Yea, I’m still waiting for the electrician. Or someone like him.
Georgie…Tirebiter! He’s not insane!
(Firesign Theater. Go. Find. Listen.)
As regards “melonfarmer”…it is a bleep! substitution that I have noticed on a number of movies televised with dialogue from black characters less-than-artfully revised.
“That cat Shaft is a bad…(Shut your mouth!)…But I’m talking 'bout Shaft!..(Well, we can dig it!)…” Used in deference to the delicate sensibilities of soccer moms and moms who didn’t raise their babies to be cowboys, etc.
Yeah, I’m more concerned about melon collies, myself. But the blues they sent to meet me won’t defeat me.
Yeah, but I think we’re all bozos on this bus.
Squeeze the wheeze?
He’s no fun, he fell right over.
Aw, shoot, as long as we’re hijacking via FST:
Speak, ketchup bottle, for me!
Gee, what would happen if Mecca went all, y’know, kaboom? What if it wasn’t actually the Americans doing it, but some terrorist type who thought “Hey, now that I’ve got this nuke from the disgruntled underpaid former-Soviet scientist, all I have to do is hide it for a little while before putting it on a cargo carrier for New York, so where won’t anyone think to look? How about Mecca?”
Except, of course, the operating manual was all in Russian, so through mishandling, it went off prematurely.
Well, at the risk of getting slammed, I’ll attempt to interpret (not that I have a basis; just thinking off the top of my head).
It sounds a little like an attempt to apply cold war “strategy” with regards to nuclear weapons to modern situations. That is, US and Soviet strategy in a sense was “you can’t nuke me, 'cause I’ll nuke you right back”. Thus, a statement like this congressman’s, is essentially “terrorists won’t nuke US cities because we’d nuke Islamic religious sites” is meant as a deterrent to the action, not necessarily an appropriate response. Not that the majority of the Islamic population or even the population of the cities targeted would be involved, but that such a thret might prevent radicals from taking an action that would result in such a response.
Not that I think he thought of anything like this or meant it in that way, but it could be taken that way.
I wonder if the (dis)hon. Rep. Tancredo is a fan of Randy Newman’s music?
Well, except that even that “best case” interpretation is still about as ridiculous as suggesting that if the IRA had nuked London it would be appropriate to attack St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Some people are just so stupid the using the Principle of Charity to interpret their views is misguided.
“They all hate us anyhow…”
Hey, I love Randy Newman too!
Anyway, while not supporting the Douchebag-CO, the Grand Mosque HAS been attacked and taken over–by Muslims. So it’s not like it’s unprecedented for the place to be a political football. Too bad.
Suppose terrorists nuked New York, killing several million Americans. Turned out only a dozen or so men were directly involved, but they had support from groups in two or three suspect “terror states” like Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (OK, S.A. isn’t listed as a terror state, but it oughtta be.) So, what should our response be? Execute the dozen? Where does that get us in terms of security?
Well, if we execute the dozen, they won’t do it again. Other than that, pressure any country harboring support to give up the supporters–such as the way we handled Afghanistan and Pakistan before we abandoned Afghanistan to go haring after Iraq.
On the other hand, if you were implying that it would be a good idea to nuke Mecca and Medina, you have to explain how alienating every Muslim country in the entire world to say nothing of making us outlaws to every law-abiding non-Muslim country in the world, while handing China and (the new world-power-seeking Putin oligachy of Russia) huge amounts of anti-American propaganda would make us in any way safer.
A statement like “Killing several million” Americans with a single device of the type any terrorist organization might obtain and actually have the expertise to use is a ridiculous exaggeration.
I do not understand how the notion of randomly killing hundreds of thousands of people, for no other reason than that they happen to be adherents of a religion that the terrorists may or may not claim as their own, is an effective response to the highly flawed scenario you propose, or that carrying out such a depraved, barbarous act would do anything at all to materially increase our security. Better if we do our best to uncover and disrupt the activities of any cells planning terroristic acts than to lash out in blind, pointless fury afterward, no?
Could you do me a favor, EC? If this is a bit of droll, Newmanesue irony, could you just come out and say so? I’m real sure Randy Newman doesn’t mean it, but I’m not so sure about you. You’re kidding, right? Ha,ha! Ha. Ha?
What I am saying is, I don’t think executing a dozen terrorists is going to be a sufficiently strong response to forestall further attacks.
