Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 07/18/2005 View Sun 07/17/2005 View Sat 07/16/2005 View Fri 07/15/2005 View Thu 07/14/2005 View Wed 07/13/2005 View Tue 07/12/2005
1
2005-07-18 Home Front: WoT
Congressman says bomb Mecca if US attacked
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2005-07-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 It has long been suggested that the threat of doing so has really kept the Saudis in check. The $64 question is the actual target list, which have some interesting possibilities: Mecca (or just the Kaaba), Medina, the Mosque of the Rock in Jerusalem (!), and Masshad (Iran); whereas Najaf (Iraq) and Samarra (Iraq) are non-targets. A lot depends on who is responsible, Shiites or Sunnis. Several of the primary targets and most of the secondary targets would need plausible deniability, that is, the US would destroy them covertly, with the reasonable suggestion that somebody else might have done it. Maybe even blaming the Chinese or Norks.
Posted by Anonymoose 2005-07-18 00:13||   2005-07-18 00:13|| Front Page Top

#2 We could just pin in on the evil Christian jihadis. Everyone knows they're far more evil and warlike than the peaceful moose-limbs.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 00:16||   2005-07-18 00:16|| Front Page Top

#3 let the Joooos take down the dome - with hammers and shovels
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-18 00:26||   2005-07-18 00:26|| Front Page Top

#4 Respond in-kind has been mentioned along these lines:

Assassaination? Seal team hit and run on lead inciting clerics.

High explosive? Return the same amount in 500 pound increments, wahabbi and radical cleric residences.

Aircraft, fuel tanker, etc? Return with FAE (MOAB) on Wahabbi madrassas.

Dirty Bomb? Powered plutonium, crop dusted. Medina holy sites.

Nuke? Nuke. Mecca. Already have a great aiming point.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-07-18 00:27||   2005-07-18 00:27|| Front Page Top

#5 It needs to be said again, and again, and we need to mean it. Task at least 2 subs with the job. Termo nuclear strikes on all the sites except, the Dome of the Rock, Use concrete smart bombs on it, Tell Israel to stay out of our way.
Posted by Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-18 00:36||   2005-07-18 00:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Assassaination? Seal team hit and run on lead inciting clerics

We should be doing that anyway, and the message should be very, very clear. You vocalize threats even non specific threats, you will disappear into that good night.

And we should be doing that in Europe, Canada and the UK.
Posted by badanov 2005-07-18 01:01|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2005-07-18 01:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Tancredo you da man!
Posted by Jan 2005-07-18 01:08||   2005-07-18 01:08|| Front Page Top

#8 We should be doing that anyway, and the message should be very, very clear. You vocalize threats even non specific threats, you will disappear into that good night.

Isn't that how the Soviets used to operate? I always thought that that would be a great way to send a message. A pattern of clerics biting the dust shortly after uttering threats against the U.S., direct and indirect, just couldn't go unrecognized.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-07-18 01:10||   2005-07-18 01:10|| Front Page Top

#9 There should be a blanket, principled promise to nuke Mecca in case of an attack on US soil. No matter what the form of Islamofascist attack.

Then take over the oil quarter of the Saud.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-18 01:54||   2005-07-18 01:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Such an attack would be Al Qaeda's wet dream, nothing else would be more likely to bring about an Islamist uprising against Muslim governments the world over.
Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-07-18 02:34||   2005-07-18 02:34|| Front Page Top

#11 Good. Then those governments can deal with their Islamists and we can deal with the ones who succeed.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 02:45||   2005-07-18 02:45|| Front Page Top

#12 Mecca, Medina and all the other Muslim holy sites. That should be our promise should any of this human debris activate a WMD in the US.
Posted by intrinsicpilot 2005-07-18 02:58||   2005-07-18 02:58|| Front Page Top

#13 Well, I'll have to go contrarian on this one, and it would take a book to describe all my reasoning.

For starters... Sending "messages" only works if you're from the same or similar cultures. Threatening a response puts the timing in the bad guys' hands. It would just be swatting the hornet's nest - emotionally satisfying, but with a big chunk of our troops tied up for the next ~2 years, would we be able to respond where needed? M.E. stability's highly overrated, but this would bring the loonies out world-wide.

