| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
UPDATE 12/13/05: As we get farther from the controversy over Thomas Tancredo's remarks, this article has been used in some quarters to smear Hugh Fitzgerald and me as supporting the implementation of the actions listed below today. This is not the case. It is important to bear in mind that Hugh Fitzgerald wrote these as a series of alternatives to Tancredo's suggestion of bombing Mecca in the wake of another jihad attack on American soil.
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some suggestions of what we can do to defend human rights and resist the jihad threat, in the wake of Congressman Tancredo's remarks:
It would have been better to make the following point: during the Cold War, the Soviet rulers knew that if they did certain things, certain things would be done by NATO or the American government. And the knowledge of what might be done, would be done, in return, helped prevent the Soviet rulers from doing what they might otherwise have done.So it would be helpful to make suggestions as to what would constitute deterrence of a chemical or nuclear attack by Islamic jihadists on American soil. These might include, not destroying Mecca, which would cause maddened Muslims everywhere to attack and kill Infidels -- and the problem with Islam is that it contains many elements of a violent cult that cannot be wished away, or hidden any longer. Are maddened millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of inconsolable Muslims, for whom Mecca no longer exists, and so with nothing further to lose, what we wish to bring into being? No. But the idea of discussing possible means of deterrence, not of the determined suicide-bomber, but of all those who have helped to fund mosques and madrasas, or to supply the emotional and financial and intellectual support system (including the continued smooth practitioners of taqiyya-and-kitman in the West), and who can be threatened in all sorts of ways.
More sober discussion of how, for example, points of entry and exit into Mecca, could systematically be reduced in number, or airfields used by pilgrims made unusable, is a different suggestion, one that has many advantages, in that it is an incremental response: first this quadrant is closed off, and now this one, and so on.It is now clear to Muslims in the West, or to some of them, that their assumption about continued Western appeasement, based on continued misunderstanding of Islam by Infidels was wrong. The EU's foreign policy is still in place, but Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" is circulating -- even at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Eventually, terror, used as an instrument of Jihad, will alert enough Infidels to the permanent problem of Jihad, of all the instruments of Jihad, including that of demographic conquest and Da’wa, and lead inexorably to an understanding that the Muslims in their midst, allowed in by political elites who were either indifferent, or mesmerized by the Idols of the Age, those unexamined assumptions about how Everyone Wants the Same Thing and All Religions Are Alike. Those Muslims may be "moderate" or "immoderate," and the "moderation" may be real, or feigned, permanent or temporary, immune to, or susceptible to, being jettisoned whenever setbacks or depressive fits or any of the ills that flesh and spirit are heir to, may cause a “moderate” Muslim, or even a “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslim, to throw off that “moderation” and morph in Jekyll-into-Hyde fashion, into someone ready to blame the Infidels. There have been quite a few examples of such outwardly “moderate” people changing their beliefs and hence their behavior, as a response not so much to political or geopolitical events, but to personal setbacks, emotional disarray. When the universe is viewed through the prism of Islam, it is the Infidels who always wear black.
Discussion of measures that might truly curb, for example, the Saudi money that pours into the Western world, and funds mosques everywhere, all over that world, and madrasas all over the dar al-Islam, and that is furthermore used to buy an army of hirelings, non-Muslim apologists for islam, should be undertaken – out in the open so that Infidel publics can be made aware of the size of the problem.
Deterrent measures that could be undertaken in the event of a chemical or nuclear attack, but without waiting in some cases for any further attacks (although further attacks will help to justify the more far-reaching among them) might include, but not be limited to:
1) Seizure of Saudi-owned assets in the West, and sale of such assets to pay for the economic damage, including the cost of surveillance and other security measures, that are attributable to Saudi-funded mosques, madrasas, and propaganda all over the world. 2) Seizure of other Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West, for the same reasons. There need not be any distinction made between property owned by governments and those who are deemed to be enemy nationals -- no such distinction was made during World War II.3) A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained ciizenship and -- unless they are native-born converts -- their countries of origin.
