I think the idea is a crazy one. No one with any sense would ever vote for someone who seriously proposes nuking Mecca and Medina as a solution to our current problems with the Middle East as a region.

Just curious, but what exactly does this guy hope to accomplish by nuking two of the world's holiest cities? I mean, what positive outcome could he possibly envision?

That said, I do understand entertaining the notion as a private, silent vent of frustration. I try to be rational and calm, but sometimes I get unbelievably sick of dealing with that entire region. Sometimes, I think, "Gee, wouldn't it be fun to just nuke the Middle East and make it go away?" Then I think of the myriad of problems that would introduce (up to and including the likely destruction of our nation by the rest of the world united against us), and the idea no longer sounds so palatable. Maybe he's trying to get the very frustrated to vote for him by voicing these thoughts, but, like so many promises made on the campaign trail, he has no intention of following through with this plan in the unlikely event that he is elected. I find it hard to believe than anyone would seriously entertain the notion of nuking Mecca and Medina. If you stop and think for even five minutes, the cons clearly outweigh the pros.

palabra, he figures ( I assume) that such a threat would scare the fundamentalists into behaving.

I disagree with that view point, becaus if we make the threat, regardless of whether we carry it out or not, we lose more than we gain. If we did convince the terrorists to shut up and go home with such actions, we would turn at least a sixth of the world's population against us, probably more.

And if we didn't convince them to leave off and they attacked us again, then however we responded, we would ignite a most long and terrible war. If we are shown to have made an empty threat, then people will assume we can't carry it out (This assumption is not due to any precedent from the world's leaders, but a basic understanding of history), and invade or attack the U.S. in its "weakened state." Needless to say, that wpuld be an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved.

Or we would make good on our threat, which would set over a billion people to warring on the U.S. These people would have a healthy supply of internal traitors too, as there are plenty of Muslims in this country that would have every reason to be furious at us. Assuming that all of them don't up and move out. And a mentality like that could wreak havoc on America internally too, perhaps having an Anti-Muslim sort of McCarthy era.

You can see that the consequences of an action like that are distinctly unpleasant. I don't quite see why a rational person would suggest such a plan, to be perfectly honest.

What? You mean to tell me that someone is actually seriously considering this as a way to 'solve the problem'? Oh my lord. No wonder I hate partisan voting. Of course, there are loonies everywhere, apparently this guy just got left out of the bin early.

To add to the shock, I agree with Cary's reasoning for not 'nuking the effers'. To kill that many for so few is so stupid that it's almost laughable. To do this would make America no better than the terrorists we're 'fighting'.

I don't think he's on about just nuking Mecca to stop people attacking them, or in retaliation to any regular terrorist attack. It's specifically to stop them from using nuclear warfare.

What he means is, as a deterrant (and many countries have nuclear deterrant programs), the US will make an official statement saying that, should Islamic extremists ever actually use nuclear warfare against the States, there will be a retaliation in the form of a nuclear strike on Mecca and Medina. That means that it'd be a stupid idea for an Islamic extremist terrorist group to contemplate nuking the US, as it'd be putting their holy city at risk of the same fate. It's exactly the same as any other deterrant program (see MAD).. Take the Cold War for instance. If either side launched their nukes, the other side would issue a command to all the sneaky hidden subs out there saying let 'em have it, and both nations are totally annhialated within the hour.

Haylifer, still, as Doc Doofus said, it would not really deter the terrorist as they believe that they are the ones who are being pressured and therefore are allowed to go on holy war. They would still fight cause it'll be the end of the world anyway. Let's not foget that Mecca is also a place where millions of other muslims around the world gather to do their pilgrimage. Me, being a 15 year old muslim, have been there when i was six. Imagine if America decided to bomb Mecca at the time of the year when we go on our pilgrimage. American muslims would also die. Children brought along by their parents would die too. To even suggest something like that would bring the whole world down.

As much as I want to be angry at such comments, I have nothing but pity for these people.

:wow :wow :wow

does this person, whoever says that, know what type of people visit mecca?

they are all peaceful and harmless people on pilgrimage... same type of people who visit the vetican.

:wow :wow :wow

zerdz - The problem is though, it's not just the innocent muslims being killed... Think of all the innocent Americans who'd get killed in a nuclear strike from the terrorist side of things. The only thing these terrorists hold in high regard is their religion, so that is the one thing we can use against them. I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea at all to nuke Mecca, what I am saying is that if they're going to nuke the US, they cannot expect the world to just sit down and take it and something needs to be done. They aren't scared of death, but they are scared of dishonouring their faith. The only way we can deter them is to make nuking the US equivalent to dishonouring their faith.

Yes but you see they are extremists. They believe that sacrifices should be made. I do not know if they would actually make that sacrifice. However, I just have to say, in the eyes of Allah, they're not muslim when they kill innocent people. And I am obviously agaisnt them and what they are doing.

Do you suppose the remains of Muhammad raise from the tomb in Mecca and instructed someone to bomb US?

one thing has nothing to do with the other. how can anyone just dump everything on something...

both are terrorist!