It's the MM's and the Saudis - we all know this.

We must stop the MM nuke pgm.

We must remove the funding.
Posted by .com 2005-07-18 03:58||   2005-07-18 03:58|| Front Page Top

#14 And the way to stop the funding is to get off oil dependence. It will happen. The open issue is how big a train wreck has to occur before people get into their thick heads that with abundant nuclear power, oil is worth next to nothing and we will worry as much about the Middle East as we worry about whats happening the Congo.
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-18 04:39||   2005-07-18 04:39|| Front Page Top

#15 Who cares how Muslims would respond to the annihilation of Mecca and Medina? 5,000 Americans have died at terrorist hands, from Sept. 11, 2001. I am already sick of the neverending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the West Bank and Thailand and Chechnya and Phillipines and Indonesia and Kashmir. Nukes are certain to fly in the near future. Why not up the date?
Posted by Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-18 04:52||   2005-07-18 04:52|| Front Page Top

#16 Dunno, nuking Mekka, albeit laudable enterprise would have sort of mixed results, I think. Probably some sort of response would be in equation, Pakiwakis by default. Ultimately, Mekka erasure would mean a demise of the moon-god worship, that is probably a safe bet.

However,a high energy discharge arc, lightning bolt, but biiiiig (hope someone is reviewing Tesla inventions) would be probably attributed to a divine intervention. For a fun, if possible, the bolt should carve big YWHW in Hebrew letters in place of the town to show who's the boss. ;-)
Posted by twobyfour 2005-07-18 04:55||   2005-07-18 04:55|| Front Page Top

#17 SPoD - 2 submarines? That's an awful lot of missiles, 2 boats * 24 tubes * 8 MIRVs of 475kT each (23 Hiroshimas) = 384 warheads. That's a lot of targets, but I guess It would be reasonable to assume that the SIOP has been changed to accomodate these targets. Oh, and as you say, make a special case of the Dome.

I've heard the theory that this threat has 'kept the Saudis in check', but they haven't really done that have they - still the sermons blare out, they send fighters into Iraq and it seems they're trying to buy ready make nukes from the Norks/Pakis. I totally agree that assasinations (highly visible and covert) should have been happening since 9/11, as well as funding been cut off whereever we are able to.

Is it possible that this congressman has been briefed to say this?
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 04:59||   2005-07-18 04:59|| Front Page Top

#18 Is it possible that this congressman has been briefed to say this?

Doubtful he'd have needed any encouragement. He took a potshot at the recent Chinese comments fairly quickly, ditto the former Mexican official's comments, and is working hard on border security issues. In addition some of the ratings of his voting record are a hoot: 5% by the ACLU, 0% by the Arab American Institute, 0% year after year by the NEA, 0% by the Coalition to stop gun violence, 0% by the Service Employees International Union, 0% by the ABA, etc. He's just one of the good guys.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 06:01||   2005-07-18 06:01|| Front Page Top

#19 I see AzCat, definitely one of the good guys.

By the way, that was a terrific comment of yours on Saturday (taqqiya etc), which I wanted to laud in that thread, but the comment shutters had come down on that particular post (time zones'll do that to yer).
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 06:08||   2005-07-18 06:08|| Front Page Top

#20 Second the motion, Tony. I saved Azcat's "lesson" on my computer for future reference/distribution.
Posted by Bobby 2005-07-18 07:24||   2005-07-18 07:24|| Front Page Top

#21 Mecca, Medina and all the other Muslim holy sites.

