US Presidential Hopeful wants to bomb Mecca
05 Aug 2007, 11:31 pm
Quatermass wrote:
Nuclear deterrence does not work against such a nebulous enemy. Destroying Mecca, even in retaliation from a terrorist nuclear strike, would incite a massive retaliation against all non-Muslims. Escalation upon escalation, until all that is left of Earth is a radioactive cinder. Thus, he is an imbecile to make such a statement. You are blind or blinkered if you cannot see that.
Not to mention that the large scale bloodshed and sacrilegious nature of such an act (presumably with extensive collateral damage) would divide terrorist target nations against themselves, as many would rise up in protest of the actions of their own countrymen. Divisive and destructive, all around.
Whether the man was misquoted or not (and I have no doubt that such things happen with some frequency), he should have foreseen the spin that would be put on whatever it was that he actually uttered. He doesn't exactly seem like a man of subtleties and restraint, that's for sure. That's not the sort of personality any country needs in any type of office.
(Well, maybe on a used car lot.)
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
05 Aug 2007, 11:33 pm
gwenevyn wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
Nuclear deterrence does not work against such a nebulous enemy. Destroying Mecca, even in retaliation from a terrorist nuclear strike, would incite a massive retaliation against all non-Muslims. Escalation upon escalation, until all that is left of Earth is a radioactive cinder. Thus, he is an imbecile to make such a statement. You are blind or blinkered if you cannot see that.
Not to mention that the large scale bloodshed and sacrilegious nature of such an act (presumably with extensive collateral damage) would divide terrorist target nations against themselves, as many would rise up in protest of the actions of their own countrymen. Divisive and destructive, all around.
Whether the man was misquoted or not (and I have no doubt that such things happen with some frequency), he should have foreseen the spin that would be put on whatever it was that he actually uttered. He doesn't exactly seem like a man of subtleties and restraint, that's for sure. That's not the sort of personality any country needs in any type of office.
(Well, maybe on a used car lot.)
Hey, hey, Nixon already brought that to the WhiteHouse. . .
06 Aug 2007, 8:49 am
Well, there's one easy way to piss off one and a quarter billion people (minus those killed in the blast at Mecca) -- Denmark tried something similar a couple of years ago (albeit using drawings rather than nuclear weapons), and it sure as heck caused more problems than it solved...!
As I see it, the only way to avoid terrorist attacks is not to catch the terrorists before they cause their mayhem, but to avoid becoming a target of terrorism in the first place.
06 Aug 2007, 1:18 pm
I don't think we need to bomb mecca... however, i did read once that US forces were able to successfully stop suicide attacks in the Phillipines during WWII by dousing their bullets with pigs blood, and burying the suicide bombers with pig body parts...
The suicide bombers were so afraid that the pig parts would prevent their entry into heaven that the suicide attacks stopped immediately...
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
06 Aug 2007, 7:59 pm
jrknothead wrote:
I don't think we need to bomb mecca... however, i did read once that US forces were able to successfully stop suicide attacks in the Phillipines during WWII by dousing their bullets with pigs blood, and burying the suicide bombers with pig body parts...
The suicide bombers were so afraid that the pig parts would prevent their entry into heaven that the suicide attacks stopped immediately...
The suicide bombers were so afraid that the pig parts would prevent their entry into heaven that the suicide attacks stopped immediately...
yeah, well, as this article shows, it doesn't work like that anymore, because the victims are known by Allah to have been coerced.
pigs blood doesn't seem to bother pork eaters, however there is other things done at Gitmo that pretty much crosses the line
Spew alert/ under 18 (unless you are a woman) not suggested
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/ ... 1602.shtml
_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon
07 Aug 2007, 9:43 am
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnengl ... deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
08 Aug 2007, 9:27 pm
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
08 Aug 2007, 10:28 pm
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.) Also, this figure is theoretically representative of religious-based killing, and not generic warfare where both sides happen to be of a broadly similar religion. (So that precludes both world wars for a start, in the same way that my total ignores the iran/iraq conflict)
At this point I will take a definitive position. Islam is starting to really irritate me. They want to believe their god is the one true god etc etc, fine, Im not going to stop them. They can believe god is made out of alien cheese for all that i would care or notice. They can worship the almighty gobstopper if they prefer.. so long as they leave me out of it. (And by me, i mean me, my family, friends, and anyone else who doesnt care to be Islamic.)
