It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yeah baby! - "Congressman: Mecca a possible retaliation target"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Now were talking! about time somebody on the hill grew some nuggets.

CNN

"DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded."


I, for one, am 100% behind this if any radical Islamic group used a WMD on US soil.

Why? Because we need main streem MUSLIM help keeping that from happening. If the entire Muslim community believed that this would be the response from the USA if a Islamic group used a nuke, then they themselves would do everything they could to keep the radicals among them in check. Hey, islamic law states: And eye for an eye...



[edit on 18-7-2005 by skippytjc]




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Cohercing everyone in the Muslim faith to do the US's bidding by instilling fear of destruction of the holiest of holiest of sites of their religion.

Hows that not terrorism?

I remember you saying rather recently that you, skippy aren't for the US to attack Iran and other Islamic nations and aren't warmongering in your threads and aren't against Islam as a whole.

Now, well, hows saying "YEAH BABY!" and that your 100% behind it, to a mention of nuking holy sites of a 1 Billion person religion of which some radicals are causing problems, not being a warmongering racist and utterly hypocrit?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I am really not for this. You are talking about hurting all muslims for something that extremists have done. Now if it is proven that a muslim backed gov't. condoned a nuclear attack against the U.S. , that would be different.
But it's like saying that some hardcore neo-nazi's from america go over to Isreal and set off a nuke. Does that then mean just because they were from America that Isreal then should destroy targets in America?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
This is exactly what they should do if the muslim fundametalist attack the US with nukes.
They hide behind their women and children(innocents) and know that we wont be able to do to them what they do to us, so yeah this is a pretty good option IMHO.

Take the fight to them, if you hit us we HIT you- That way they will hopefully think twice before they attampt anythink like nuking the US, which I doubt they truly can.
But could depend on the type of Muslims I think, because some fundamentalist maybe even shia so they dont think Mecca is that holy as the sunni's.

I feel that these fundamentalists are there today because Muslims in general haven’t bothered to tackle this menace and so let it spread to such an extent, every nation bordering a Muslim nation has always faced these extremist and so I feel it is the duty of all Muslims to sort their own house in order otherwise they will have to pay collectively for the crime of a few of them as most of them have committed the crime of "indifference and negligence".
So yeah I believe that if they (Muslims) can’t be bothered to take preventive measures to keep their lunatics in check, they must also have to pay the price for such negligence.

Just as the US paid the price for its negligence towards the Al-qaeda(AKA The umbrella).



[edit on 18-7-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Doing this will bring the 1 Billion muslims around the world together and really get them pissed at the US, believing what extremists say when they say the US as a whole is the den of evil.

Its another halfassed idea that will bring about the exact opposite of whats it supposedly supposed to do.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Cohercing everyone in the Muslim faith to do the US's bidding by instilling fear of destruction of the holiest of holiest of sites of their religion.

Hows that not terrorism?

I remember you saying rather recently that you, skippy aren't for the US to attack Iran and other Islamic nations and aren't warmongering in your threads and aren't against Islam as a whole.

Now, well, hows saying "YEAH BABY!" and that your 100% behind it, to a mention of nuking holy sites of a 1 Billion person religion of which some radicals are causing problems, not being a warmongering racist and utterly hypocrit?


Are you for real? Let me get this straight: The US would possibly bomb Mecca AFTER it was attacked by ISLAMIC terrorists fighting in THE NAME OF THIER RELIGION with a nuclear attack, and the USA would be terrorists for that?

What would you suggest? We bend over and give them a warm place to put the nukes?

You need to come back to Earth my friend.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I agree with my own post and what Matrix says.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
So, lets see, a lil example.

Some rogue CIA agents get up to no good in Europe, killing some, dealing drugs, whatever, as a retaliation, the EU blows up Washington DC, The Farm, the White House and Cape Canaveral.

Whoa, nice, that'll teach the US ... NOT. It'll most likely get the US to trow all it has at the EU.

Your the one that needs to get back down to earth and see the world other then black and white. Good and Evil. Right and Left.

There's a whole range of grey area between it.

Not to mention blowing up the Islamic holy sites, as I said before in this thread, will bring about what should be avoided at all costs.

The Unity of the Islam world. That together with each and every Muslim and probably also the rest of the world seeing the US as the evil that needs to be fought.

Fighting fire with fire will get you burned.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Once again, I am a bit confused.

I was taught that if a sniper is in the tower of a church, you may not use artillary to get him; you should use the least amount of fire necessary to get him, thereby damaging the church the least.

When did things change? Yeah, I've been out of the military for years, but come on.
I think Tancredo is talking out his butt because his mouth should know better.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
You need to come back to Earth my friend.


Pot, kettle, black.........

Hey we could always dip the nukes in Pigs blood too yeah?

Yeee-Haaww



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Matrix -

And your solution would be???