4) Careful review of how citizenship is obtained, and what oaths of loyalty are administered, and if those oaths can possibly have been meant by those whose sole loyalty, by the very tenets of their belief-system, can only be to Islam and the Community of Believers, the umma al-islamiyya.
5) Government-sponsored centers to teach people about Islam outside of universities, which all over the Western world have been infiltrated, or rather captured by, apologists for Islam both Muslim and non-Muslim.
The study of Arabic under teachers whom the Infidel governments will deliberately find among Arabic-speaking non-Muslims, chiefly from those populations most likely not to supply subtle apologists for Islam – Maronites, Copts, disaffected Berbers, Arabic-speaking Jews. A knowledge of Arabic is not required for an understanding of Islam 80% of the world’s Muslims do not speak or read Arabic but have no difficulty knowing what Islam is all about. But it can be of help in studying the history of Jihad-conquest, and certainly it can be of help in debates with Muslims who accuse one of “not understanding Islam without a knowledge of Arabic.” Nonsense, of course, but nonsense more convincingly refused if someone has studied Arabic.
6) War-footing (i.e., Manhattan Project support) for solar and wind and nuclear energy projects, for conservation, and for mass transit, including that such as Amtrak which loses money, but should be cheerfully subsidized by an intelligent government bent, even hellbent, on diminishing OPEC oil revenues.
7) An end to all outward and visible signs of rhetorical "respect" for Islam, including the studied refusal to mention "Islmaic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism” which has gone on for too long. Use these adjectives; never let them go. Use the word "jihad." Stop all attempts at verbal escamotage, where the listener is left, puzzled, dissatisfied with the deliberate vagueness.
8) End all access to Western education, not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area. Attempting the hopeless project of "educating them" out of their belief-system will not work. Many terrorists have lived in the West, seen the West, studied in the West, taught in the West. Dr. A. Q. Khan did “research” in the West – and we know the results of that research. Muslims in Western universities are dangerous to Infidel wellbeing, not only because of the women they marry and cause to convert (to the subsequent sorrow of many), but because they are, with the odd exception, likely to conduct Da’wa and promote the geopolitics of Islam. Past masters at taqiyya-and-kitman, they should be regarded as akin to enemy agents, promoting a belief—system that means Infidel political and social arrangements and assumptions no good.
Condemning them to the solitary confinement of dar al-Islam will cause a concentration of minds.
9) End all access to the Western world for the children of the ruling elites all over the Muslim world. Without this escape hatch, those rulers will have to begin to consider how to ameliorate things in their own countries.
10) End the jizyah of Infidel aid to Muslim states, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and whatever the latest political instrument of the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the "Palestinians," may be called. Call attention to the $10 trillion that has already been recdeived by the Muslim members of OPEC in the last 1/3 century, and continue to advise those Pakistanis, Egyptians, Jordanians and "Palestinians" to ask for that aid no longer from the Infidels, who suddenly have to pay higher prices for oil and hundreds of billions more for security all over the Western world, but to those Arab and Muslim states that, not coincidentally, are receiving those hundreds of billions more in oil revenues each year.
11) Keep the focus clearly on the belief-system of Islam and on Jihad. And after the next small terrorist attack on Infidels -- say, 10 killed - begin to legislate to make sure that some of the measures suggested above become not merely ideas but the law.
12) Clean out the taxpayer-funded government radio and television stations of those who have so misled us about Islam over the past 20-30 years. Begin, possibly, by firing John Simpson, the deeply, even conspiratorially, anti-Israel and islamophilic head of the BBC World Affairs broadcasting, the same John Simpson (a close friend of Peter Hounam, whose conspiracy book about Israel is the kind of thing that antisemites love to flog) who described the Muslim bombers in London as "misguided criminals." That should have been enough to cause his discharge. Why wasn't it? What will it take for the long-suffering British license-payers to demand a change in the BBC coverage and, even before that, iin the personnel in charge of reporting on the Middle East and Islam? This domestic Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose business, where one need not even bother to turn the dial to Radio Berlin or Radio Tokyo to hear the sly propaganda, has to stop.