Innocent people who are just trying to go about their daily lives are dying all over the world, because someone thinks their god is best. Do these people really think that a glasgow taxi-driver, or a london commuter have anything at all to do with global politics? I'll wager that the receptionist on the 52rd floor of tower 2 couldnt have even found Afghanistan on a map. By that same logic, I cant imagine for a minute that most of the population of Afganistan know where London is either, nor do they care.
Do they not realise that someone forced to accept a religion is not a true believer? Do they not realise that the war on the great satan is completely futile? Do they not even comprehend their own hypocrisy? ( Its forbidden to fly a kite because it flies in gods airspace, but a stinger missile is acceptable???) By dint of their aggresive actions, they have even created a whole new phobia that didnt exist before. Religious wars were old during the crusades, and at least then people had an excuse for being ignorant.
I do not now, nor do I ever wish to subscribe to Islam, and will thank the fundamentalists to NOT spend time and effort on either killing or converting me, especially not whilst claiming state benefits from the country that they revile, because the country they wish to replicate threw them out. Thats just rude.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
08 Aug 2007, 10:44 pm
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.)
yeah, the 'odd witch'
Current estimates of the total number of executions of innocent people range from 3,000 (by one Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (by many Neopagan sources). The actual figure, based on the examination of court documents and estimates of the number of lost records, is probably in the range of 50,000 to 100,000.
Most of the death sentences were passed by civil courts, not by the Catholic Church. However, the church was indirectly involved, as it provided the theological foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts.
08 Aug 2007, 10:59 pm
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.)
yeah, the 'odd witch'
Current estimates of the total number of executions of innocent people range from 3,000 (by one Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (by many Neopagan sources). The actual figure, based on the examination of court documents and estimates of the number of lost records, is probably in the range of 50,000 to 100,000.
Most of the death sentences were passed by civil courts, not by the Catholic Church. However, the church was indirectly involved, as it provided the theological foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts.
And between which dates were these figures generated? When did these executions occur?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
08 Aug 2007, 11:16 pm
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.)
yeah, the 'odd witch'
Current estimates of the total number of executions of innocent people range from 3,000 (by one Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (by many Neopagan sources). The actual figure, based on the examination of court documents and estimates of the number of lost records, is probably in the range of 50,000 to 100,000.
Most of the death sentences were passed by civil courts, not by the Catholic Church. However, the church was indirectly involved, as it provided the theological foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts.
And between which dates were these figures generated? When did these executions occur?
The large-scale European extermination of individuals charged with Witchcraft or other heresies reached its peak between 1550 and 1650 CE.
09 Aug 2007, 12:28 am
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.)
yeah, the 'odd witch'
Current estimates of the total number of executions of innocent people range from 3,000 (by one Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (by many Neopagan sources). The actual figure, based on the examination of court documents and estimates of the number of lost records, is probably in the range of 50,000 to 100,000.
Most of the death sentences were passed by civil courts, not by the Catholic Church. However, the church was indirectly involved, as it provided the theological foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts.
And between which dates were these figures generated? When did these executions occur?
The large-scale European extermination of individuals charged with Witchcraft or other heresies reached its peak between 1550 and 1650 CE.