I don't think we have enough warheads.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-18 07:29|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-18 07:29|| Front Page Top

#22 Refresh my memory on Azcats"lesson".
Posted by raptor 2005-07-18 08:49||   2005-07-18 08:49|| Front Page Top

#23 Raptor,
Comment #54, but there's excellent stuff all the way through.
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 08:52||   2005-07-18 08:52|| Front Page Top

#24 Ok,now I remember.Boy it's gotten to the point where it is hard to recall everything I read.I guess I'm going to have to weed out some of the blogs a check out daily.Of 18 sites RB is still my favorite:informative,wide range of opinions,and at times ranging from the sublime to hilarious.
Posted by raptor 2005-07-18 09:06||   2005-07-18 09:06|| Front Page Top

#25 Same here raptor - RB has managed to keep me from popping a gasket many many times, and I have learnt *so* much from the other denizens here...
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 10:19||   2005-07-18 10:19|| Front Page Top

#26 Now we're talkin'.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-07-18 10:48||   2005-07-18 10:48|| Front Page Top

#27 What is it about the Colorado congressmen lately that makes me go, OOORAH!
Even that weirdo Salazar has said some good stuff and was the only democrate to vote for both admendments to boost the border patrol. Must be something in the water here.
Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-18 11:06||   2005-07-18 11:06|| Front Page Top

#28 How many warheads do we have these days? Destroy the (n-100) most holy sites in Islam. And that deli on the corner is lookin' at me funny, too...
Posted by mojo">mojo  2005-07-18 11:07||   2005-07-18 11:07|| Front Page Top

#29 Methinks it would be a shame if a super lethal variety of avian flu emerged the vaccine and cure for which only western science could find and produce. Worse yet, what if those societies, seething with righteous idignation over destructive sociopathic injustices arising from the hands of a certain sick segment of the world, chose to withold the vaccine and cure from the little El-Eichmanns leaving them to suffer the burdens of their ignorance the fountain of which is evident. Why hell, shouldn't they then thank us for not imposing our culture and values upon them?! Tell me who among the faithful needs modern western medicine anyway. They all know the vaccine would actually be a zionist sterilization conspiracy anyway, right?
Posted by MunkarKat 2005-07-18 11:26||   2005-07-18 11:26|| Front Page Top

#30 And the way to stop the funding is to get off oil dependence.

It seems like a great idea, but it won't work. First, we aren't buying much Arabian oil. Second, oil is a fungible commodity. If we "get off oil dependence", it will just make oil cheaper for China, India and every other oil importing country. They will be happy to pay Arabians for the now cheaper oil to expand their energy inefficient economies. What we have to do is produce a BTU of energy at lower cost than the Arabs, and that is very hard to do without environmental consequences. The oil business has always been volatile. A year from now, I am certain we will look back at current gas prices in disbelief, especially if the Saudi's want the Republicans to win.

So, if we want to make a decision to shake the oil habit, we need to do so on national security grounds, not economic ones. This would mean massive subsidization of nuclear and taxation of petroleum. But Bush stupidly expanded government spending by subsidizing drugs for those near death. So we've traded energy independence away for an additional 3-6 months (?) of the worst years of our lives. Thanks Bush/AARP.
Posted by uences. 2005-07-18 11:26||   2005-07-18 11:26|| Front Page Top

#31 Nuking Muslim holy places is a bad idea unless we want to start an all out religious war. And that is not a good idea because the only way to win is genocide. Let's not head down that trail if we can avoid it.

Instead, if we are attacked, we are going to have to repond appropriately to the attackers. If something rose to the level of serious suggestion of a nuclear response, I would prefer to first disarm Pakistan using conventional weapons and eliminate it's ability to restart its weapons program. If that means a major war with Pakistan, so be it. Escalate as necessary. But at least it is localized as opposed to declaring war on the religion of 1/4 of the world's population. Better to change their minds.
Posted by Mrs. Davis, nee uences 2005-07-18 11:34||   2005-07-18 11:34|| Front Page Top

#32 Tony / Bobby - Thanks guys but my rant yesterday wasn't really intended as a "lesson" as I’m not qualified to give one and I'd urge you not to simply quote me as I'm certainly no scholar of Islam. Rather than forwarding what I said why not just visit a few Islamic sites and get your info straight from the camel's mouth? Most of what I posted yesterday that's referred to above is from a Wahabbi fatwah on jihad that can be found on islamqa.com. Another good read on jihad can be found on sunnipath.com (gets interesting about halfway through). Invariably these folks don't translate everything so Answering Islam's dictionary or something like it will be a must.