These are things that can be done, should be done, long before suggestions about "bombing Mecca" need to be bruited about.
Talk of attacking Mecca, instead of concentrating on more plausible suggestions (which do include limiting easy access to Mecca, something which the Saudis already do in limiting the number of visitors), is not likely to be helpful.
Posted by Robert at July 18, 2005 4:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
At least I am first. We already read your stuff on the thread. These are good points but I have agree with Irfan Kawaja on this point: We must all take part in destroying Islam.
{See Free Inquiry issue from Sprin 2004 debate.}
Posted by: Ibn Rushd![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 18, 2005 4:46 PM
Excellent suggestions Hugh. Cooler heads must prevail.
I have already made clear my past opposition to "nuking Mecca." This will destroy any cooperation (however imperfect) that America currently has with moderate Muslims or Muslim governments (Don't anyone lecture me on how we cannot trust any of them blah blah... That is besides that point. Any cooperation we get from Muslims who fear Al Qaeda is helpful).
To these I would like to suggest that the U.S. consider taking out Saudi Arabia's oil fields one by one. Since that is their source of terrorist funding, it is a legitimate miliary target.
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at July 18, 2005 5:19 PM
Andrei,
May I remind you that those who most fear al-Qaida are apostates? Like me? I no longer consider myself muslim but I would not be averse to crashing a few cities. I have advocated the French triad before: Montreal, Paris, Tehran. All that is required is to remove/save the good ppl to a safe distance and crash/nuke the city with all the ayatollahs/mullahs in it. Remember, ayatollah assawholah.
And if you (anyone) ask me what is required of saving these ppl and the time/cost/materials, I just think ideas, you put them in action.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at July 18, 2005 5:36 PM
I agree with most of Hugh's thoughts above except this one:
"These might include, not destroying Mecca, which would cause maddened Muslims everywhere to attack and kill Infidels -- and the problem with Islam is that it contains many elements of a violent cult that cannot be wished away, or hidden any longer. Is that something we wish to create?"
Once it becomes apparent that civilization has joined the battle against "islam", and not "islamists", it (the civilized world) will have already incurred the muslim's full wrath and mad-dog fury. If destroying these sites so near and dear would demoralize the enemy, then it should be done!
Posted by: NonProphet16 at July 18, 2005 5:43 PM
Bravo Andrei
Albeit somewhat short-sighted. "consider taking out Saudi Arabia's oil fields", whilst legitimate, I would think it would be suicide (economically) without a cheap alternative. The rest of the comment appears sound, vis a vis using "friendly" moderate governments/muslims........... until an alternative to oil is available. Then we could possibly consider the "nuke mecca" approach. Just for the hell of it
Where's Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson when you need him?
Posted by: cockadoodledooo at July 18, 2005 5:48 PM
Who in the higher echelons of the CIA has been reading "Eurabia"? Are these CIA readers able to influence foreign and domestic policy?
Posted by: Sebastien at July 18, 2005 5:57 PM
In the end of the game of political appeasement and when a City in The USA Or Europe disappears from the face of this earth, Mecca will be disappeaed from the face of this earth and that will start the third world war, sad fact 2005.
at July 18, 2005 5:58 PM
That people high up in the Pentagon are reading Eurabia is THE BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL DAY.
at July 18, 2005 6:07 PM
If we suffer a nuclear attack in this country by the hands of Islam, I am with Tom Tancredo. At that time those muslims in this country that are "on the fence, so to speak, will have to choose which side they are on.
Whatever choice they make they are responsible for it.
It is way past the time for them to show their TRUE alliance.
This country MUST be defended by any and all means possible.
at July 18, 2005 6:08 PM
Let the games begin!
