Basically the question is:

In the event of Islamic fundamentalists using a dirty-bomb to nuke a US or other allied city, would it be aceptable to use nukes in Mecca (The Muslim's Holiest of Holy places), as a deterrent and in revenge?

I'd like to see if anyone here would actually support this crazy notion...

yes it would and wouldnt!it would becuase if you have to do something and instead of suffering take the easy way and use a nuke! it wouldnt becouse then it wuld make my buthole hurt

1. I think that nuking Mecca would help Islamic terrorists more than hurt them..

2. It wouldn't be a deterrent, I doubt anyone in the world would back us in our move to do that; And once we did, they'd probably unite against US.

If we did nuke Mecca, I imagine the U.S. would lose any standing in the world; Possibly lead to an embargo of the U.S. by it's former trading partners..

Since our country is unlikely to tolerate being starved to death and spat upon.. I see the worst case scenario as the U.S. using it's nukes as leverage; at that point I think tensions would be so high that even a radar spoof could result in Nuke strikes, retals and so on.. to Nuclear Holocaust; Billions dead, the World-Power infrastructure broken.. Chaos, Civil War, mass destruction.. possibly even the end of the human race..

So in light of all that I said..
Yeah sure, I support it absolutely.. the sooner we blow ourselves to hell, the sooner the wars and killing stop, the 6.5 billion dead as a result of this would be a blessing compared to the untold billions that would die in future wars.. It would IMHO stem the tide of bloodshed..

Last Edited : Saturday, 30 July 2005 - 20:07

Next year they are going to deploy a sonic ray gun that they will use to disperse large crowds of people but it also detonates homicide bombers and car bombers where they stand.
No need to get the world dirty.

TR

PS:

Keep reading down a few headers:

www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_lasers_and_ray_guns.html

TR

Perhaps a more thorough thing to do would be to target all Muslims everywhere and nuke them first. Of course, since they live everywhere on earth, we'd have to nuke everything.

Darn it. I was just beginning to enjoy this planet, too.

I think if Terrorist used Nukes on us we should use Nukes on France.

Following the same logic, muslims should attack the Vatican or Bethlehem whenever they think the US did something wrong.

On a sidenote, anyone preaching violence in responce to violence is not a follower of Christ but rather antichrist. I dare you to find any place where Jesus said violence was the way to solve anything. This leads to that noone that speaks of war against terror should call themself christians. Go repent all of you, seek forgiveness in order to save your soles.

So lets see where we stand... Islam preaches for violence, Clean and straight forward (no rubbish about moderate or fanatic Islam. Just plain and simple reading). Christianity preaches for non-violence (contrary to historical lessons, but let us assume it does so)... so you have a Muslim standing on the one side, slapping the Christian on the other side, with the latter keep turning his 'other cheek' for more slapping to continue.

At what point of time does the Christian losses his head and either losses it permanently from too much slapping or he lowers his head and head-butts the Muslims and breaks his nose?

[BTW, history also shows that a head-butted Muslim stops slapping for several generations... that of course if he is head-butted properly and good.]

Do we learn from history and try to practice our ancestors' hard learned lessons or do we try to re-invent the wheel and seek a method to prolong our misery for the sake of appearing enlightened?

Just a simple question...

Last Edited : Sunday, 31 July 2005 - 06:01

I only pointed out the true christian way There are very few true christians around but a lot of hypocrites that claims to be

Come on LOD... stop dodging the subject/issue... and answer my question...

(Disregarding the discussion about what is true Christianity) Do we practice hard core retaliation which is proven by history to provide unquestionable results, or do we seek to go through whatever means necessary, including many thousands of our own people deaths, to try to conjure a solution in another way.

What do you think?

Rog, all due respect, but this is plain wrong. "hard core retaliation" is NOT new, it has been tried before, in fact throughout history it is pretty much the ONLY method of dealing with insurgency. To say the results are unquestionable is ludicrous. The list of insurgencies that have succeeded despite massive retaliation by stronger powers is quite long.

But the reason for their success is not because of retaliation. Also can you say that if it were not for the retaliation there would not have been more violence?

