Why the fresh hell would it? An elected Middle Eastern government would quickly become a fundamentalist state. Just like Iraq would be doing, if we weren’t interfering.
Yes it does. Mecca is valuable to them. The loss of the lives of their fellow Muslims might be brushed off as “becoming martyrs”, but the threat of losing Mecca would give them pause.
Second, I don’t give a damn for the moderate Muslims. I care for my the intrests of my fellow citizens, my nation’s intrests, and my own intrest. To hell with the moderate Muslims. All they really provide is lip service anyway.
As for the thought experiment–I don’t like your straw man argument. I never said to attack Mecca pre-emptively, I said it should be done in response to a nuclear attack on the US, which would have killed millions of my fellow citizens.
The result of that is the Middle East finally realizing that they arten’t going to get anything but death by attacking us.
You refuse to even try to get into the spirit of this thread. Instead of participating in this activity of creativity fueled logic, you sit on your golden pillow and mock everyone else.
If anything, gouda has even more right to voice his opinion than you do, since gouda actually has something constructive to add, and his viewpoint is unfiltered by American media.
Your generalization of, “but you stating you’re from India I am afraid it’s strongly biased.” is troublesome. Try to add, not detract, from this excercise.
I agree with that. The general opinion here in Bombay is that if more moderate muslims came out and actively helped put an end to terrorism (by ratting on people involved in terrorism) instead of just condemning every act of violence, Bombay (victim of 8 bomb blasts in the last eight months) would be a much safer place.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by gouda *
**Right then… Assume just for a moment that you have no clue where I’m from. **
[/QUOTE]
Nice try, but the evidence you provide is the Times of India… All right I forget that also.
I agree with you, that Pakistan does not live up to what the western world sees as a free and democratic country. But a lot of other places aren’t either.
The problem is, that right now the government in Pak opposes al Kaida (if only to appease the USA), but has no real power in the mountains. Actually no one has the means to do anything about it.
But you got me now: I’m interested in your suggestions!
I came into this thread to post my ideas, but was so segwayed (sp?) by T.Mehr that I forgot to do so.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with London Calling. In their short post they have connected a lot of dots to form a logical conclusion. It really opened my eyes.
To add to that, here is my press conference. I would invest heavily into Special Ops and Covert activities. I would use Intelligence and Interrogation technics. I would try to flip loyal Baathists and their appropriate counterparts to help gather Intelligence.
** I assume most of this is already going on. This is a subject that we learned has been happening only after it has been completed, so it is hard to gauge exactly how many foot soldiers we have working this angle, and the success percentage.
**
I would not keep any European countries out of the loop any longer. It is important for us to mend our international fences and continue to show our united front against Terrorism, as what happened in the days after 9/11. It is also important to gain the confidences of Arab countries. The faces shown fighting Terrorism must be off all colors.
It is important to get Iraq and Afghanistan up and running as soon as possible, but hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day either.
The important thing to understand about this is that such a huge undertaking will take time, lots of money, and will inevitably involve lots of gunpowder. I would emphasize patience.
All right, I apologize for my comments on gouda - they were not helpful for the debate!
I don’t see, where I’m mocking everyone when I dare to show my surprise on someone proposing to bomb Mecca - even if it’s just a threat.
And I repeat what I consider an important point:
In my opinion this is not a war of religions. And my initial objection to gouda stems from the fact that I still have to meet an Indian who is not a muslim and does not hate muslims.
Mecca, eh. A city that serves no military purpose other that being the home of about 1.4 million innocent and peaceful inhabitants (3.4 million during the pilgrimage). Mecca, the sprital homeland of about a billion people (1/6 of the planet). Nuke it, eh?
I really don’t know what would happen if Mecca was razed to the ground by a nuclear weapon. However, if this was to happen expect massive violent protests and uprisings from New Zealand to Paris. Expect the world to join hands together in total and complete condemnation of this horrific and unprovoked slaughter.
Expect worldwide sanctions against the US, an outright declaration of war from every Islamic country in the world, every country with a majority to large Muslim population, every country with any anti-American leanings already (opportunists), and many humanitarian countries currently in the European union and elsewhere.
Also, no American would be safe in the world, anywhere.
And that’s just world condemnation, also expect massive home grown American disapproval. I have little doubt that there would be a sizeable fifth column created the day that the US government starts firing off nuclear weapons at third party cities heavily connected to Islam.
Why the focus on foreign (to the US) countries being the source of terrorism. You are talking about ensuring the “safety of americans” - hence the administration should start at home where there is the greatest threat of terrorism to US citizens.
Better coordination of antiterrorist intelligence in the USA
But it’s OK if a US city with several times that number dies by fire. Or a European city.
And it’s wrong to fight back.
I cannot, in this forum, express the full measure of contempt I have for you and T. Mehr, swami.
** For all intents and purposes, this already prevails, or nearly so, and did before 9/11. So what?
**
If a nuclear weapon goes off on our own soil, no American is safe in his or her own home, so why would we possibly care if we were unsafe elsewhere?
If an atom bomb is used on US soil, there is not one single person, save the mentally unstable, who would protest.
In fact, if an a-bomb were used, and the US did not retaliate in kind, I would expect rioting in the streets.
And, if one million of our people were killed, do you actually believe we would not be within or rights to retaliate?
