Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 7:22 PM
Default Should we nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca?
If the United States is again subjected to a 9/11 type terrorist attack, should the United States respond by bombing the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in the Middle East?

That is the position of Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo in a speech yesterday in Iowa. He says that we need some kind of deterrent to terrorism, therefore we should publicly tell the world that we will destroy Mecca if terrorists attack the United States.

What do you think?

Here is what I think: I think this is insane. In fact, I think that if this weren't being floated by a serious candidate for the Republican nomination for president, a thread even asking an asinine question like this would deserve to be closed immediately as being offensive and violent. But it IS being suggested.

One huge difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Republicans are much more willing to pander to the most lunatic part of their base. There have to be examples of the same on the left, but never anything as ludicrous as this. And just watch -- he may actually profit from saying something as unserious and ludicrous as this by getting the lunatic vote. Let's see how long it takes for some right-wing radio hosts to jump on board and float this idea.

In case it needs to be spelled out, let me explain why this is crazy.

There are 1.3 billion muslims in the world. (About 20% of all the people in the world). We were attacked on 9/11 by eleven of them, armed with boxcutters. How could it possibly make us secure to turn ourselves into the sworn enemy of 1.3 billion people in the world? Oh, and make no mistake, we're not talking about a threat that we COULD make. We just made the threat! You don't think this is going to be around the world tonight? That a presidential candidate in the United States said he will destroy the holiest cities in Islam if America is attacked? How would you feel about the United States after hearing that? What could we ever possibly say to undo the damage?

Imagine, for a moment, being a devout Catholic (1 billion) and hearing that some candidate in another country has threatened to destroy the Vatican in response to any attacks by rogue Catholics. Imagine that country has plenty of resources to do just that, to nuke it into a black steaming hole in the ground.

You would probably consider such people insane and too barbaric. Any "deterrent" possibility in such a threat would be of less consequence than trying to think up your own counter-threat.

And let's remember where Mecca and Medina are, too. They're in Saudi Arabia, the most oil-rich country on earth, one that has the capability to shut off the world's biggest oil spigot in retaliation. Saudi Arabia is, at the moment, considered an ally, although not necessarily our most reliable one.

And think of all the lunatic muslim terrorists that would be even more likely to attack the United States just to bring about the end of days, because, really, if you are a true believer in an apocalyptic religion, you can't really lose a holy war because God is on your side. Attacking the United States would be a wonderful way to teach America a lesson. And if they try to attack Mecca.... Well, Allah won't let the Americans get away with that, will he?

Expect some counter-threats in the days to come.
Advertisement
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#2 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 7:29 PM
Um... fighting terrorism with terrorism? What a terrible idea. Regardless of any logic that might "justify" something like this, bombing two cities that have been considered sacred religious sites for centures couldn't possibly be helpful, much less moral or ethical. Let's keep in mind that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, not the population of Mecca. And odds are that if the government was idiotic enough to bomb those two cities, they'd probably kill millions of innocent Muslims without actually destroying Al Qaeda, which would just make the situation even worse.

What a deplorable idea.

I can't even think of an argument that might be passably strong enough to make this idea even worth considering. Not only is it cruel and unnecessary, it's just plain ol' ridiculous!

There's always money in the banana stand.
Scholar
#3 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 7:45 PM


Isn't The United States, the Great Christian nation whose current president boasts about the "Axis of Evil" concerning muslim states destroying their OWN holy land?
Since George W. Bush is of Christan faith and the holy biblical city of Babylon is mere kilometers from Baghdad..

Quote:
The Christian nerd factor for this particular war in Iraq has been higher than usual, and for obvious reasons. One, it is being waged for no obvious reason, making it fertile ground for all sorts of wild scriptural speculation— just about anything you want to dream up, even the idea that Saddam Hussein is the antichrist makes more sense than the actual justification for the war given by the government. Two, our occupation of Iraq is, or at least has evolved into, a confrontation with Islam. Three, it is led on our side by a Christian. Four, it is taking place in the site of ancient Babylon, a territory with no small significance in the Armageddon story.


(Source)


Does anyone know the significance of Babylon in the biblical sense?

Why on earth would the powers that be initiate a war, or as you put it "nuke", Mecca because of its religious signicance to Muslims, when we're already killing hundreds of civilians, soldiers and children in the CHRISTIAN holy city of Babylon? Its funny you mention the Muslims bringing about the end of days when the invasion of Iraq/Babylon is specifically mentioned in the Christian Bible... you know, the chapter on Armaggedon. I wonder who initiated that....
Forum Resident
#4 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 7:48 PM
I think it is a ridiculous idea. Mecca the religious centre of the Islamic faith, why destroy that in retalliation of some religious fanatics. There are millions of law-abiding Muslims living all over the world, including the US - you cannot punish an entire religion based on the actions of a few men. Yes, their crimes are heinous, but the suggestion is puerile in my opinion.

I've never been married, but I tell people I'm divorced so they won't think something is wrong with me.
- Anonymous


Sideways Garage Tutorial
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#5 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 7:52 PM
Why even threaten to destroy it? Why even suggest we should threaten to destroy it?