I call attention to the paragraph under the header
"The Existence of the Right of War".

www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Christians don't have to fight dirty ...
it's recognized that proper authorities have the right to maintain order.

PS:
Are there no policemen in Sweden?
Don't they ever have to use force to apprehend a criminal?

TR

Who said sweden is a christian country? The only christians I can think of is the amish and their likes

Nuke Mecca = No more Saudi oil for the US = More profit for the petrochemical corps. Good idea go for it!


So Rog and BA you are actually in favor of Nuking Mecca in case of a nuclear detonation on US soil?


Doesn't matter who detonates that bomb right? As long as the mass media cry muslims muslims muslims, or Iran Iran Iran Syria Syria Syria...

err Boe, this is not exactly fair. Did I say anywhere in my posts we should nuke Mecca? Nowhere did I mention nukes or Mecca!

Aside from your regular rant about world domination by the large companies' secret agenda, I personally believe that 'an eye for an eye' is not a workable solution against Muslim fundamentalists. I do however think from my own personal experience and from recent history lessons/examples, that 1000 eyes for one eye make sure that you don't lose the second one.

Now I don't think that nuking is a good solution because it taints the Earth and makes places inhabitable. There are other conventional ways to hurt the enemy.

Now, I don't need the media to know who is my enemy, although now with the recent attacks in London I am quite sure that the combined plot of the CIA+MI6+Mossad is uncovered and the great shame of the oil companies will be revealed to all. Right Boe?!

@sam - I am NOT talking about the general idea of insurgencies toppling massive military attacks, e.g. Afghanistan Vs the Soviets. But I do talk about the ways in which Arab regimes have quelled insurgencies for tens of years against in-house rumblings and they have been successful, when they were ruthless enough. I can cite major/national wide examples and also small scale town or village size incidents where in one fell swoop the insurgencies were gone as if never existed.

I have seen it happening with my own eyes once when the Egyptians decided that the Palestinians living in the Egyptian side of Rafah (the Egyptian side of the Gaza strip) were getting too rowdy and belligerent. The Palestinians were shooting at the Israeli soldiers from the Egyptian side knowing the Israelis would not return the fire for not wanting to risk the situation between the countries. So one day a few trucks with Egyptian soldiers show up and raze some 50 houses alongside the border where the Palestinians were shooting from. These were of course homes of families who didn't really object to the terrorists activities... people were running out of the homes at the bulldozers were flattening them and anyone who so much as raised a finger in protest was gunned down. We were watching dumb-struck from the Israeli side of the border. But since then, the Palestinians in the Egyptian side of Rafah, have never ever endangered the Peace between Israel and Egypt for fear of angering the Egyptian authorities again.... and it has been near 20 years now, since I saw it. Now the families who lost their homes would never ever allow anyone to enter their home again and use it as a base for terrorist activity or one that endangers their home again. Fact!

I find it interesting that the more moderate, middle of the road Muslim leaders are beginning to really voice their frustrations and fears. They don't believe Islam is a religion of war and are seeing the effect of radical elements of their religion to be harming the entire religion worldwide.

As I have stated before, not ALL Muslims are fanatical a-holes, in fact, I think it is a very small proportion that is being taught hate through religion.

Unless the world comes to some agreement about whether religions will control war policy or not, we are in for a lot of trouble, caused by religious strife. Since religion relies on faith and not reason, you cannot expect fanatically zealous religionists to think reasonably about these serious issues. They need to be sidelined and thoughtful, moral people with no axe to grind put in power. Then we all can really begin talking, just like we do here in these forums.

Rog is the only active Israeli on Waronline. He has seen war in his own country. I don't expect someone who has seen his friends or family attacked to be reasonable, it isn't human nature.

A friend of mine came back from the Middle East, specifically Israel, a few years back and said the while he was there it all made sense, the attitudes of all parties involved. When he came back here he was amazed that he bought into it all and saw the squabbles over there from a different perspective. To him it all seemed insane again, with no solution possible.

Perhaps the arbiters of international disputes should be uninvolved, neutral observers, able to make judgments without fear of reprisal or outright refusal to understand another point of view. Eh? Let Sweden decide who gets what in the Middle East! Or Tonga! What about New Zealand?

How about the United States?