As much as they deviate from the true Muslim faith, whatever they believe is what they hold dear. To them, that is the ultimate truth, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.

And yes, nuking Mecca would also be terrorist, but counter-terrorism is better than nothing. Personally, I wouldn't be too happy with sitting around letting terrorists completely destroy my country without at least having a plan to stop them, which we don't at the moment. I mean, look at Bin Laden, organiser of the largest terrorist attack on the US. He's still alive, he's still out there at large, and could be planning more for all we know! I think by having this in place it would act as a deterrant. We wouldn't have to actually follow it through, but as long as they know that should they ever take the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians over here, we will not stand for it.

So if they do bomb your country, you would stand by and watch other people in the world get killed for other people's wrong doings? As long as it's not in your country? This is not about this group against that group. We should all stand up agaisnt terrorism! Its a global crisis we should all take action to stop! These terrorists aren't attacking only America you know. But hey, mine's a kid's opinion. I have to admit I know nothing of politics.

First, I have to say that Islamic people aren't terorist. Islamic people want peace, they hate destruction, which one kill many of those who are innocent in this big problem. Islamic people would do war if a group of people/nations make deal for a war with Islamic people. Islamic people won't do a sudden attack to some nations that could be said an opponent for Islamic people. I, as the Islamic person would say that in Islamic religion has an explanation about Mecca (holy city of Islamic) will not be destroyed by those who want to destroy it until the wold's end. Mecca will be destroyed at the time of the world's end. World's end is a destiny that can't be denied or changed. We don't know the time when the world's end occur in the world that we live in.

Well, it wouldn't actually be my country. I live in the UK, but I'd hope that the UK would take a stance against the terrorists too. If my country got nuked, of course I wouldn't stand by and watch as we retaliated. That'd be because I'd already be dead, in the case of a nuclear war, which is why we have the idea of deterrance. The thing is with wars, innocent people inevitably will get killed both sides, and it is one group against the other. That's just the tragic reality of it. And I'd hope that the rest of the world place themselves in the group against terrorism and not for. If someone hits me, I'll whack them back and feel no remorse that oh no, that punch I just landed mighta hurt a bit, because they hit me first.

As far as I see it, nobody else has came up with a better idea to stop the terrorists, so I don't see this idea as being so outrageous. Like I pointed out, sending in troops to take out only the terrorists hasn't gone as well as it looked down on paper. If someone can come up with a better idea to deter the terrorists, I'll gladly agree with that. But it seems that they're virtually unstoppable. Bloody psychos.

One more thing, If US do that action, they would make a very big sins because they kill of more innocent people.

But you can't always fight violence with more violence cause then the cycle will never end. I think we should defend ourselves when we need to but killing innocent people isn't right no matter what you excuse is for doing it.Peace is always the correct answer ...we just to figure out how to get there. Also, sometimes punching back a person that has punched you will only make you feel better for a few moments until you realized that you have become just as bad as that person.Two wrongs don't make a right.

Um......I thought I was the blonde! That's just...STUPID!!! Why don't we just go bomb a holy city and then get ourselves bombed again! That really logical! I don't really like war, but we got ourselves so deep in it, we have to finish it. But that is NOT the way to go.

Exactly what Modestgurl88 said. two wrongs don't make a right. Who are you to punch back the person. It's not your right to hit him back. If everybody really did act this way, all conflicts would end with people dead.

But yes I do agree with you. They are bloody psychos. :D

Why not bomb Mecca?
Well, instead of a maybe a million extremists, you'll get 1,3 billion. No thanks.

That, and ofcourse you would be a beast to suggest such a thing. Shame on that creature.

The original topic dealt with a response to a terrorist attack such as 9/11...not a potential nuclear device being detonated. If Extremist Muslims acquired nuclear technology, and were to detonate it inside America, if we did not retaliate, what would prevent them from doing it again? It is quite a logical stretch to suggest that if we were nuked (for the sake of this discussion, nuked refers to any attack delivered via a nuclear device, whether its a bomb, missile, or other device, delivery doesn't matter) that if we did not retaliate, that they would stop their terrorism. No, in fact, if they nuked us, and we did nothing, it would only empower them to continue to do it, because it shows we do not have the willpower to respond. Extreme Muslims HATE America. They would like nothing more than to wipe out our entire country. (except for maybe wiping out Israel first) This is not a mere difference in politics, such as the Cold war between the US and USSR, this is more than political ideological differences, this is a fundamental hatred. If they detonated a nuclear device in an act of terrorism, if they want to declare a nuclear powered jihad against us, blow them off the face of the Earth. Once they cross that line, any talk of mere cultural differences, any talk of understanding, of living together harmony becomes nothing but meaningless bullshit. Once they cross the nuclear line, America's response should not be equal, it should be total.

Ah yes, the wonderful system of Democracy at work. [Sarcasm]

Destroying two, of the three Holy Cities to Muslims would send the world into utter chaos. :wow

First it would unite all Muslims. Meaning Iran, a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’, would be joined by every Muslim nation in the world. Let’s not forget the majority of Muslims who live in non-Muslim nations. They are the most vulnerable to switch sides and join the ‘Anti-America’ crowed. Seeing as how they can’t, or won’t integrate into society.