There has to be somebody, somewhere, making an Al Qaeda recruitment poster tonight with this guy's words on it. The damage is done.
Scholar
#6 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 8:05 PM
To destroy Mecca and Medina would be more amunition to terrorists who, when you think about it, don't need that much of a trigger to commit atrocities. They say they commit their crimes for "their people" - to do this would be playing straight into their hands. For this person to even suggest doing something like this is admitting that the USA would commit an act of terrorism themselves.

This guy should just hope there aren't riots, or extremely large protests from the Muslim community from saying this - and more Anti-War protests, and protests from people who have the good sense to realise how stupid this suggestion is.

Not to mention that, to bomb these two holy places, would definitely kill civilians because so many Muslims make pilgrimages there. Yet more innocent people would die - which would also mean yet more groups would retaliate in response.

My God, for the sake of anyone with sense over the Pond, I truly hope this guy never succeeds in becoming president - and that everyone else has sense enough not to vote for him. Aren't these guys supposed to have people who either write their speeches, or tell their candidates when they're being flat out stupid?
Lab Assistant
#7 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 8:45 PM
The dumbest part is that even if we did bomb Mecca, and destroy buildings and people, there would STILL be the land there. There would still be a Mecca, and it still would be a holy place. They would have to rebuild, but it certainly wouldn't stop a Muslim from facing that direction for prayer! It wouldn't stop, but temporarily, pilgrams from trekking there. It would do nothing but destroy lives and archeological treasures. It would do nothing but insight more violence and hatred.
Top Secret Researcher
#8 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 8:45 PM
I'm against nuking the city for the reasons everyone else has said, but I do know where the guy is coming from, so I'll put it out there.
They figure that these attacks are being carried out by religious FANATICS (and it's not like they aren't). A fanatic, if he feels the subject of his fanatiscism is in danger will do whatever he can to protect it. Now, in this case I don't know if they will see 'whatever they can' as destroying the white house or sitting quietly and doing nothing.

Also they know that oil would not be a problem. Yes, bombing Saudi Arabia would infuriate the House of Saud. But what's overthrowing a government to people who already did it in Iraq and are threatening to bomb the two holiest sites in Islam? Even if we did reduce Saudi Arabia to a sheet of smoking radioactive glass, the oil would still be there and accessible.

However as I said, i'm against doing something that would bring a sixth of the world's population in an understandable state of righteous indignation upon my country.

Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus
There are 6 billion muslims in the world

Actually there's 6.6 billion people in the world. One point three billion muslims.

The humor of a story on the internet is in direct inverse proportion to how accurate the reporting is.
Mad Poster
#9 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 9:11 PM
The guy belongs in a looney home, not in the presidential elections. If, by some miracle, he does get elected, and he acts upon that idea, he'll probably start WW III. Muslim terrorists do not fight for religious reasons, they fight to gain control of their homelands. They just happen to be of muslim faith. Destorying their holy cities will not accomplish anything, and it will not put an end to terrorism. Besides, the US will have to prove that the terrorist attack was actually organised by the saudi arabian government, and declare it an act or war, before they can retaliate with an attack on the holy cities. That if they do not want to face criticism and disapproval of other countries besides all muslim world.
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#10 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 9:14 PM
Quote:
Actually there's 6.6 billion people in the world. One point three billion muslims.

Ah! I stand corrected. Thank you. (I stole that number off a website I googled, apparently too quickly.)
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#11 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 9:24 PM
:jaw:

Well, I've heard some really stupid ideas, but this one takes the cake, the clown, and the birthday party. Sounds like an excellent way to piss off every other Muslim who doesn't live in Mecca on the entire face of the planet and a hell of a lot of non-Muslims too.

It saddens me that at this point in history, we're still not above religious wars (though I know it's much more complex than that, that is one aspect). Still greedy, scared little monkeys throwing rocks at each other. We just have bigger rocks and can throw them really really far. :disagree:

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Theorist
#12 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 9:50 PM
Thats why Tom Tancredo is nothing but a fringe candidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Mad Poster
#13 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 10:14 PM
That's insane. This is the supposedly religiously tolerant nation where Bush preaches about terrorists and how evil they are- destroying Mecca would put us at their level, not to mention how hypocritical it is. To destroy a city in the name of terrorism is bad enough, as is, but to destroy a holy city in the name of terrorism is hitting below the belt. 1.3 billion Muslims is a lot of Muslims to counter and the U.S. has more than enough enemies- we don't need to be making enemies out of all the Muslims in the world and those who sympathize with them. This whole idea is foolish, ill-advised, hypocritical, and cruel.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
#14 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 10:24 PM
Another politician, feeding off fear and propaganda.

VOTE! and if you haven't registered with a party, do so...because then you get to vote in primaries and all that good stuff

And my answer, of course, is a resounding NO. Absolutely ridiculous. I'd be devasted if that were to happen, and I think most of the world would mourn. Haven't we already destroyed enough? What's next, Vatican City?

