You wish I'd said "ethnic cleansing" somewhere so you could use it against me, but only... I didn't. Again, go find my advocacy of ethnic cleansing? Incidentally, I don't think "bombing Mecca" would qualify as ethnic cleansing given (a) muslims aren't the only people in Mecca and (b) there's plenty of Muslims who live nowhere near it.

    Ah! Finally!! Thank You!!! What this comes down to is you've now decided you can read my mind and decipher my viewpoint into what you want it to be, despite not knowing me from Adam. What a great debating style - can't actually get him to say what I want him to say, so I'll just say what I think he's thinking.

    Again, where did I advocate... oh, never mind. You've already made your mind up as to what my opinion was.

    A sin? Absolutely. My curiousity was merely piqued by why you (and others) seemed to be concentrating all your efforts on how terrible it would be to bomb Mecca while apparently the pretextual statement of the original question ("if they nuked us") seemed to be being completely ignored. I still haven't figured that one out, but rather than resort to putting words in your mouth (or reading your mind), I'll just wait for the answer.

    Now we're "nuking" Mecca? I thought it was "bombing" (i.e. no mention of nuclear or conventional). I don't think "nuking" Mecca was even in the original question to Tancredo. Maybe by implication? I don't know, I didn't read it that way. Suppose it could be.

    If Mecca was destroyed, then yes, it would probably eliminate Muslims (as well as everyone else) from that area. Wasn't that part obvious?

    Intolerance does indeed breed intolerance. I can understand perfectly how many Muslims living in the UK (or anywhere else) would feel about this. But again (and in summary), I (a) never advocated bombing Mecca (despite you wishing I had), (b) pointed out that should a large western city suffer a nuclear attack, to believe the reaction would be "calm & measured" is fanciful, and (c) REALLY wanted to know why everyone seemed to be so concerned that (hypothetically) Mecca could be bombed while the fact a major city elsewhere was now a nuclear wasteland seemed to be something that would just be swept under the carpet.
     
  27. Squiffy

    Squiffy
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Ashford, Kent
    Ratings:
    +2,790
    No, I asked why you were bringing up the 'guilt' of the 7/7 victims, and mixing that issue into my question of why we should seek revenge on a Muslim city full of people who likely would have had nothing to do with any attack in the west.

    OK

    At that point, I think it would be considered WW3 regardless of response, no?

    You're going to tell me that if London, or New York, or wherever is reduced to a nuclear wasteland, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, wiped out in an instant, you're going to be standing around rubbing your chin pondering "not going too far" in a response and making sure we don't upset anyone?

    I'm simply pointing out that should such an event come to pass, I guarantee you that will be exactly the response that many, likely the majority, will want. My point is that to sit here RIGHT NOW and say "it would be terrible if we responded like that" is complete fantasy bull*****.

    Now of course you can sit and say that you qualified all of your statements. My response is that YOU are the one making assumptions about peoples viewpoints. You presume to know what the majority will do or want to do. Unless you have any particular evidence to back up these statements, then it is fair to assume that you are basing your statements on your own feelings.

    What a load of crap.

    Why would the west be bombing Mecca, other than it is is the most important Muslim city in the world?

    The proposition is to seek revenge against one of 'their' cities. How can you deny this isn't ethnically motivated?

    I've ignored the nuking us bit, because in the context of this argument, it doesn't matter.

    Unless we have prima facie evidence that EVERY single citizen of Mecca was an active terrorist and were directly implicated in the attack, then attacking Mecca cannot be justified.

    If such an attack on the west ever happened, then of course I'd be horrified. But I'd also hope that we'd show that we were civilised enough NOT to just commit random acts of revenge against them.

    I certainly read it that way. Particularly after statements by yourself that it would be World War 3.
     
