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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Maximus, hitting Muslim holy sites is not hitting the source of the Jihad, it's hitting the source of ALL Muslims. If you are talking about only hitting certain areas where extremist are holed up, then that is different. But we are doing that now anyway when we have the proper intelligence info.. It's just hard to know where they are holed up and who is who.
I used to be a scout/sniper in Korea for the Army (like Marine recon). It's impossible to tell a North Korean from a South Korean (unless they are in a military uniform) and then on top of that it's very hard to tell what South Koreans side with the North Koreans.
the same example can be used for extremist Muslims.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by GREGNOW]




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   


"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.


While I've (jokingly) supported this....it would be similar to condoning the bombing of a church if a Christian group (not even affiliated with said church) bombs an abortion clinic...

You'd be punishing millions upon millions of peaceful muslims, just to punish the few perpetrators...

Admittedly, it'd be an effective tactic, if not a moral one....so I suppose one would have to decide which is more important...tactics or morality. Sadly, the current administration lacks either of these merits in any measurable quantity...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Greg, you made some good points and at least you did not hurl insults my way, but the fact of the matter is that Muslims will never like us....all we can do at this point is make them fear us.

Ill let it go at that.

Maximu§



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Jetsetter, if we were hit by a WMD, the first thing the CIA and others wouldf be doing is to determine is if it was sanctioned by an official "Muslim" gov't. If it was, then we would probably strike back in the same way as some of you are saying in this thread. But if intell. was to show that it was not backed by an offical gov't. , then we would demand that the country the extremist's were living in, do everything they could to help us locate them and they would then be brought to justice. "Justice", in the case of the military, would be either actually capturing them or bombing their specific location.
NOT just bombing "holy sites" that would not only be punishing the extremist's, but then that would also be punishing all Muslims, which in that case would then turn ALL Muslims against us.
Again, it's like saying a group of neo-nazi's from America take a trip to Isreal and set off a WMD because they do not like Jews. So what you are saying then, is that Isreal should just picked targets in America and bobm them. What if that target is YOUR church or neiborhood? You had/have nothing to do with the neo-nazi's, but they hit your area simply to make a point to the extremist neo-nazi's because they are America. Does that make sense to any of you when you stop and really think about it, instead of letting your anger think for you?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
They already do fear us, which is why so many of them hate us.
The reason there is so much hatred of the US, is because there is so much fear of the US. You don't see a lot of hatred out there for Canada or Sweden, do you? Why? Because nobody is scared Canada or Sweden are going to bomb the living bejeezus out of them.

When someone frightens you, do you get scared and run away, or do you attack? I am betting you attack, just like me.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
The Source of the "Jihad" Against America is Right Here.



Ill admit Souljah, I don't know why Bush is protecting the Saudi's.

I mean the Saudi Royal Family should have been at the top of our "take-down" list.

I sure the Hell hope this scenero does not go down, because America will freak-out in the worst way.

Maximu§



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Maximus, you have to understand that Muslims already fear us. That is why they are carrying out attacks against us. The extremist believe we are the same as Satan and we are trampling all over their holy lands. The way they think can be said to be if a Muslim army were to come here and trample over Christian churches and were trying to set up a gov't. here that was American, but backed the Muslim Army's way of thinking.
They do not want America's way of thinking invovled with their countries in the same way you do not want their way of Muslim thinking trying to overrun your way of thinking/life.
There is no simple way to deal with extremist's that are not part of an officail gov't. backed military. you can not punish the entire Muslim people in the middle East because of extremist's.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
xmotex, radical Islam Hates America because we're a Christian nation and we're the ONLY ones standing in their way along with a few allies.

They have Hated us Christians Loooonnngggg before we had Nuclear weapons, so try and use a better arguement next time.


Maximu§



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by Souljah
The Source of the "Jihad" Against America is Right Here.


Ill admit Souljah, I don't know why Bush is protecting the Saudi's.

If you dont know, I suggest you go to the Closest Library or Book Store and pick up that book and read it.

Its pretty much Obvious then....

If the Saudis had been happy with the presidency of George H.W. Bush -- and they were -- they must have been truly ecstatic, in the summer of 2000, that his son was the Republican candidate for president. Indeed, the relationship between the two dynasties had come a long way since the seventies when Saudi banking billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden had flown halfway around the world to buy a secondhand airplane from James Bath, George W. Bush's old friend from decades before. Even bin Mahfouz's subsequent financing of the Houston skyscraper for James Baker's family bank or the Saudi bailout of Harken Energy that helped George W. Bush make his fortune were small potatoes compared with what had happened since.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
xmotex, radical Islam Hates America because we're a Christian nation and we're the ONLY ones standing in their way along with a few allies.

They have Hated us Christians Loooonnngggg before we had Nuclear weapons, so try and use a better arguement next time.


Maximu§


Thye hated Christians LONG before the USA existed...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Greg, America is involved in Islamic nations business because if left to their own ends, they will go over the deep end with their religious Jihad.

So instead of blowing them off the map, we're trying to give the moderate Muslims a chance to rule, but if we get hit with Nukes....all bets are off.


Max



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
"A conspiracy theorist could handily conclude from Islamic history that Rome had carefully nurtured Mohammad to create a religious discipline that solidified his fellow Ishmaelites into a systematized form of evildoing which the papacy could employ or punish according to its needs in solidifying world order under itself."

www.tuppersaussy.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   


xmotex, radical Islam Hates America because we're a Christian nation and we're the ONLY ones standing in their way along with a few allies.