IMHO taking some time to browse Islamic sites critical as there’s a very different sort of reasoning that takes place in Islam. Besides the cheap entertainment you’ll get some valuable information on occasion. For example, you never know when you might need to know how many Hail Marys a Wahabbi is required to say to be absolved of the sin of masturbating in a mosque during the Hajj. Other times you’ll run across trivial things that’ll give you pause like this gem from a hadith

Narrated 'Ikrima from Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostles said, "When a slave (of Allah) commits illegal sexual intercourse, he is not a believer at the time of committing it; and if he steals, he is not a believer at the time of stealing; and if he drinks an alcoholic drink, when he is not a believer at the time of drinking it; and he is not a believer when he commits a murder," 'Ikrima said: I asked Ibn Abbas, "How is faith taken away from him?" He said, Like this," by clasping his hands and then separating them, and added, "But if he repents, faith returns to him like this, by clasping his hands again.”

Interesting no? Next time you see a Muslim cleric flatly stating that {insert reference to perpetrators of latest murderous act of Islamic terrorism} were not Muslims you now have some options for interpretation of his statement: Taqiya? Muslim before the murders, not Muslim at the moment of the murders, Muslim again after the murders? A reformed Muslim who picks and chooses only the peaceful parts of his religion (see e.g., Irshad Manji) as the jihadis pick and choose only the violent ones? Or perhaps he’s just a lying sack of shit in the more traditional sense. Probably more relevant than the truth or falsity of such a statement is the fact that its truth or falsity is both unknown and probably unknowable to us as we’ll never be sufficiently versed in Islam to conduct the requisite hours of cross examination necessary to really dig out the basis for the statement and without the full thought process behind the statement, the statement itself is utterly meaningless.

Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack this thread.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 12:01||   2005-07-18 12:01|| Front Page Top

#33 Do we really have to wait for another attack? Can't we just nuke the place now?
Posted by WhiteCollarRedneck 2005-07-18 12:47||   2005-07-18 12:47|| Front Page Top

#34 Thanks for the links AzCat. It's a perverse read if you add a little historical context to the excess verbiage to which muslim clerical types are prone. The fundamental differences in the "us and them" system provided arises in how to deal with the "them." The ready tradition and historical treasure of domination and brutal violence is what makes islam special. I don't know another major religion where you can find quite the same baggage. I don't know another major religion where that baggage is so widely considered essential to the faith and taught as such be it in veiled language and a nod to the types of violent behavior justified or through outright expressions of hatred for the "them".
Posted by MunkarKat 2005-07-18 13:25||   2005-07-18 13:25|| Front Page Top

#35 Wow, it was only a year or two ago that I felt a bit marginalized for even suggesting such a thing here at RB! Of course, it was probably Gentle, AK, and MS taking me to task for it.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-18 13:40||   2005-07-18 13:40|| Front Page Top

#36  "Nuking Muslim holy places is a bad idea unless we want to start an all out religious war"

It's a little late for that. Radical Islam declared war on us a long time ago. We just decided to start fighting back after 9/11.
Posted by intrinsicpilot 2005-07-18 13:47||   2005-07-18 13:47|| Front Page Top

#37 Nuking Mecca would not resolve a thing.
Should there really be severe multiple attacks on US cities with hundredthousands or millions of lives lost, there is only one way.
Confiscate anything, oilfields, Arab money... everything to be used for reparations. Vacate the area around oilfields, starve them out economically.

No money, no terror on a bigger scale. And while the US is not importing large quantities of oil from the Middle East YET, this will change in the next years.

Don't menace them with nuking Mecca. Menace them with reparations and you'll scare the Middle Eastern States into doing something against terrorists.
Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-18 16:04||   2005-07-18 16:04|| Front Page Top

#38 uences, you and I are agreeing (almost). In the medium to long term all energy sources are fungible (with a limited number of exceptions that don't affect the argument), that is you can interchange oil, coal, nuclear, solar, etc. As a result the value of any energy source is the cost of producing the cheapest energy source. Nuclear is far and away the cheapest source of energy today (ask the French) and the barriers to building more facilities are almost all legislative and risk related (mostly litigation).
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-18 16:09||   2005-07-18 16:09|| Front Page Top

#39 Good points all round here, there's the visceral desire to hit back when struck, the ever-present danger of really turning this conflict into a religious armageddon and of course the fact that oil is fungible and so the Arab countries will just sell it to someone else.