Well, suppose it was Paris that was destroyed. France has shown it’s own brand of contempt for world opinion when it comes to it’s nuclear program. Just take a stroll on a certain South seas island. With a Geiger Counter, of course.
Do you believe that France would not unleash the full measure of it’s fury?
Or Italy?
Or Russia?
You boys live in a dream world, where everybody can get along if we all smile, hold hands. and sing campfire songs.
Sorry. Nobody promisede you that was true. The real world is cruel, and relations between nations is often like feeding time in the Shark pool.
Some of you guys seem to take it as a fact, that the goal of any citizen of an islamic country is to launch attacs on the western world. Fortunately that is not the case.
The primary issue of any plan to fight terrorism must thus be to increase the number of folks who like the west (or are indifferent) and to decrease the number of folks who hate it.
A difficult task, but killing people does not serve it!
But it’s OK if a US city with several times that number dies by fire. Or a European city.
And it’s wrong to fight back.
I cannot, in this forum, express the full measure of contempt I have for you and T. Mehr, swami.
** For all intents and purposes, this already prevails, or nearly so, and did before 9/11. So what?
**
If a nuclear weapon goes off on our own soil, no American is safe in his or her own home, so why would we possibly care if we were unsafe elsewhere?
If an atom bomb is used on US soil, there is not one single person, save the mentally unstable, who would protest.
In fact, if an a-bomb were used, and the US did not retaliate in kind, I would expect rioting in the streets.
And, if one million of our people were killed, do you actually believe we would not be within or rights to retaliate?
Well, suppose it was Paris that was destroyed. France has shown it’s own brand of contempt for world opinion when it comes to it’s nuclear program. Just take a stroll on a certain South seas island. With a Geiger Counter, of course.
Do you believe that France would not unleash the full measure of it’s fury?
Or Italy?
Or Russia?
You boys live in a dream world, where everybody can get along if we all smile, hold hands. and sing campfire songs.
Sorry. Nobody promisede you that was true. The real world is cruel, and relations between nations is often like feeding time in the Shark pool.
I would assume the “hog farm” comments come from the practice of burying Islamic terrorists bodies, wrapped in pigskin, as to deter them, insult them, and prevent them from entering their version of heaven.
In modern times, Russia has practiced this method with Chechen terrorists.
Not at all,Daisy Cutter. What better memorial than thousands of shitting squealing animals that stink up the countryside for miles and are of absolutely no use to Muslims.
Because in the mind of the jingoistic American ideologue, the “war on terrorism” is an irreducible clash of cultures. The Bush administration’s unique neo-conservative slant on “Amuhrica” (as Dubya pronounces it) has elevated “the American Way” to religious status. As any political scientist can tell you, when you bring religion, or any similarly irreducible ideology, into a conflict, the breadth of the possible solution set that would conclude the conflict becomes so small as to require the elimination of one or both poles of the dispute.
The fact is, jarbabyj, that not a one of the vehemently jingoistic posters in this thread is intellectually capable of perceiving a different point of view as valid.
A rare few posters have in fact managed to state the obvious: the elimination of terror requires the elimination of its causes, not its practitioners. In the case of the present-day conflict, decades of exploitive and manipulative U.S. foreign policy combined with an institutional ignorance of foreign cultures has coalesced into a “perfect storm” of disaffected fundamentalists vulnerable to the manipulation of their own home-grown extremists. Nazi Germany was the same way - Hitler was the Devil incarnate, but the conditions which allowed him to come to power were squarely the responsibility of the Great Powers determined to humiliate the German people. Likewise bin Laden - Western indifference to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, combined with the systematic manipulation of Middle Eastern relations to secure the flow of oil resulted in a vast disenfranchised population vulnerable to a radical fundamentalist with a moralistic rallying cry, “Allah u’akbar!”
My press conference announcement?
All people in government working directly with Muslim countries, governments, or organizations must know what the f#@$ Islam is.
All these same people must either speak Arabic or be assisted by someone who does.
American foreign policy will be redesigned to reflect a single fundamental philosophy commensurate with the ideals for which American stands. No more situational ethics, no more propping up dictators, etc., etc. My personal preference for this would be “The United States of America will support through all appropriate means the right of all people to determine their own system of governance, provided that system is respectful of the rights of those who oppose it. All this shall be accomplished through non-violent means wherever possible. Should the use of force become necessary to secure the physical safety of others, it will be used with the consensus of the American people and to its maximum appropriate capacity.”
Enlist the active cooperation of the entire energy industry (oil, electric, coal, gas, etc.) in the explicitly stated goal of becoming a self-sufficient nation in this respect. Tax credits to be liberally distributed to those willing to abandon “business as usual”. Strict environmental enforcement of those who cling to the status quo. Whatever they come up with has to be vetted by a fully funded EPA. If it kills trees, it’s no go.
The immediate deportation to Afghanistan: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom deLay, Trent Lott, Katherine Harris, Dick Cheney, Jeb and George W. Bush, Fabio, Judge Judy, Bobby Knight, Keyshawn Johnson, Snoop Dogg, Sean Combs, Ben Affleck, the Hilton twins, Weird Al Yankovic, Celine Dion, the cast and crew of ABC’s “American Dreams”, and the entire Duke University men’s basketball program.