That may have something to do with medieval Christians attempt to slaughter them all during the Crusades. Maybe that has something to do with why there are radical Muslims in the first place.

I still stand by my consistent idea: the best way to defeat the radicals is by courting good relationships with the moderates. Indiscriminate acts that target Muslims in general, and not just the radicals specifically, just drive more people into the hands of the fanatics.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Max, you have to realize that "Muslim extremists" are not the only one's out there with WMD. A friend of a friend of mine who was invovled in "certain undercover investigations" right here on U.S soil once broke up the sale of a red parakeet missle being sold to an AMERICAN group (like 8 or 10 years ago). The missle is a Chinese missle that is hand held and can shoot down a plane. The guy trying to sell it was a Chinese guy and his exact words were that "this can shoot down a 747". My friend said that for every sale like that that they break up, there are probably 9 more going on they do not know about.
My point is that these were not Muslims trying to buy this thing, they were American's. However, they could have bought it and could have posted a claim that they were Muslims from Iraq or whereever and people would believe it and demand we retailate against the Muslim extremists, when they did not even do it.
An American out there may have a WMD (not just a missle) and the same scenario could be carried out. It is well know that around 100 low yield nukes went missing from inventory from the Russian Army when the U.S.S.R. fell apart. Not sure if that link someone put up mentions that or not, but that is a fact. Who knows who has those things. They can be carried by one man on his back in a backpack and set off by one man.
That's why we have intell. and we just do not go dropping bombs.
The truth and scary thing is, that it does not have to be Muslims that set off a WMD. It could be anyone (even an American) and they could claim on the net they are Muslim.
There are more Tim McVey's out there, he is not an islolated case, just one that actually did something and got caught



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Pure Ignorance and hate.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Next stop:

Nuking the Vatican if christian fanatics do something as stupid. Hello Ireland, goodbye pope.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Ah, lets leave the Tim McVey's out of this one shall we?

I think he was a POS and got what he deserved, but the fact of the matter is....almost all terror acts are carried out by Muslims.

Im sorry to say if America gets hit with WMD, Mecca may well be in our gun-sights.

Xmotex, why are the "Crusades" always brought up in regards to Muslim anger? The Crusades was not an act of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression. Read a little hsitory, in the mean time...lets stick with current events.


Maximu§



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueEyes
Next stop:

Nuking the Vatican if christian fanatics do something as stupid. Hello Ireland, goodbye pope.


You know what blueeyes, I would agree with you on this front. If there were a radical christian group that were to use nukes to decimate a city of innocent civilians, then it was discovered that the radicals were hiding out at vatican city.... I would say that it should be wiped out.

I am sorry is this sounds radical, I am a christian (although not by RANT's definition
) If there is a radical religious group no matter the faith, wishes to use their holy sites as bases of operations under the false presumption that they are safe...... they will be sorely mistaken.
This is not a viewpoint of prejudism but one of practicality.
As has been known by most of the world, fighting terrorists is an almost no win situation. They perform hit and run operations. Anyone can / could be a terrorist even the person sitting next to you so identifying a person as being a terrorist is not easy and in most cases immpossible before the terrorist announces themselves, at which time, the announcement will be at the cost of many other innocent victims. Look at the recent occurances in London.
If a terrorist group is religiously biased, such as the Al-Queda et.al, what better way of hitting them than announcing that if they do attack, their holy site would be in jepardy? Mayhap then other muslims would do more than give lip service of denying the terrorists and actually turn on them and put a stop to the insanity? If the lose of something sanctosanct were to be put in danger, then anyone supporting such groups may have second thoughts on assisting them.

One difference that I have with your example, in the case of Ireland and the IRA, that is a national issue and not one that is faith based as such, there is a real target not on of such a nebulus consistency as that of these islamic exteremists.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
People should definitely read more history in order to better predict the future.

Start with Saladin. Then go to Raynald of Chatillon.

Right about now folks should be seeing a similarity to current events...

Then
Raynald: "We'll attack Mecca."
Saladin: "I'm going to cut off your head."
Now
Idiot waste of taxpayer money: "We'll nuke Mecca."
Radical Muslim Mouthpiece: (what happens here? Guess?)

This politician ought to be air-lifted into Mecca so he can meet some of the millions of muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, and neither condone it nor assist it in anyway. He can face their judgement, just as he expected them to face his.

What a turd of a federal paycheck-disposal unit.

How many conventional bombs are going to go off because of this fool and his big mouth?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I am sorry is this sounds radical, I am a christian (although not by RANT's definition
) If there is a radical religious group no matter the faith, wishes to use their holy sites as bases of operations under the false presumption that they are safe...... they will be sorely mistaken.
This is not a viewpoint of prejudism but one of practicality.
As has been known by most of the world, fighting terrorists is an almost no win situation. They perform hit and run operations. Anyone can / could be a terrorist even the person sitting next to you so identifying a person as being a terrorist is not easy and in most cases immpossible before the terrorist announces themselves, at which time, the announcement will be at the cost of many other innocent victims. Look at the recent occurances in London.
If a terrorist group is religiously biased, such as the Al-Queda et.al, what better way of hitting them than announcing that if they do attack, their holy site would be in jepardy? Mayhap then other muslims would do more than give lip service of denying the terrorists and actually turn on them and put a stop to the insanity? If the lose of something sanctosanct were to be put in danger, then anyone supporting such groups may have second thoughts on assisting them.



I wish I could have worded my arguement as well as you did....woulda saved me alot of time.

Max



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join