You execute a dozen terrorists, a guy like Osama or Zarkawi (sp unsure) is gonna say, “What a deal!” and prep the next dozen for the next attack. There has to be a more powerful response, one that also destroys any groups that supported the terrorists. As TomnDebb said, go after them the way we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. But maybe be willing to go after bigger targets if necessary – Iran or Pakistan, if they turn out to be the refuge of the attackers, and if the governments of those countries aren’t willing to give the groups up and do some major stomping on the ethnic/tribal/political factions that gave rise to them, so they don’t spring up again. (My bet is, those governments would help us, but their help would be wholehearted only if they were sure we’d attack them if they didn’t. So we would ahve to make serious preparations to attack them.)
We should also go after their funding sources, and if those sources led to Saudi Arabia, as they almost certainly would, then so be it. Saudi Arabia would have to give up the funds and the funders or risk losing its biggest ally, perhaps becoming a combatant against its former biggest ally.
You set off a small nuke in Manhattan, you don’t kill millions? Maybe just hundreds of thousands? Think that change in numbers will change the way the American people feel? Hey, a chemical or biological weapon that killed hundreds of thousands of American civilians would have the exact same effect as a nuke.
As for blowing up the Dome of the Rock, hardly an effective threat. More powerful would be occupying Mecca and Medina, and forcing pilgrims to pay a humiliating tax to complete their hejira. This would make us hated in the Arab world, too, but frankly, if we’re getting nuked and gassed and such, we have very little to lose by being hated MORE.
Whadderyou, nuts?! There’s a hell of a difference between being hated by a few thousand trigger-happy Muslim extremist fanatics as part of their dystopic fantasy world, and being hated by several hundred million rational, law-abiding Muslims because we’ve illegally and immorally seized their holy sites in order to oppress and humiliate them in the peaceful observance of their religious practices!
WTF? Is this Calvin & Hobbes “Opposite Day” or something? Yeah, an effective deterrent against crazy fanatical extremists would be to do something that will horrify and infuriate all the ordinary people, which will delight the extremists because they want us to make more enemies! Yeah, that’s bound to work!
There aren’t enough :rolleyes: in the world…
All well and good, but you can’t destroy an idea. No matter how “powerful” our response, ten dozen more terrorists will pop up in the place of those killed. Every time we bomb a villiage or camp, we’ve just created angry brothers and vengeful sons.
That will never happen, not in the current climate. It’s a situation where we need them more than we need us. We have more than adequate evidence that Saudi Arabia openly supports and funds terrorism. (They have telethons, for crissakes!) Saudi Arabia could create a national holiday for Osama, and we wouldn’t do a damn thing about it. Why? Oil and strategic location, that’s why.
I think we do. Being hated is one thing-- the question is whether the person who’s angry is going to do anything about it. Restricting their access to holy sites might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many.
For them, going to Mecca is not like us going to church on Easter. Our faith has (for the most part) become very secularized and lukewarm. For a good deal of Christians, religion is fit into a busy life as best they can. For many in the middle east, they are still as Christians were in the Middle Ages–religion is the most important thing in their lives. It colors every aspect of their day-- it is primary in every decision, every moment.
For some, Western culture is like a virus, infecting the world with secular values of materialism, nihilism and atheism. In this respect, they’re right. Western values have captured the attention of a good portion of the world. They see us as trying to destroy their culture and drain their resources for our own greed. They despise our pride and hypocrisy, and the sense that many have that Americans are better than anyone else. We think everyone on earth wants to be, and more importantly SHOULD be, just like us. This is a terrifying notion to some. They see Islamic values as contrary to Christian values, and thus, they see it as a war against Islam itself.
As Yoda told us, fear leads to anger, anger to hate and hate leads to the Dark Side. These people are willing to kill and die to fight Americanism. You cannot fight this. Violence merely feeds the fire-- it confirms their suspicions. It’s much like the War on Drugs-- it will be long, grossly expensive and completely pointless. Arrest, bomb and spy-- it will do no good. Martyrs are a dime a dozen.
The solution, as I see it, is to do exactly what the terrorists fear most: secularize their countries. Invest in infrastructure, business, manufacturing, education, etc. Give them good-paying jobs and thoughts of a bright future. Within a generation or two, their kids will be wearing blue jeans and listening to pop music.
Wealth secularizes a country. Religion is the focus of lives of those who have nothing else. Once bills, promotions, cars and buying a nicer house becomes the focus, religion takes a back seat. Kids are not so eager to die for god when prom is coming up, and they’re saving to buy a car.