This is the sort of thinking I expect out of people who don't believe in evolution. :)
____________
IowaPolitics.com: Tancredo says threat of attack on holy sites would deter terrorism (http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101389)
7/31/2007

By Chris Dorsey
IowaPolitics.com

OSCEOLA -- Followers of radical Islam must be deterred from committing a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said Tuesday morning, saying that as president he would take drastic measures to prevent such attacks.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."

The harsh approach is vital in order to prevent a worldwide collapse, Tancredo told nearly 30 people Tuesday morning at the Family Table restaurant.

[More... (http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=101389)]

Find world peace by blowing up holy cities. Way to go!

You do realise they use that fear to attack a "holy site" as a shield....

Like they use children and civilians to hide behind so when you do attack, they can cry that YOU are the bad guy.

War is dirty business.

If your enemy does not want peace, Anka, how do you even dare say that world peace is a viable option?

If someone attacks you first, you have a right to attack them back(unless you are defeated, of course).



If you believe otherwise, I suggest that you invest in stem cell research, and hope that they can grow you your spine for you soon.

They're blowing up their own Mosque's left and right, this is a nutty plan.

You do realise they use that fear to attack a "holy site" as a shield....
Where in his statement does he imply that that's a consideration? It sounds to me like he's saying that if Muslim extremists launch a major attack on the US, he'll respond by targeting Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia as retribution/deterrent. It's pretty clear that he views all Muslims as the enemy and is willing to take retribution upon any of them whether they had anything with the strike on the US or not. Quite an enlightened foreign policy. :rolleyes:

It is not exactly an enlightened religion, is it either?

It is not exactly an enlightened religion, is it either?
Does that mean you agree with Tancredo's policy?

This idiot's plan is as bad as fuedal dictators razing towns to dust or Saddam Hussein gassing his civilian population. Can't you see that?

On the other hand, Tancredo lecturing 30 people in a Family Table restaurant in Iowa is hardly the Nuremburg rally :).

They're blowing up their own Mosque's left and right, this is a nutty plan.There's a difference between a random mosque and sites which they all consider their holiest.

Although I don't like the plan of blowing up holy sites -- largely because it will backfire -- I do like the idea of using their own religion against them.

All I can say is: it is totaly crazy.

Bombing holy site of any religions will get you even the most moderate follower of this religion again you. Can you immagine the croisade if a gouvernement dicide to bomb the Vatican?

What will be the reaction in the US if a group decide to destroy something like 2 buildings in one of the big city in US?

Just thinking alout this idea can be very dangerous if the peoples saying it have any power. It can even turn the moderate muslim again the US.

Even during the second wold war, the US didn't have drop an atomic bomb on Tokio because of it historic valu and that the Janpan's emperor was living here (the living will of the gods for most peoples living in Japan).

It is a very bad idea when you want to look like you want to create peace.

Eridalafar

Well, even Muslim extremists need to know their limits. Even for those (hopefully few) of you who think it's perfectly ok for them to car bomb non-Muslims as a means of political protest because of poverty, or our support of Israel, or just being non-Muslim, if a nuke goes off in the US, that is way, way beyond any limit. Period.

That's hopefully when the US says, en masse:

Ok, we tried to be considerate of your religion, even while we were being shot at from mosques, and holy sites, we still tried to avoid hitting anything valued by your religion, we went along with your Muslim moderate mouthpieces who were saying it was a religion of peace (even though we can read the Koran, which contradicts this assertion), and we hoped and prayed that you would at least try negotiating before it came to this."

"But now, now you've gone and done it. You have stepped across the irrevocable line. With your nuke(s), you have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent US civilians and given hundreds of thousands of our men, women and children, radiation poisoning, and then cancer."

"The gloves are off now, and we're not stopping until there's not a one of you left that will so much as say "boo" to the US without crapping his or her pants."

"Goodbye, radical Islam!"

Nukes are not to be considered viable means of warfare. However, if the US is nuked, be fully assured that we will strike back ten or a hundred times what we recieve.

That irrational threat of MAD is what keeps nukes out of consideration for rational people.

The question is, to borrow from an old Sting song: Do the Islamic families love their children too, as the Russians showed they did (by never trying nuclear warfare)?

Even for those (hopefully few) of you who think it's perfectly ok for them to car bomb non-Muslims as a means of political protest

Who exactly said that it's alright to use car bombs? Why does it make any difference what the religion of the victims is anyway? Is a Muslim life worth less to you than any other human life?

Who exactly said that it's alright to use car bombs? Why does it make any difference what the religion of the victims is anyway? Is a Muslim life worth less to you than any other human life?

Perhaps "ok" is too strong of a word. How about that some people have responded to charges about "look what the terrorists are doing, with "well, it's "understandable", since we are not-a-Muslim/in their country/supporting Israel/not forcing our women to wear tents/whatever other reason that we (progressives) can understand their position or why they do what they do.

Whenever it's come up, there are those that seek to show the terrorists have reasons for doing the horrible things they do. But nothing excuses them, in my opinion. Hopefully, nothing excuses them in yours.

And me, personally, no, my life is not a whit more important than a Muslim's life. Christ teaches me to give up my life in order to save others.

Nationally, collectively, it is a different story, and would be a different story. The USA would not go quietly into the night, or roll over and take it without a terrible retaliatory strike, and you know it, I know it, and everyone on this board knows it. While reading more about the Tancredo speech, I stumbled across a succinct summation of someone who claimed to be in the government's "what if" thinktanks, trying to determine exactly what would happen after a nuke went off in the United States, say in NYC.