So, what to do in the event of another attack? Well, if Arab society, and by implication the Muslim world, wants to live in the 7th century, then we should let them. That effectively means doing what TGA says, confiscate as much property, money and most importantly, the oil fields as the West feels necessary. Guard the oilfields and make them a no-go zone for anyone the West doesn't trust.

As I write this, I'm starting to wonder - perhaps GW *hasn't* told the Saudis that Mecca and Medina and the other 10,000 holy places of Islam will be turned into ash. Perhaps he's said he's going to take all their money, all their property, all the oil and create .coms' Republic of East Arabia?

How? The troops in Iraq take a left-turn into SA, and the Iraqi's are left to fend for themselves.

Does this sound feasible?
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 18:37||   2005-07-18 18:37|| Front Page Top

#40 Please can we save 3 Tomahawks for Mad-Bad Mugabe when the Chinese war starts.

I agree with Az-Cats observerations, but have stopped reading their scraps. Heard it on the Radio from the Lip-Stick Lesbian, that the Underground/bus bombers in London were wrong to do that stuff, but if they believed it when they did it, it's really ok.
Sick. That's all I need to know.
Posted by rhodesiafever 2005-07-18 18:39||   2005-07-18 18:39|| Front Page Top

#41 "Such an attack would be Al Qaeda's wet dream, nothing else would be more likely to bring about an Islamist uprising against Muslim governments the world over."

Yeah but they'll continue to Hajj into the radioactive zone because that's one of the pillars of Islam. The Islamic problem will take care of itself before long.
Posted by Thromoling Jerenter6930 2005-07-18 18:54||   2005-07-18 18:54|| Front Page Top

#42 Much better to really show them what happens when we take Isreals' side. Expel Muslims from Jerusalem entirely and level the Dome of the Rock as Punishment. If lives mean nothing to them then attack what does, property and symbolism. Then tell what the next target is Medina.

It might be Bin Laden's wet dream but I hardly think his footsoldiers, indoctrinated into fighting to preserve Islam, are going to do anything to risk their Holy Cities.
Posted by rjschwarz 2005-07-18 18:58||   2005-07-18 18:58|| Front Page Top

#43 Tony, there are a number here, myself included, who think the left turn into SA is (or at least should be) the fallback plan if the shit ever really hits the fan. If SA can't ensure the supply continues then the USA and its allies will step in and do so. The interesting bit is the role a Shiia controlled Iraq will play.
Posted by phil_b 2005-07-18 19:00||   2005-07-18 19:00|| Front Page Top

#44 While the nuke option is compelling on several levels, I just don't see it happening because of the downwind fallout issue. We also need to get at the SA oil for the forseeable future and having it be a radioactive wasteland will put a serious crimp in that.

I like TGA's (and several other's) plan to just take their money, assets and oil in reparation. Drive them all out of eastern SA and take it over as an American protecterate. What to do with Pakistan is another story. Nuke's are, again, off the table because India is downwind. There are literally millions of nut cases there who we will have to deal with. How, I don't know. Maybe India does that work.

BTW: Hugh Hewitt said Tancredo is an idiot for saying this and should apologize profusely. Says it makes it appear we are out to destroy all of Islam and pushes the religous war button. Like others here, I think that button has already been pushed.
Posted by remoteman 2005-07-18 19:19||   2005-07-18 19:19|| Front Page Top

#45 It's almost certain that there is going to be another attack - whether in the US (the main target), the UK (little satan) or somewhere else - I doubt Spain will get hit again, as they've shown themselves to be good dhimmi.

So, what happens then - general religious war leading to genocide? (guess who loses there; the Muslims, their lives and countries; the West, perhaps what it means to be a Westerner), wholesale deportation of Muslims from all Western countries (including Israel) to Pakistan and the Middle East (having de-fanged the Mullahs and the Pakis beforehand) and let them fight it out in their 7th century 'paradise'?, confiscation of any and all resources that the West wants?, either way there will be a huge number of Muslims that die if there is another attack. Too many people now know a lot more about Islam, and they don't seem to be liking what they hear.