What do you suggest the US do if placed in that situation? Go over talk to some fundamentalists, slap them on the hand and tell them that the next time this happens we'll be forced to do something?? I think not.

In this hypothetical situation, we could be talking about millions of Americans dead. You really think that the public is going to want to talk at that point? All bets are off. You hit them in the one place that they know you wouldn't dare touch. Make belivers out of them. You can't play pacifist in this situation.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
so, if some right wing kook says it is against god's will to have an abortion and he decides to destroy abortion clinics around the country, we can go ahead and destroy the vatican?

good to know.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
YEAH BABY!

RIDE IT, BABY!



"To Plunder, to Slaughter, to Steal, these things they misname Empire; and where they make a Desert, they call it Peace..."




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Dr. Know, your avoiding the discussion on how stuppid it would be to nuke the Islamic holy sites in case of another attack on US soil.

There's people in Washington being paid #loads of money to solve these problems in a timely and decent way.

If a nuke was detonated on US soil by terrorists, you shouldn't be thinking of 1000 ways to blow up muslims, but you should be asking how the hell your goverment could let this happen AGAIN, only 4 years after 9/11.

And anyways, if I did have to come up with the solution, I would shove the quacks like this congressmen aside and start thinking like a real docter and treat the cause of the problem, not nuke the crap out of the symptoms.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I love how things get taekn out of context. The following is from the article. the US haters... why not read a bit before chomping down and running with the bull?




Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."



This is just another "what if" scenario just like... back during the cold war someone saying that Moscow would be bombed
IF Russia were to nuke the US.

I know, I know, it will not deter the hatemongers out there on both sides i would hope though that people actually read before ranting.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This is the problem with a lot of mainstream American thinking, they need things simple. Enemies that you can identify... bad guys and good guys... places to flatten. When the problem of Islamic extremism comes along (or rather boils up to a noticable head) people ask 'So what country is that? Can we bomb it?' instead of realising that sometimes things are more complex, or evcen simply more disparate than US vs Russia or Christian vs well.. everyone...

This stupid remark about the bombs is just trying to give the radical MINORITY a big statist target that those Pentagon loons can get a big whoop-whoop about on their big board should the worst happen. The fact is you can't attack ideas with nuclear weapons, just large innocent populations.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Yeah baby? Everyone would be killed the world over. Whatever floats your boat.

Besides, it IS an unfair proposition, because the attack would not be anything against the "extremists", they would probably prefer it to happen because then all the Muslims would absolutely hate America.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I love how things get taekn out of context. The following is from the article. the US haters... why not read a bit before chomping down and running with the bull?




Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."



This is just another "what if" scenario just like... back during the cold war someone saying that Moscow would be bombed
IF Russia were to nuke the US.

I know, I know, it will not deter the hatemongers out there on both sides i would hope though that people actually read before ranting.


well it would be a very stupid 'ultimate response'... very doomsday machine



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Hey, skippy, so I guess according to your infinitely insightful "YEAH BABY" logic, the Iraqi insurgents should nuke the Vatican because Christian Bush and his gang of terrorists used all those WMDs on Iraq, a country which had no WMDs of its own to speak of and had no connection to al Qaeda. Nice one, buddy. Way to use that brain cell.


BTW such a maniacal ideal, to attempt to achieve a political goal through the institution of fear, is the very definition of terrorism; which is the exact same noun that I thought you and the rest of the neocon crowd are supposed to be fighting a war against. I don't know what you think you stand to gain by buying into all this neocon BS...a peaceful world? Security? A necon scout badge? Newsflash, BushCo's plans don't incorporate anything rosy for you or your children; you and they would/will be sacrificed to the cause just as quickly as a "liberal douche".

We had a neo-Nazi that was recently insta-banned, and rightly so, and yet hate-peddling, warmongering, racist, anti-Muslim members like you are allowed to constantly pinch their vitriolic loafs all over this forum. I really don't understand it...




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Matrix -

While your points are valid ones, how do you put the crap back in the horse once it's out? You could take the government to task on how they could "allow" this sort of thing to happen again, but how is that going to fix what just occured?

See, the real problem in this hypothetical senario is that there is no sovereign government to stike back at, there is no sovereign government to levy sanctions against. How do you formulate a sound solution when you only know that the persons responsible for this are Islamic fundalmentalists? Hit them where you know they are most vulnerable, Mecca.

Second, who says you have to level Mecca with a nuclear weapon? Why not just a couple of strategically placed conventional missles?? Limits casualties and let these fundalmentalist know that the US isn't going to tolerate this type of terrorist behaviour. They're not safe even in their holiest of cities.

The US citizentry isn't going to sit back and wait for the government to formulate a politically correct retalliation. They will want swift vengance.

I know you say you can't fight fire with fire or you'll eventually get burned, but what happens when you haven't been burned only once but twice now by these fundalmentalists? Same analogy apply?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join