I say this summation is apt because one fact in this summation that struck me as true is that human nature is still the same, no matter the country, and would be at its most primal right after a nuclear strike. The USA would not be the same country it was before the nuke. It would instantly strip off the false idea that somehow US citizens are different, or less brutal, than any other country, when backed into a corner. We are capable of, and would do, precisely, exactly the same things we did in WWII. Read it, if you wish. It convinced me.

I quote it below:
Folks,

As one who made his living performing exactly these types of exercises and wargames for several years, I must explain that I believe you are all wrong. None of you can imagine the panic in America if one nuclear device explodes in a major city and eliminates up to 4 million American citizens (that’s over 1% of the population of the country). What? 4 MILLION deaths doesn’t seem like a serious threat to you from only ONE thermonuclear explosion? Imagine eight or so which the Islamists could certainly obtain.

If one device explodes, I can assure you that the panic will be exceedingly widespread. Cities will become deserted in weeks and starvation will run rampant in the countryside. Riots will kill another 4 million. Does anyone remember that within 4 hours of the collapse of the World Trade Center #2 that most every building above 20 stories in America was evacuated because people were too scared to remain in them and were either ordered or decided to go home, all based on uncertainty of further attack? America was almost a ghost town in the cities business establishments.

Should an attack of unknown origin occur, our nuclear forces would immediately be brought to DEFCON 1 and made ready for immediate launch. Nothing could stop them. I say again, nothing. Once the Presidential authority decided where to strike (as an example to the rest of the world…and I mean Presidential authority, which may have devolved to the General Officer on the alert command structure, not even a member of the Cabinet or Congress in the first few hours), those targets would cease to exist in 30 minutes. I say targets because to eliminate further provocations from the jihadists, more of their brethren must die to deter them from attacking again. If you think 292 million Americans aren’t going to be screaming for massive Islamic death in the aftermath of the obliteration of NYC, you don’t understand human nature and self preservation.

Once the rattlesnake has bitten your child and killed it, you are unlikely to allow it and its family nest to continue to exist. And the analogy is a perfect one because the USA has the ability to exterminate Islam from the face of the Earth, no matter how intermingled it is with other cultures. Eliminate the majority homelands, and then inter all remaining Muslims until they convert, renounce jihad, or die of starvation in prison. Hey, it works when they do it to us! Their will power is no different or greater than ours when enraged.

Any sentiments that Western civilization isn’t that brutal will fly out the window just as they did within the months after 9-11 when retaliation was mandated as a wellspring response from the average American citizen. You all forget your history even though it is only 5 yrs old.

As for the targets, you follow Wretchard’s treatise on the Three Conjectures (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html). You begin striking targets continuously, announcing them as we go, until all of Islam surrenders. If you think that the jihadis won’t stop and surrender, you are mistaken. They are no braver or harder men than the “apostates” and “infidels” they continuously threaten with beheading or conversion to Islam through their use of the sword of intimidation. If you think the vast majority of Muslims cannot be made to turn out, destroy and behead the jihadis or their entire civilizations will be destroyed utterly, then you do not understand human nature and nuclear war. If fear keeps them from rising up against the jihadis, then a greater fear will make them eliminate the jhadis. Such a greater fear is the extermination of Islam through thermonuclear weapons, which we own in large numbers.

And anyone who says it isn’t a religious war of extermination, after nuclear weapons have been exchanged, is a fool.

Arguments about whether it is right or wrong to kill 1.4 BILLION Muslims (who ultimately threaten the existence of 1 BILLION Westerners) in exchange for the lives of 300 MILLION Americans who hold the key to Islamic extinction in their hands, are silly once you realize that self preservation is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE thing worth killing for in American attitudes. We 300 MILLION will kill every single other person in the world if it means we won’t be killed instead. Otherwise, all of you would march right down to the recruiting center, sign up to be minefield fodder or cannon fodder because the situation was hopeless and you felt you would die anyway if you did nothing. Just give up our lives so that 1.4 Billion Muslims will be happy? Not on your child’s life!

The Hell This Ain’t The Most Important Foxhole In The World…..

…I’m In It.

The professionals would take these decisions out of your hands and begin exterminating Islamic cities until every Islamic nation in the world surrendered or placed themselves under our authority. As for whether we would blow away the rest of the world despite it reducing our economies back to Stone Age economics, remember, our lives would be intact. Think about that the next time you wonder whether you could sit down in a burning building and just accept your fate. Hundreds on 9-11 found they would rather jump to their deaths than burn alive. And each of you would do anything you could to save yourselves, your families, and even your fellow citizens. Including kill 1.4 BILLION Muslims.

And not a one of you would blink if it meant the deaths of innocent people who happen to live under jihadi rule and law. It is either you or them. Anyone who picks them is lying to himself.

However, if the US is nuked, be fully assured that we will strike back ten or a hundred times what we recieve.Of course we will want to strike back. (Well, unless Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_el_pr/obama_nuclear_weapons_7) somehow stumbles into the White House.)

But then the issue will become, strike back at whom? And there will be no easy answer for that.

I've read some scary stuff on this subject. Non fiction stuff, too.

If someone attacks you first, you have a right to attack them back(unless you are defeated, of course).

So... since we attached Iraq first, they have the right to attack back then? Or is that rule just for the US?

So... since we attached Iraq first, they have the right to attack back then? Or is that rule just for the US?

Of course they have the right to. That is the right of every sovereign nation(well besides France, of course).

But they were defeated. We won.
So they won't.

It is war. It is not suppose to be fair like some kids playground dodgeball game. And dodgeball was never fair, either(well when I was a kid it wasn't).