Well, a good place to begin understanding would be to not ask for evidence of a position that overstates mine.
I have made no claim regarding a “great sustained effort.” I simply said that many (out of the billion) are opposing al Qaida. These would include members of the former Northern Alliance in Afghanistan who continue to struggle with the Taliban and al Qaida. It would include the Sunni fighters whom General Petraeus has been supporting (to the condemnatory words of Iraq’s al-Maliki. It would include all of the Sadr army (who are attempting to impose a different theocracy, but who are actively waging war on al Qaida). It would include the governemnts of Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and (internal factions aside) Saudi Arabia, along with Pakistan (also troubled by pro al Qaida factions).
As to the lack of open condemnation among various individuals and groups, my guess would be that they are operating on a principle similar to people in the U.S. who refused to condemn the Greek colonels, the Argentinian generals, Somoza, the government of Guatemala, Marcos, Sukarno, Botha and de Klerk, and any number of others because they were purportedly “fighting communism.” When people arbitrarily divide the world in two, then people who may hold more nuanced positions are liable to keep silent so as to avoid being hung out to dry as being the “wrong sort.” At a time when most Muslim societies are just now getting free of the hegemony exercised by (nominally) Christian societies for the first time in decades (in some cases centuries), they probably consider it bad form to denigrate a group that is openly advocating (some version of) Islam.
Actually, tom, I think there may be a simpler explaination. Crazies waving around chrome plated kalashnikovs make good TV, a guy sitting there calmly saying we should treat one another with respect, not so much.
How exactly would we word such a warning? “Hi, just wanted to let you know we’re planning on dropping an atom bomb on your holy city. Thought we’d give you a few days to tidy up. Is Thursday good for you? We could stretch it to Friday but we really want to get this over with so we can kick back and enjoy the weekend. We’ll be in touch (ha ha). Love, America.”
You really should shoot (ha!) for Friday. It would really add to the punch (ha ha!) of the whole thing being as Friday is their holy day and all. Besides, if you did it early enough, you could have the place glowing before Miller time.
But why such a wordy letter? Your air force has experience dropping leaflets over Afghanistan. Just drop a few with the picture of an atomic bomb with the words “coming soon…”
I’d tell you how I’d do it: I’d simultainiously invite the Saudi Ambassador to the US to visit a nuclear missile silo, and a member of the Saudi government in Saudi Arabia to visit a sub docked in a Saudi port. Once inside, they’d be shown all the fancy systems, including the fact that the missiles were now targeted on Mecca and other sites, then they’d be told, “If we get hit by a terrorist attack, we launch a missile. If we get hit by another terrorist attack, we launch another missile. However, we will allow you to pick the order we launch the missiles in.” They’d have plenty of time to clear the population out of those areas if they were really worried that there was going to be an attack. (Come to think of it, that might be a good way to know an attack was coming to the US, if the Saudi’s suddenly moved the population out of a city.)
So, according to this, the Saudi government has total control over all Islamist terrorists and knows precisely who is planning such attacks and when and where they are to take place. I did not know that.
Now if just one of the Whitehouse lackeys can find the courage to tell the most powerful man in the world that its maybe not considered an act of intelligence to bomb a mainstream T.V. station in a friendly country(Al Jazeera)instead of waiting for a visiting Brit.Prime minister to tell him maybe the west could make a bit of progress in the struggle against radical Islamists.
I shudder to think what might have happened if Blair had had to cancel.
I thought Reagans forgetting what country he was in when he made a speech couldnt be topped (though as a bloke I liked him)but it seems I was wrong.
And now we have a presidential candidate blurting out things that go on a lot (assaults on Al Quida bases in Pakistan as a hypothetical future possibility for example)to the world giving the Pakistani government no chance at all to pretend
to be unaware of allied incursions and infuriating even more middle of the road Muslims.
I find it a tad worrying,in Britain if we get a P.M. whos a little bit overenthusiastic in his quest to end all the worlds problems in one fell swoop the civil service has always managed to curb his over enthusiasim and make him/her aware of the consequences .
There doesnt seem to be the same safeguard in the U.S. organisation.
Lust4Life, I was not impressed by Obama’s little foray into international relations, but his complete text, in context, was not quite as stupid as its sound bite–although it was still stupid considering the probable sound bite it would generate. However, a (poorly) nuanced phrase regarding the direct application of military force to a specific enemy in a single country is still a long way from the stupidity of an unqualified threat to destroy neutral religious sites that are venerated by people across the entire globe.
You’ll note that I have not advocated Tancredo’s position in this thread. I’ve merely pointed out that if I was going to issue a warning, that’s how I’d do it. The reason for calling in the Saudi’s is that Mecca is in their country. Don’t you think that if you’re going to be handing out warnings that you’re considering vaporizing cultural landmarks you let the folks in charge of that country know about it?
Huh. I wonder if the average resident of Mecca, knowing it was going to be nuked, would even move? I wonder how many would opt to stay and die there.
And as far as the Saudis having the infrastructure and will to evacuate a city of over a million people…hell, do we even have that? Look at New Orleans.
Bombing Mecca would throw the Saudi government into turmoil and has a good chance of collapsing it. Either way, Saudi oil production will be seriously disrupted, which would throw world oil markets into chaos. Furthermore, the Saudis are huge investors in the US, and they will be hard pressed to keep their assets in the US after such a bombing campaign. They’re either going to liquidate or we’re going to have to freeze their assets to keep them from falling into the hands of a hostile replacement government. All of this translates to severe economic harm for the US. That’s why we’ll never, ever bomb Mecca.
So, a threat to bomb Mecca is nothing more than an idle threat. And idle threats make for bad foreign policy (paper tigers and all that). All that threatening to bomb Mecca does is give PR fodder to our enemies without furthering our security interests one iota.
I suppose if we were completely divested from the Saudi economy and not dependent on their oil than the threat wouldn’t be an idle one. I’ll be waiting for Trancredo to call for a Saudi boycott.
I think a lot of Muslims would be sorta OK with Al Qaeda vanquishing Western Civilization if it didn’t inconvenience them too much, just as many Americans would be sorta OK with the US conquering the Middle East militarily if it didn’t inconvenience us too much. I don’t think they are our friends.
That said, I think bombing Mecca = “playing into the hands of Muslim extremists.”
And I think publicly advocating bombing Mecca=“playing into the hands of Muslim extremists.”
Them = Muslims of the Middle and Far East
Us=Americans
Friends=people who would mind seeing us blowed up or conquered even if it didn’t inconvenience them much
Hold on with the talk about fallout and radiation: Tancredo advocated bombing Mecca and Medina, not nuking them. Bombing them is idiotic, but not as bad as nuking. Don’t put words in his mouth; he doesn’t need the help. Actually, to be strictly accurate, he advocated an attack; we’ve all assumed he meant bombing, but that could be anything.
Egypt is against al Qaida? Huh. I didn’t know that. I wonder if al Qaida knows that.
Pakistan is harboring al Qaida, as near as I can tell.
Otherwise, while I agree with your list, I guess it’s a matter of perception. I’d call that list “A few, actively, and some more, passively;” not “Many…actively.” Out of a billion, I mean.