Ah, so this monstrous killing spree, ostensibly for the crime of witchcraft, which goes against christianity, but in fact merely (probably) the persecution of pagans and in all likelihood the mentally ill, or outsiders occured nearly half a millenia ago.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/a ... 7804.shtml
And theres your difference.. Islamic states are STILL killing people in state-sanctioned executions for being "mentally incompetent" and expressing "outrage at the misogyny and injustice in the Islamic Republic and its Islam-based judicial system." Probably a thought similar to that that which passed through many a womans mind as she faced the pyre or the ducking stool, albeit towards a different religion. Apostasy is a capital crime. I'm not aware of ANY christian states that still have the death sentence for that, going back many years. Im fairly sure no-one tried to hang the pilgrim fathers.
Christianity got over most of its more extreme concepts in the middle ages. The few who still hold such fanatic beliefs are invariably splinter-groups and outcasts, pariahs from the rest of society almost. (the name phelps springs to mind.)
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
sinsboldly
Veteran
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon
09 Aug 2007, 1:09 am
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-history-mecca-deaths.htm
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
Who needs to attack mecca? Sees that they kill enough of their own without a westerner in sight.
I also saw quoted somewhere that, in various jihad based activities over the past 30 years or so, islam has totted up a 4000 to 1 kill ratio. Thats 4000 Muslims killed for every westerner. (Specifically killed BY muslims that is. Thinking on it, it might even have been 40,000.. cant rightly rememeber.)
Taking that into account, it looks like the greatest threat to islam is not nuke-happy american politicos at all, nor the conventional militaries of the west, but islam itself.
I'll get back to you after I total up all the people in the world ever killed in the name of Christianity. . .it might be a while. . .
Well if we're working on a comparative total, dont forget that a) its christians killing christians, not everyone else, and b) christianity is the older of the two, and that its been a while since the last war declared in the name of christ. In fact I'm reasonably sure that there hasnt been a mass killing of christians by christians in the name of christ since the Cathar heresy, barring the odd witch (and those were supposed to be non-christians anyway.)
yeah, the 'odd witch'
Current estimates of the total number of executions of innocent people range from 3,000 (by one Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000 (by many Neopagan sources). The actual figure, based on the examination of court documents and estimates of the number of lost records, is probably in the range of 50,000 to 100,000.
Most of the death sentences were passed by civil courts, not by the Catholic Church. However, the church was indirectly involved, as it provided the theological foundation for the persecution of heretics in civil courts.
And between which dates were these figures generated? When did these executions occur?
The large-scale European extermination of individuals charged with Witchcraft or other heresies reached its peak between 1550 and 1650 CE.
Ah, so this monstrous killing spree, ostensibly for the crime of witchcraft, which goes against christianity, but in fact merely (probably) the persecution of pagans and in all likelihood the mentally ill, or outsiders occured nearly half a millenia ago.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/a ... 7804.shtml
And theres your difference.. Islamic states are STILL killing people in state-sanctioned executions for being "mentally incompetent" and expressing "outrage at the misogyny and injustice in the Islamic Republic and its Islam-based judicial system." Probably a thought similar to that that which passed through many a womans mind as she faced the pyre or the ducking stool, albeit towards a different religion. Apostasy is a capital crime. I'm not aware of ANY christian states that still have the death sentence for that, going back many years. Im fairly sure no-one tried to hang the pilgrim fathers.
Christianity got over most of its more extreme concepts in the middle ages. The few who still hold such fanatic beliefs are invariably splinter-groups and outcasts, pariahs from the rest of society almost. (the name phelps springs to mind.)
yeah, well they are still dead,no matter WHEN they were killed in the name of what ever for what ever. . .you just tossed them off so casually ('barring the odd witch' ) it set my teeth on edge.
Sorry if you don't think they count because it was not the point you are trying to make about Islam.
09 Aug 2007, 1:31 am
I see the current conflicts in afghanistan and iraq as a holy war against muslims by christians... the president repeatedly uses the word 'evil' to describe the enemy... the word evil is a moral judgement, and the implication is that the 'christian' nations are 'good' in comparison... good christians fighting a righteous battle against the evil muslims...