Posted by: rumoret at July 18, 2005 6:20 PM
We live in a real world of real people with conflicting wants, and the conflicts sometimes lead to war as a matter of nature taking its course. What is realpolitik in this case?
I follow in the legendary footsteps of my great and hated ancestor William Walker, though lightly, in suggesting, meekly, that rather than write letters to the editor, instead of voting for this or that candidate on the take, forgetting for a day to rage against the machine, all the while among us not anyone who can organize a meeting (at a local coffee shop in Vancouver Canada, if anyone is willing,)I suggest that we follow our great tradition of invading other places and staying to rule and marry and become the locals as they become us, a Greater West for the full future of Humanity. It's the Walker way.
If you want to know about William Walker, check the archive "William Walker" at
http:nodhimmitude.blogspot.com
where I summarize his exploits briefly. Nothing really changes, and we can do what he and his mates did. We can all be rich. We can live peaceful and productive lives as the neo-colonialist occupation in Saudi Arabia.
Why nuke the place when we can take it over?
The numbers are fuzzy now, but roughly, foreigners are 80 per cent of the working population of Saudi Arabia. We supply and train the beduin army they have ranged against us. A group of emigrant European and American and Indian and Russian adventurers would have a great time indeed taking over the desert and making it bloom as green as the Jews have done in Israel.
Marry the local girls, raise children to be Human, life goes on nicely for the duration. But first we have to be practical enough to organize among ourselves. Until then all else is silliness.
Posted by: sonofwalker at July 18, 2005 6:25 PM
http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/
Posted by: sonofwalker at July 18, 2005 6:28 PM
Hugh:
Although in my more angry moments I have suggested that Makkah be nuked, it was never a very realistic option. As you indicate, we have yet to do even the most minimal things to constrain Islam such as ending Muslim immigration. How we are stuck in this day and age, after we have gone to the moon and back, after we have discovered the secret of atomic power, after we have discovered the instruction set for life, after we have started to explore the solar system, with taking seriously people who follow a belief-system promulgated by a very successful 7th century psychopath, simply astounds me. I can't believe we are having to deal with this patently absurd nonsense in this day and age. We should be enjoying the fruits of our ancestors' labors and building on their accomplishments; we shouldn't be having to deal with a bunch of lunatics who want to take us back to the 7th century. And we can't even joke about this absurd situation because the Muslims will immediately cry racism if we make fun of them.
Posted by: Mentat at July 18, 2005 6:34 PM
Bravo, Hugh. What an article. Damn, that's good.
Posted by: DCWatson at July 18, 2005 6:58 PM
I assume Mr Spencer will be writing an article on this soon. In it I hope he will address what he thinks would be the reaction of billion Muslims to the destruction of Mecca & Medina.
Most seem to think there will be vast outrage and striking back blindly at the West. But I wonder, considering that they have believed for generations that everything is predestined by Allah. Might they just as well lose all faith in their "all-powerful" Allah, if his most sacred place cannot be saved? Or perhaps they might think, Allah has permitted this so we will be forced to radically re-think & reform Allah's religion in a humanitarian direction.
Posted by: Will at July 18, 2005 7:11 PM
Will, I know that many will say, when Mecca is gone, "finally, no more Arabic, no more Qur'an, no more Islam, free at last, those filthy Arabs deserve it", etc. I personally know that in Egypt, atheists make a strong portion of the population as well as Iran. Pakistan is close behind.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at July 18, 2005 7:42 PM
Good points, everyone.
I like the ideas that this article puts before us and I agree that many of these steps need to be enacted before talking about nuking Mecca, but what if there's a major attack tomorrow? Next week? Maybe even next month? We'd certainly have to start acting now, but with the way our government drags their feet on even naming Islam as the enemy instead of the vague 'terrorists' they love to spout, then we haven't a snowball's chance in hell.