Any further thoughts on that?

I'd prefer a combination of deportation and confiscation, as I don't believe that the West would go the whole way with a general religious war. Why? because the level of attack that the Islamists can achieve at the moment is unlikely to be greater than the 3,000 killed in 9/11 *unless* WMDs are used. It's human nature to get used to repeated events, and so if another 9/11 takes place, I don't *think* the US will go postal (sadly, looking at the issues that are getting attention, g-strings on terrorists heads FFS, I think the first response will be to blame anyone other than the perpetrators) - but I could easily be wrong, the US might shrug and say 'to Hell with them' and deal with the afermath later.

The wild cards here of course are the Pakis and the MM's - the Islamic nuclear powers (and possibly SA if they've bought some from the Paks/Norks). WMDs on the continental US (or the UK for that matter) means that all bets are off.

Thoughts?
Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-18 19:32||   2005-07-18 19:32|| Front Page Top

#46 Says it makes it appear we are out to destroy all of Islam and pushes the religous war button.

Wars continue until one side has inflicted sufficient punishment on the other that the opponent loses the desire to continue the fight to uphold / enforce / propagate their ideals. I don't believe there has ever really been a major strategic victory that was not the result of just such a capitulation. I don't enjoy the thought of the necessity of applying the force it will take to bring the present conflict to an end but I'm resigned to the (IMHO) fact that it will be necessary if we are to prevail.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 19:37||   2005-07-18 19:37|| Front Page Top

#47 Understand the sentiment, but I agree with .com, and my reasoning is this: a simple issue (like the destruction of Mecca, etc.) would unite even the middle-of-the-road or nominal Moslem world to the extremists. In fact, I wouldn't put it past the Islamofacists to blow it up themselves and then blame it on the West, just to do that very thing. The enemy (i.e., the West) would be succinctly and undisputeably defined if that happened, and to Moslem thinking, the "enemy" would, from that point on, NEVER be the terrorists. It also would serve to turn all the terrorists (both living and dead) into "heroes" overnight (especially Binny). Besides, logically, the percentage of the world's Moslems that are actually behind the terrorists is debatable. It's a bad idea, and Tancredo was an idiot for suggesting it.
Posted by ex-lib 2005-07-18 19:37||   2005-07-18 19:37|| Front Page Top

#48 Ex-lib - implicit in your statement is the thought that there is some majority of moderate Muslims who can coexist peacefully forever with other belief systems. What if the moderate view is that warring against and killing the Infidels *is* sanctioned by Islam and the debate is merely one of timing, justification, and reasoning rather than goals, strategies, and desired outcomes? Perhaps nuking Mecca is still a silly idea but strong measures then become harder to dismiss, no?
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-18 19:49||   2005-07-18 19:49|| Front Page Top

#49 check back in 20-30 years, until then, not a thinkable option
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-18 19:51||   2005-07-18 19:51|| Front Page Top

#50 a simple issue (like the destruction of Mecca, etc.) would unite even the middle-of-the-road or nominal Moslem world to the extremists.

They already are, tacitly. What is there to lose by making them show their cards?

Let's get this war over in decades rather than generations please.
Posted by Parabellum 2005-07-18 19:51||   2005-07-18 19:51|| Front Page Top

#51 Re #45: Tony, it didn't take long for the U.S. to link 9/11 to a whole lot of Saudis. And yet we haven't significantly punished the Saudis. They're still a terrorist breeding pit as evidenced by the flow of terrorists into Iraq. I'm of the impression that, except for rounding up some people hostile to the royals, the Saudi response has been media relations and some textbook editing. I can't imagine that we would nuke anything there until we twist the royals' arms a heck of a lot harder. It can't start soon enough to satisfy me.
Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-18 20:50||   2005-07-18 20:50|| Front Page Top

#52 You know, what the hell would be wrong with that? The friggin religious is evil and the culture is one of death.
Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-07-18 21:04||   2005-07-18 21:04|| Front Page Top

#53 Not necessarily, remoteman:

The Monsoon switch the way the wind blows. I'm not sure which way is when, but there is at least a 4-month part of the year when fallout from Pakiwakiland would go over Iran. Bonus.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-07-18 22:45|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-07-18 22:45|| Front Page Top

#54 We should be thankful for Congressman Tancredo telling the truth: nuking Mecca is an option IF Islamofascists pull off another major attack on US soil. It HAS to be an OPTION. It needs to be said, so Moslems start to think about what they will loose if they don't abandon their ideology of taqiya, jihad, and sharia. So far, the US and coalition partners have fought with great restraint. No lesson has been learnt by the jihadis.

As for fear of how the mythical moderate Moslems will react --I don't care. I only care about the freedom and prosperity of OUR LANDS, the West. As an added bonus, maybe razing Mecca would teach them a lesson on the falsity of their god.

IN the next few years, if we are going to defeat Islamofascism, we will have to defeat Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria. The last one is the easiest. Pakistan has nukes. Iran soon will, too. The Saud have huge oil fields and may have access to Paki nukes. As long as they don't transform themselves into tolerant societies--in less than 20 years-- the endgame is without a doubt nuclear.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-18 23:06||   2005-07-18 23:06|| Front Page Top

#55 I agree on some points, Kalle - for instance just having someone of official capacity say it aloud will alter the debate and expand the envelope. Some will get it - that didn't before. I hope we are wrong about the nukes. I arrived at a level of acceptance it might be necessary awhile back, but that's not to say I like or desire it. I certainly do not want to have explain it to my grandchildren. Us or Them is very clear in the here and now, not so much once the revisionists have finished writing the "correct" history. Hiroshima & Nagasaki are easy examples of reality under constant forcible skew.

Taking care of Iran takes care of Syria. Taking care of Saudi crimps, but doesn't solve, the PakiWaki mess. Given their internals, they will probably off themselves by tweaking India one too many times. I want OUT of our deal with Pervy - he's about as worthwhile an ally as, well, as Mubarak, lol! The value meter barely registers, while the cost is pegged.

I stand by my comments, however. We need to free up our forces and focus our efforts on the threats most pressing. Whacking Mekkah solves zip - unless it is part of annihilation forced upon us. I'd say this will easily "come to a head" within 20 years.

Our #1 threat, IMO, is sabotage by internal subversives, no external force can actually threaten our existence without our guard being lowered / destroyed from within. They can wound us, but not beat us. That Moonbat next door, however, should be sterilized and fed soma 'round the clock.
Posted by .com 2005-07-18 23:27||   2005-07-18 23:27|| Front Page Top

#56 Thanks .com -- I agree with you.

What I find interesting is how the knowledge of the enemy and perception of necessary strategy+tactics has evolved on RB in the last years.

I think a corresponding shift has taken place in US society (and some European countries).

The moonbats are losing, every day. RB'ers are and must remain vigilant, and countless bloggers drive the leftists crazy with facts (evasion being the essence of moonbat behaviour).

When we defeat the moonbats at home, we'll have achieved 60% of the crucial work.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-18 23:55||   2005-07-18 23:55|| Front Page Top

#57 Hmmm. I guess I've misunderstood many of your posts as I thought you were advocating a tripwire response.

I don't want to give the timing to them. I like The Bush Doctrine's approach, check off the boxes, try giving them a chance to redeem themselves through democracy, but maintain the pre-emption option, henceforth and forever.

I think we'll end up in a civil war of some sort. The rhetoric has already peaked at both ends - volume at Max, civility at Min. Where to from here, if not violence? We saw the tentative steps in the 2004 election. After Bush I don't know who we will have, but if the Dhimmis lose again, I expect serious escalation. As you say, Moonbats are very good at reality, lol!
Posted by .com 2005-07-19 00:05||   2005-07-19 00:05|| Front Page Top

14:16 PorKoran
00:05 .com
23:55 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:52 .com
23:48 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:43 Frank G
23:30 .com
23:27 .com
23:17 MunkarKat
23:12 Janice
23:08 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:07 .com
23:06 Jan
23:06 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:03 .com
23:03 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Frank G
22:59 GK
22:58 Thrinesing Snoth9926
22:58 Jan
22:57 macofromoc
22:54 .com
22:53 Janice
22:49 Kalle (kafir forever)









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com