Congressman: 'Take out' holy sites If terrorists nuke U.S.

Rabs said:
If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit.
Click to expand...

that is a very big if, especially considering no slam dunk evidence has been produced, nor have his nuclear weapons
 
Locke said:
Rabs said:
If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit.
Click to expand...

that is a very big if, especially considering no slam dunk evidence has been produced, nor have his nuclear weapons
Click to expand...

Yes it sort of reminds me of telling a cop thats stopped you for speeding that you were only speeding to the gas station so that you could get there before you ran out of gas.

Its an argument that sounds perfectly plausable until you put some thought into it.
 
Well based on the fact my first sentence in the post admitted we had bad intelligence (in part thanks to 8 years of neglect by the clinton adminstration) i thought it was pretty widely known that, that our intelligence was wrong. I used the evidence the president was presented only to explain why he had no choice but military action. Only later did we find this evidence to be false, sorry for the mis-understanding.
 
i seem to remember plenty of voices saying that the iraqi's were co operating, that inspections were being given access.

i am not condoning saddams regieme, but what i am saying is even a twisted despot can see the writing on the wall.

no UN inspections = mighty US armoured fists coming over his borders.



and then rabs, you blame the last democrat president, well how much time in office did dubya have before gulf war II? plenty of time i would've thought considering that there were UN men crawling all over iraq.
and well, if we are going backwards i may as well mention;

bush snr not finishing saddam when he had the chance (and after promises to iraqi dissidents...who were slaughtered)

rumsfield visiting iraq. and the many republican presidents who DID BUSINESS with saddam.


the fact is, many many countries did business with a dictator and were quite happy as long as the oil, and the money kept flowing, and they're all guilty of the end result....a god awful mess
 
Stay on topic please.

We know some of you think that no WMD=no justification for the war in Iraq and others of you think that UN sanctions in place since 1990 allowed plenty of time for WMDs to be exported for the purpose of hiding them and that oil-for-food was a joke.

We also know that the topic here has do do with one Senator's comments on possible retaliatory strike targets. Can you all stick to that train of thought please?

I really don't want to have to lock this thread but.......

Go ahead and start new threads, just stay on topic, thank you.
 
DTop said:
Stay on topic please.

We know some of you think that no WMD=no justification for the war in Iraq and others of you think that UN sanctions in place since 1990 allowed plenty of time for WMDs to be exported for the purpose of hiding them and that oil-for-food was a joke.

We also know that the topic here has do do with one Senator's comments on possible retaliatory strike targets. Can you all stick to that train of thought please?
Click to expand...

Exactly, this line could go on forever. Let me ask anyone what an alternative strike would be in the Middle East. I mean without picking out certain countries and nuking them for effect.
 
i think the manin issue for me is this;


terrorists have no state to call their own.


say al quida detonates either a full nuke or a dirty bomb in a major US city. which country do you nuke in retaliation? pakistan? Saudi? iran?

did the governments and people of those countries knowingly sanction or participate in the terrorist act?

so when you start talking about "nuking mecca" what you are really saying is that you're willing to punish an entire religion PLUS a country, for the actions of a terrorist group.

put it this way, should the UK have bombed the vatican for the actions of irish catholic terrorists?


the 9/11 hijackers were mostly from saudi
the london underground bombers were from pakistan and somalia
 
Couldn't have said it better myself, Chewie. I completely agree with you.

I will add this however, if such an attack did take place. All kid gloves would be off and if you were connected to any of those organizations it would be a shoot to kill for all order. Any of their camps we find get fried entirely, etc., etc.
 
Its not so much retaliation, its more of a threat. If the islamo-nazis know were going to nuke there holy sites if they attack us, they might think twice.
 
i really dont think they are going to intimidated by that threat. thier version of religion is so warped and they are filled with such concerntrated hate that it really wont do much
 
Actually, the Allied forces did very well avoiding hits on Mosques until the snipers started using them as firing positions and weapons caches. I do believe it was the Mullahs who had that stopped by threatening the insurgents.
 
Missileer said:
Actually, the Allied forces did very well avoiding hits on Mosques until the snipers started using them as firing positions and weapons caches. I do believe it was the Mullahs who had that stopped by threatening the insurgents.
Click to expand...


that comment got me thinking back to the big european wars, what was the no 1 choice of position for snipers and artillery spotters? churches.


and i agree with you missileer, US forces have done well to avoid (for the most part) doing damage to holy sites in iraq.


but i think threats along the lines of this senators are going to inflame muslims around the world rather than pacify a few insurgents
 
Rabs said:
Its not so much retaliation, its more of a threat. If the islamo-nazis know were going to nuke there holy sites if they attack us, they might think twice.
Click to expand...

More likely it would be seen as fuel for their fire. "Kill the infidels who would destroy our holy Mecca!" would be a rallying cry I'm sure they'd use. Add to that, it is never a good idea to make a threat you can't or won't backup. If we made such a threat we'd have to be 100% willing to do it and that as some of us have already stated is not a thing we should be doing under any circumstances for the reasons we've already stated as well.
 
Am telling ye ol lads. Commiting such an act is really bad. I mean ok, the terrorists are bloody bad and needs be dealt with, but wut about the other innocent civilians who live there ?? You cant just go ahead and bomb some place just because some other bloody bastards are nuking some place. Either, we should work together and make our goals on capturing those bloody slubidigolions. What says ye good ol chaps??? 8)
 
yes Terrorism is bad. but taking out holy sites will make more of them appear. apparently this congressman doesnt understand that part of the logic
 
I think Tony Blair has come up with the solution. Either become 100% British or leave. Anyone who preaches hate or threats will be deported. I hope he sends them to the Antarctic.
 
i would say "and i hope the penguins kick them out of Antarctica" but there aren't any here, i dont think (read smth somewhere that they are only at one of the poles)
 
Missileer said:
I think Tony Blair has come up with the solution. Either become 100% British or leave. Anyone who preaches hate or threats will be deported. I hope he sends them to the Antarctic.
Click to expand...

Given that the "solution" Blair has "come up with" is a copy of laws France has been using for the last couple of months I think perhaps we should assign credit where credit is due.

However the problem for Blairs law is that it would not have helped in the case of the London attacks where the attackers and the "muslim leaders" were locals which makes deportation kind of silly.
 
Rabs said:
Its not so much retaliation, its more of a threat. If the islamo-nazis know were going to nuke there holy sites if they attack us, they might think twice.
Click to expand...

What you almost surly see happen would be instead of having a few thousand muslims who hate us, you would have every single muslim in the world hate us including those in SE Asia and Africa. That would be in the ballpark of about 1 Billion new terrorists to deal with...

Not a good idea.

MontyB

Well said. Indeed, the French have the strictest anti-muslim extremist laws in the western world.
 
I completely agree with the guy. If we get attacked by islamic terrorists we should hit them where it will really hurts. what is that sacred stone that they all travel too in mecca, i advocate hitting it first,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top