The very first thing to do is to point a finger at the true enemy and name it. Someone extremely high up needs to have a press conference and say to all of the American people that the true enemy is Islam's jihad against the infidels (and then say to America, "Yes, that means all non-muslims") the jihadist mentality, and the nations and governments which preach hate and continue these belief systems. The worst, most vile passages of the Qur'an should be read by that same individual and he or she should also ask the American people if these passages sound like a 'religion of peace'. This country's filled with idiots, I think (if not idiots, at least extremely naive people) but I also think that when confronted with this filth, they'll get behind that person and demand action be taken, lies stop being spread, and compensation is made ...as if that's even possible for all of the lives lost to this ancient 'religion' of barbarous racists.
The bombing of Mecca, however, should never be, as GW likes to refer to things: "taken off of the table" but it should be touted to those who wish us harm. Let them know that, in no uncertain terms, should something terrible happen to America due to their spreading of their anti-Semitic propaganda and their West-hating bile, we reserve the right to 'end it' once and for all. Let them know that the West will prove to them the power of their Allah by nuking their entire existence into oblivion and, should it happen, their Allah is therefore a joke, a lie, and they've been misled for centuries. Conquering the place will never work -does anyone think that they'd ever leave us alone?
We could avoid all of that by doing the things in the article and, should we be attacked anyway, we could act in the extreme and not worry about too much of a backlash since we've already deported most of them and those left behind wouldn't dare cause a stir. Doing the things in this article first are good measures, but not answers. We're dealing with a mentality that we're unfamiliar with. Much of Osama Bin Laden's attacking our towers wasn't to get our attention as much as it was to get the attention of the Arab world as if to say "Look -Islam took down the great Satan's towers" so imagine what kind of symbolic gesture destroying Mecca would make!
Taking the measures in the article first doesn't stop the insanity of Islam and the jihadists, but a final solution of obliterating the home of Islam, the holiest of their holy sites, would go a long, long way of getting our point across.
Let them know that we're MAD (mutually assured destruction) and we're not going to take it anymore!
Posted by: illustr8rg8r at July 18, 2005 7:42 PM
Hugh:
I notice that the British Muslim Forum has issued a fatwa condemning the suicide bombings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm
Of course, the complete text of the fatwa is available nowhere on line. Duh, I wonder why that is? Similarly, the BBC reveals that BMF (referred to as Bumpf I assume)bases the fatwa on the Qur'anic text as follows:
"Gul Mohammad, secretary general of the BMF, quoted the Koran saying: "Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.""
Of course, as usual, they quote this text leaving out the crucial qualification within it:
"Whoever kills a human being, except in retaliation for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind" says the Koran (5:32)
"except in retaliation for murder or other villainy in the land [sometimes translated as corruption]" leaves a hole that you could drive an Abrams tank through let alone a suitcase nuke. Let's see the complete text of this fatwa and let's see the theological justifications that they use to base it on! Why are they concealing the text of the fatwa? What have they got to hide? Why haven't they published it on line?
at July 18, 2005 7:45 PM
Hugh is forgetting the decades-long policy of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) -- which worked not by being ACTUALIZED, by merely by being threatened.
I think Mecca is so extremely revered by Muslims, that there mere threat of destroying it could be a powerful leveraging tool.
at July 18, 2005 8:00 PM
The people who ruled Soviet Russia were rational.