The world would lose a large percentage of Oil. Well maybe just America and those who sided with her. Nations who sided with the Muslims would still be getting their oil supplies. They might even sell it off for higher prices to the unlucky few! :lonely:

There would be a rift in the World that even the U.N could not fix. Who knows what might happen? Russia gets control of the Balkans and Eastern Europe. North Korea goes back to making Nukes. China gets to rape any nation in East Asia it wants.

Let’s not forget the environmental problems caused by such an attack. Hey! Just because the Middle East it a desert doesn’t mean that it’s not an ecosystem…and a fragile one at that. Also wars, assuming there is one and it’s not just a Nuke-fest, would eat a lot of resources! :chicken:

Too be Honesty I’m not at all surprised by what is happing. In Islam we believe that there are signs that show how close we are to the end of times.

1. Time seems to run fast
2. A nation blocked would be freed (Iraq)
3. A nation free would be Blocked (Palestine)
4. New disease that are popping out of nowhere and no one knows why or how to stop them
5. Muslims are killing each other and when asked why did you kill your brother they would reply that ‘I don’t know’ (Iraq, Palestine, rest of the Goddamned world)
6. The Holy City of Mecca would be attacked and the Kubba (The black thing we walk around. They televise it…if you cared to learn about other nations you’d know what it is…>_>) would be destroyed.

So you see. I’m not surprised. Though I’m not sure about the last one. Also if they do destroy Mecca, then the Muslims would turn to the Holy Mosque in Jerusalem. So instead of having to deal with a few pockets of resistant Muslims, they now have to deal with 1.3 billion of us. :madashel:

No, this will not work for anyone’s favor. Not the Christians, Muslims, or Jews. Not the Democrats or Republicans nor the Americans or Arabs. :goodbad

I hope I didn’t disappoint you nixie

P.S. to the mods you need to fix one of the smilies. :Pirate:

Focus on the bad people ,don't kill innocent people for what a minority do.What you just said would not make us any better than them if we did that.Violence doesn't cure ignorance, mean people or establish peace. I'm sorry but it's true. I get tired of people just saying well if they(terrorist group) attacks us we have to attack back...and more than likely you will end up killing women and children and the bad guys will get away.People still regret us dropping the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which affected them for years afterwords. Some factgs about that for you-Hiroshima's population has been estimated at 350,000; approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. I don't know how anyone could justify doing that to innocent people who don't support the terrorists and just want to live their lives in peace

Of course, there is no such thing as a "total" nuclear response.

At least, not one that anyone walks away from.

So, a nuclear device destroys all of Manhattan Island. Putting aside the fact that it would take quite a nuclear device to do that, much bigger than the ones that vaporized Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, let's say that happens.

What if it isn't actually a bona fide nuclear explosion? What about a just a dispersal of irradiated debris--a "dirty bomb", which is far more likely to actually occur as an act of terrorism. Does this warrant the same "total" response?

So America, in response, should use it's nuclear arsenal, easily the world's largest, to turn Saudi Arabia into beated glass.

It's not too hard to speculate how the situation would turn from there--believe it or not, but international diplomacy includes nations besides the United States. When one country is destroyed by nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time (in this case, seconds or perhaps minutes at most) before other countries look at the aggressor, and recognize the calculated risk that they are next.

Then, they merely need decide whether they should respond first.

Imagine this happening over and over again, in every country in the world--nuclear armed or not. Anyone can realize that, in the ICBM age, this would never happen painlessly.

Remember, people still live in Nagasaki. Chernobyl may be poisoned, but it is, at least briefly, inhabitable. "Total" nuclear retaliation, to America, means a nuclear attack literally millions of times more powerful than either of those events. That is not survivable by anyone.

The Cold War functioned on this premise. In truth, America is not the only country that could trigger the end of life....but it is the nation that could do it easiest.

If terrorists detonated a nuclear device inside America, and ONLY if that were to happen, would I advocate such a response. Furthermore, if such an attack were to occur, I would fully expect to have the entire western world back the United States up. Nobody will tolerate a terrorist attack using nuclear technology. However, the scenario is unlikely at best. Even if terrorists were to get their hands on a nuclear device, do they have the money to build more than one device? Maybe, maybe not. Do they have enough well trained scientists to ensure the device works? Maybe, maybe not. Do they have the ability to transport such a device? Probably not, so a nuclear attack on America would probably have to start in America...it would be almost impossible to smuggle a functional nuclear device in. My guess is that IF they acquired the tech, Israel would be the target, not the US.

No, I definitely thought it was regarding a nuclear attack, not just a terror attack.



And I quite agree.

I totally believe what you say here, if anyone has seen a Friday Prayers.... you be amaze how united Muslims can be, its like drop what ever one is doing and everyone head in one direction. Its scary sometime. I've not seen any religions having this kind of effect on its believers.



on a lighter side

WE MUST CALL JACK BAUER! :sneaky: