Article

2005-07-25 Home Front: WoT

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 2005-07-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm thinking, though, that for the time being, we need different targets than Mecca for any MAD strategy, at least as long as we're trying to keep the two mostly Moslem countries of Iraq and Afghanistan on our side. There are a lot of candidate targets that don't involve targeting civilians, IMHO. For starters, "anomalous" power plants (likely to be tied to bomb factories) and military bases.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-25 00:06|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-25 00:06|| Front Page Top

#2 the palace in Riyadh, for example? Qom? Tehran's MM enclave?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-07-25 00:10|| 2005-07-25 00:10|| Front Page Top

#3 Prudent targeting with nothing taken off the table. I saw him interviewed and he isn't spining some political crap here. He is deadly serious. We are here (mostly) too.

Again, no target should be off the table and the leaders of all Islamic countries should be aware of our policies if attacked. That will assure that they take it seriously, if they have any doubts let them ask the Russians is they harbored any such fantasy's.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-25 00:21|| 2005-07-25 00:21|| Front Page Top

#4 I do agree that it needed to be said - to make sure the envelope includes all of the possibilities.

I've wondered about this some since it initially came out... Given the Muzzy propensity to go apeshit over any perceived slight, what will they make of this? It's clear there will definitely be two camps.

An intelligent rational human, one of those who gets the cause => effect thingy, will, indeed, consider the ramifications. That the professional Muzzy seethers can't be numbered among the rational, however, prolly means there will be much made of this. I have to say that I don't really care, though - they'd find something else if they didn't have this. The over-hyped qu'uran-flushing bullshit makes that clear. So it would be the same either way for the irrationals.

For the few who have the capacity, however, I believe his statement will evoke thought - after they get over themselves. Perhaps a few nearer the apex than the base will realize we are not such pushovers and are considering the long-term endpoint - their actual destruction - and grab a clue that it's time to put the brakes on, the show is about to be over.

They use everything available to keep their Islamonutz preoccupied with external issues - rather than ask why they live in shitholes and are ruled by thugs, dictators, Royals, and Mullahs. Paleostine has been their bread 'n butter for 60 yrs. They've mish-mashed that in with Afghanistan and Iraq (Zarqi's statements prove they're all interchangeable cogs of the hate machine) and gained some windage, but they'll see the writing's on the wall. They didn't get to the top of their pile of shit without being smarter than the average nutball.

Either the Afghanistan and Iraq experiments fail - and Islam steps on it one too many times, or they grab a clue and try civilization.

Tancredo's statement simply clarifies a bit more the starkness of that choice.

My $0.02.

Posted by .com 2005-07-25 00:31|| 2005-07-25 00:31|| Front Page Top

#5 grate coments fred an .com

Posted by muck4doo 2005-07-25 01:48|| http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/]">[http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2005-07-25 01:48|| Front Page Top

#6 As I said earlier, Frank, anomalous power plants.

Fred, if they cared about Mecca, I doubt they'd be tearing it down the way they are...

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-25 03:14|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-25 03:14|| Front Page Top

#7 What truly needs to happen is for Muslims to see the West wreak a massively violent revenge on them for a WMD attack. One so costly that afterward, any fool in their community who even mentioned attacking the West would, out of sheer terror of the consequences, be literally ripped apart by his coreligionists with their bare hands.
The West can get along quite nicely with no Muslims at all within its confines; the world can do without Saudi Arabia.

Posted by mac 2005-07-25 05:46|| 2005-07-25 05:46|| Front Page Top

#8 I doubt that the threat of wiping Mecca and Medina from the face of the earth would stop the fanatics, and it will definitely alienate the any moderate Muslims.

However, the threat of massive retaliation against Muslim rulers for terror attacks by Islamacists of any stripe just might cause a little crackdown here and there. It's the Pervs and the House of Saud and the Assads we should target with our threats -- and we should mean them.

Posted by too true 2005-07-25 09:10|| 2005-07-25 09:10|| Front Page Top

#9 TT: However, the threat of massive retaliation against Muslim rulers for terror attacks by Islamacists of any stripe just might cause a little crackdown here and there. It's the Pervs and the House of Saud and the Assads we should target with our threats -- and we should mean them.

The terrorists want us to take down the existing governments - so they can take over. What they're really after is Taliban-style governments built on the ruins of the existing regimes.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-07-25 10:39|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-07-25 10:39|| Front Page Top

#10 It was our policy with the Soviets that we wouldn't be the first to use nuclear weapons.

This was a supposition we strongly led the liberals and Ruskies to believe, but my recollection is that it was never policy and that in fact no President ever categorically ruled out first use. To do so would have been a death sentence for all U. S. troops in Germany.

Tancredo is making an argument that perhaps should be surfaced, but it doesn't help him politically. We aren't going to bomb Mecca with conventional or nuclear weapons because it would serve no purpose other than to declare war on all Muslims.

Islam has its own problems, but not all Muslims are at war with us, nor do they want to be. At the present time, those who want to destroy western civilization (WC) are primarily Muslims, but not all Muslims. It is the ones who want to destroy WC that we need to destroy first. We can live at peace with the rest if they want to live at peace with us. And most do.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-25 11:19|| 2005-07-25 11:19|| Front Page Top

#11 The purpose of a nuke threat would not be to scare Moslem tyrants, nor to get them to "crack down" on their own fundamentalists, but to threaten all Moslems with major losses.

Only when the cost of waging war on the West is made clear will a majority of Moslems re-think their ideology of permanent jihad. Only then will they question the sanity of their imams. The change has to come from the ground up. Executing a few imams will not solve the problem of Islam.

Tancredo should be thanked as he is doing more for a future victory in WWIV than any other Congressman at the moment. No options off the table. Bush has correctly said it in various contexts -- and Tancredo has provided one concretization. We need more of this.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 12:27|| 2005-07-25 12:27|| Front Page Top

#12 Did the US fully develop and deploy the neutron bomb? It seems that would give/have given us more viable nuclear options when dealing with a regional threat, as (if I recall correctly) the warhead did not generate as much fallout, meaning less danger to neighboring countries.

Or is any nuke basically a neutron bomb and the only variable is the elevation of the blast?

Of course, the political fallout for any nuke would be another matter altogether, but that's another topic. And, I expect, such warheads would not be very effective against hard targets (underground complexes).

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-07-25 14:32|| 2005-07-25 14:32|| Front Page Top

#13 It was our policy with the Soviets that we wouldn't be the first to use nuclear weapons.

That is incorrect. There was never such a posture. Matter of fact we lead the morons to believe we'd gladly trade New York for Warsaw. Skared the hell out of 'em. Chess players are usually piss poor at poker.

Posted by Bobby Lee 2005-07-25 19:36|| 2005-07-25 19:36|| Front Page Top

#14 Speak softly but carry a big stick. - Teddy Roosevelt

As far as I'm concerned, Rep. Tancredo is speaking softly. Is Islam listening, or do we need to show them the big stick?

Posted by Neutron Tom 2005-07-25 21:50|| 2005-07-25 21:50|| Front Page Top

#15 I have been very clear on that. Destroying Mecca will not deter terrorists, it will create millions more.
Will it deter those who condone, finance or preach terror? Don't know. Targeting those people DIRECTLY souns like the better idea to me.
Declaring any imam a target, confiscating oilfields and everything they own sounds like a better way to make them move and reconsider.
Bombing Mecca has so many absolutly unknown risks that no politician should talk about it.
Even if it were an option.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-07-25 22:01|| 2005-07-25 22:01|| Front Page Top

#16 Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.

Let's ask Cicero and Scipio how Rome fared after it destroyed Carthage.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 22:03|| 2005-07-25 22:03|| Front Page Top

#17 I meant Cato the Elder, not Cicero.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-25 22:13|| 2005-07-25 22:13|| Front Page Top

23:49 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:40 Jennie Taliaferro
23:39 Bomb-a-rama
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:32 Mike Sylwester
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:20 CrazyFool
23:19 Old Patriot
23:18 Classical_Liberal
23:13 M. Murcek
23:09 twobyfour
23:06 True German Ally
23:05 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:04 Cyber Sarge
23:03 OldSpook
23:01 bigjim-ky
22:59 True German Ally
22:59 Glenmore
22:59 Cyber Sarge
22:56 True German Ally
22:53 bigjim-ky
22:51 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:51 bigjim-ky
22:51 True German Ally