An eye for an eye. When will it end?
Field Researcher
#15 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 10:43 PM
Hey!...that's a good idea...Vatican City...then Lourdes....
Test Subject
#16 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 11:10 PM
What the? Even if on the off chance this idea popped into your head wouldn't you, as a sane person, have the common sense not to say it out loud?! EVERYONE has little crazy thoughts going on upstairs, not everyone let's them spew out their mouth. This man wants to stand at that podium and try to convince you to vote for him as the leader of the free world, shoving Christianity down people's throats and in the very next breath make one of the most unchristian remarks I have ever heard in my entire life. Had someone even mentioned doing this to a sacred Christian place the entire country would be up in arms over it, yet the only place I hear about this fool is TS2C message boards? Please please preach to me some more about the liberal media. As a Christian, I find this man's words immoral, not true to the thoughts of the American people, catering to the vast right wing radical minority and reprehensible. You can't even lump him in with Republicans, this man belongs with the crazies. Bombing Muslim countries in general because of a handful of whackos makes about as much sense as nuking the US because of the KKK. You cannot blame a very large group of people for the actions of the village idiots. I want to know where this uproar was when Timothy McVeigh was blowing up babies in OKC. Where were the threats of retaliation then? Where was the outrage against white people or against catholics? Because for some reason then we knew that this guy was just a bad apple, yet now we can't seem to make that distinction. Don't mask your bigoted opinions behind patriotism. I'm not buying it.
Forum Resident
#17 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 11:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
:jaw:

Well, I've heard some really stupid ideas, but this one takes the cake, the clown, and the birthday party.



Great way to put it HP :D
And I totally agree with HP it would only end up making things worse.
Field Researcher
#18 Old 1st Aug 2007 at 11:19 PM
No, that would be the worst thing they could possibly do. That's a sure way to end terrorism, all right--destroy the holiest cities of Islam. The terrorists are sure to surrender and grovel at our feet that way :disagree:. The way to resolve the conflict is not by causing more...

HP's right; what will they come up with next? This good vs. evil thing is getting out of hand, fast.

"Make believe in magic, make believe in dreams
Make believe impossible, nothing as it seems
See, touch, taste, smell, hear, but never know if it's real"
--The Cure, "More Than This"
Theorist
#19 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 12:17 AM
I don't see how bombing someone's holy city will solve a thing. It would be a terrible thing to be known for. I remember when I was watching some early footage of the Taliban blowing up a very important Buddha (to flex their muscles and send a message). I was shocked.

You'd have nuts going around blowing up churches...it would turn into a bloodbath.

Stupid, stupid idea.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
#20 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 12:32 AM
The problem is that it's not exactly a new idea... I've heard such talk around the internet and elsewhere since 9/11. Also the radio-punditry (especially Mike Weiner-Savage) have advocated similar ideas in the past.

You can even get your official bumper sticker!



I agree though, attacking Mecca would be one of the stupidest things this country could do.
Field Researcher
#21 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 12:45 AM
Makes me think of the Shiites and Sunnis bombing each other's temples and shrines.
#22 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 1:01 AM
I think if they were to bomb Mecca, that would be an awful or most probably a hysterical thing to do! I mean, maybe half the world would be against them because Mecca is the most holy place for muslims. Think about how angry other relegions would be if they bombed down their holy places. Plus, the number of terrorist differs largely from the amount of muslims actually making pilgrimages there. Logically and generally in all religions it would be horrible to murder off people who are in the middle of holy prayer.
Test Subject
#23 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 1:02 AM
nukeing is wrong. if we nuke mecca were not only killing the extremeists we are also attacking the inncent.
Scholar
#24 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 1:10 AM
The United States, to this day, remains the one nation having ever used nuclear arms in war--not counting things like depleted uranium shells.

That's only going to add to the sense of...."what?"...that must been seen by much of the rest of the world to this novel, almost uniquely-American idea.

This is the sort of "Ann Coulter" diplomacy that certain lunatic relish, but thankfully, the rest of the population, for the most part, realizes that, when you think about it for more than five minutes, it's absolutely absurd.

Unfortunately, that fringe is still there. And just like most Americans have a disproportionate interest in radical Muslims with bombs, as oppose to the average Arab, African, or Iranian citizen struggling with daily life, so too shall the Middle Eat, and the rest of the world, stare at the fundamentalist Christian on AM radio, while ignoring the millions of Americans who are too busy trying to afford medicine or find jobs to care about the Middle East.

Quote: Originally posted by Doc Doofus
There has to be somebody, somewhere, making an Al Qaeda recruitment poster tonight with this guy's words on it. The damage is done.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Field Researcher
#25 Old 2nd Aug 2007 at 1:58 AM
You know, this might be the most bone headed thing for a polition to say ever (including half a million bushisms). Did the guy ever stop for 5 seconds and think "American Muslims go to Mecca too" or are they all just terrorists as well. I'll tell you this, the second the nuke has the cross hairs on Mecca, every Muslim in America will be up in arms. Hell, I (a catholic) might join them. I think any one is truly American would as well. But he is a frindge and won't get past primaries.
 
Page 1 of 13
Back to top