  28. Gary D

    Gary D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    7,770
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +826
    :offtopic: on a lighter note - i think the pauley has copyrighted your reply techique :D

    Gary
     
  29. cmcg55

    cmcg55
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ratings:
    +0
    I brought up the 7/7 victims because, to be quite frank, I was sick and tired about hearing about how terrible it would be if Mecca was bombed to the total exclusion of any mention of how awful the carnage that preceded it would have been. 7/7 was perhaps the wrong example to use, my apologies for that - I should have referred instead to the notional victims of whichever city was reduced to a large smoking crater prior to any hypothetical attack on Mecca. The general theme of some of the earlier posts in this thread however appeared to be entirely concerned with the fate of Mecca and not one person appeared to care too much about the preceding act. I personally find that (a) unbelievable and (b) abhorrent. Quite frankly, if the terrorists find a way to nuke a major city? The safety of the citizens of Mecca will be the last thing on my mind, and yours too.

    I ask you for where I "advocated" bombing Mecca, and that's the best you can come up with? There is not one single phrase in any of the above that advocates bombing anywhere, Mecca or otherwise. Sorry, did you misunderstand the request? One more time: Where did I say we should bomb Mecca?

    The hell I will. I qualified nothing. I didn't need to.

    Not a problem, howzabout some historical precedence? Were you present in the US when 9/11 happened and the days afterwards? I was. I saw the mentality that followed - there were people I would consider otherwise measured and laid-back who were talking quite vehemently about "finding out who did this and removing them and their country from the face of the earth with one press of the button". You appear to be suggesting on the other hand that the reaction would be one of calm and measured contemplation. You know what? Either of us could be right. Just I've got some past evidence for what I suspect the reaction would be. Hopefully we'll never know the answer.

    Oh, so now it's "ethnically motivated". Before it was "ethnic cleansing". Of COURSE it's "ethnically motivated". Didn't Tancredo say that? That the purpose of it would be to send a message that places muslims hold dear could be destroyed too? Of course there's an ethnic element there - Mecca holds little other value in a strategic sense.

    That's a different story entirely to ethnic cleansing though, and you know it. If ethnic cleansing were the objective, it's unlikely Mecca would be the first target on the list. If that was the objective, there are other targets (larger population concentrations) which would be selected as targets before Mecca was (unless such an attack took place during the pilgrimage season when Mecca's population swells tenfold).

    At least I got you to say it out loud. That's the problem. The fact it "doesn't matter". Mecca's fate is apparently more of a concern to you.

    Once again (this is becoming really, really tedious), I never claimed it was justified. If you want to pretend I did, or assume that's what I was thinking, that's just fine, but really, we're rather going to be going in circles, no?

    However, FOR THE RECORD, and just for you - I don't think bombing Mecca would be justified at all (gasp!) Will that work for you? There, I've said it. Feel free to quote that back at me ad infinitum. It would be a needless waste of human life, and would achieve nothing in a strategic sense i.e. Tancredo is wrong. If anything it would only lead to what is a problem with a terrorist network turning into a religious war that would probably end the world as we know it.

    Finally. It's only taken me... how many posts... to get someone to just acknowledge the carnage that would have preceded any theoretical response? That was, after all, the only reason I even joined this thread in the first place. Mission accomplished. Someone figured it out.

    Whether the response of the west was nuclear or conventional makes, I think, really rather little difference. WW3 may yet come, doesn't mean it's going to be the nuclear annihilation scenario. There are a number of scenarios for WW3 that don't involve nuclear exchanges at all. Some are quite fascinating. Depends on your definition of a WW I suppose - under my definition at least, the scale of what I anticipate the response would be would indeed constitute WW3.
     
  30. Ethics Gradient

    Ethics Gradient
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,680
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    aka Billy Science - Suni ojna Tas
    Ratings:
    +432
    Because some people like to understand what ignorant and missplaced retribution is.

    What I find interesting is those people that focus on 'they hurt us' even though we can do nothing retrospectively to 'bring back' the lives of friends , relatives and country men, we are willing to consider basically wipeing out humanity as a 'response'
    ..... and before people call me a ' whishy washy liberal' ... there is nothing whishy , washy or liberal about not wanting to sit through Armageddon.

    Why do some people want to 'lash out' regardless of the pointlessness and negative outcomes ? - should be the question intellegent and rational people ask.
     

Share This Page

Loading...