But many Muslims are entirely irrational, and would be perfectly willing to ignore such a warning. Others -- including all those now running Arab countries -- are rational, and if step by step various measures were undertaken without any need for further "triggers" (the "triggering" events were in New York, Washington, Beslan, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Fallujah, and elsewhere), and more and more discussion about other measures that need to be "considered," it would have some good effects. It may be the only way to force Saudi Arabia to cease funding the mosques, madrasas, and Da'wa propaganda in the Western world, which otherwise is the most natural thing in the world for the Saudis to do. We don't want, we can't have, we don't need, their "friendship." We need them to do what we want them to do. They have illiquid assets all over the Western world. And even if they were to quickly withdraw or sell off the liquid assets, whatever bank they would place the money in would promptly re-invest it in American investments if those investments were now under-priced. There is nothing Saudi Arabia can do to us. They have to sell their oil. They are completely dependent on America for the security of the Al-Saud. All we have to do is change our attitude, or tone, and read Saudi Arabia, that tribe with a flag and some oilwells, the riot act. If they think we wouldn't dare seize their assets to pay for all the economic damage they are causing, directly and indirectly, by funding the Jihad and forcing great expenditures on security, let's do it. Start with the New York apartment of Prince Turki, the one he keeps just for some future necessity. And the Aspen estate of Prince Bandar. And a good many houses in Virginia, that will be fun to take over, sell, and put the proceeds into HOmeland Security. Again -- there is nothing they can do in return, for they are right now doing everything they can to maximize the value of their reserves, and the American goal should be to do everything the United States can to minimize the value of those reserves. Or in time of great fury, simply seize them. It would be far less difficult, given where the oil is located, than is the protection of Iraqi oil fields. The money from oil sales could be spread around to poor countries, and to reimburse Infidels everywhere for those security costs. There are ways to make it a move that many will welcome, after the initial indignation has died down.
Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2005 8:15 PM
I agree thoroughly with Hugh above, but a small point in the "Bomb/Don't Bomb Mecca" debate: many muslims (which seems fantastical) believe that 'Allah' would actually prevent Mecca from being hit. If it were ever actually necessary to obliterate Mecca in some retaliatory strike after islamic aggression/terrorism, there would be a massive body of muslim laity in utter horror and complete spiritual desolation, as, of course, there is no 'allah' and therefore no protection for the site. What would such a body do? Who knows? It could easily be a social upheaval on an order of magnitude greater than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
A point to note.
Imam Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at July 18, 2005 8:22 PM
Geoff, I think you are right. They would actually believe Allah would prevent it. He is all powerful, he would NEVER allow Mecca to be destroyed and the rock, that holy rock, just grains of sand blowing in the wind. How would the imams explain it? A test from Allah? Wonder how Bat Yeor thinks the Islamic mind would perceive it? Given the Muslim mind, maybe it would be nonstop anger and jihad against any nonMuslim and their property within reach. World chaos.
It's all well and good for us to theorize about the aftermath of a retaliatory attack on Mecca, but until our government gets a clue.....
As Hugh said there is so much we can do now - clear the spies, shut down ALL the islamic fronts from CAIR, MSA, Islamic Society of NA, and on and on. Lots we can do, but we need leaders who see the big picture.
Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 8:39 PM
Reset and all:
Why not write to Mr. Tancredo in order to tell him about the alternatives Hugh has pointed out. His website is at http://www.tancredo.org/
Posted by: disillusionised_german at July 18, 2005 8:52 PM
several minuteman missiles pointed at holy sites might act as the damochles sword only if they believe we would use them, to do this we would have to destroy a lesser target before threatening mecca. thats one of the reason after 9/11 i wanted to see small nukes used in places like tora bora. if we had all we would need to do is threaten to use them again unlike now where some people might think we dont have the political will to use nukes thus making threats against mecca totally useless
Posted by: jimmytheclaw at July 18, 2005 9:09 PM
SUPER PIGS TO BE BREAD IN CHINA??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4690651.stm
Sunday, 17 July, 2005
China to send pig sperm to space
China is planning to study the effects of space on sperm, by sending the semen from pedigree pigs into orbit.
Some 40 grams of pig sperm will be taken on board the Shenzhou VI spacecraft for its October launch.
Some of the sperm will be kept outside the spacecraft's biological capsule and some inside, according to China's Xinhua news agency.
Surviving sperm will be returned to Earth and used to understand better the processes involved in pig reproduction.
The pigs chosen are a breed called Rongchang, named after an area in the southwest of the country and famed for their physique and for the quality of their meat.
Now thats what I'm talking about and while their are up there drop some of that super sprem over mulsum land??
Wonder what that will do??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
Heard that a known Islamic terrorist works for the Gardian in London
PSS
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:08 p.m. EDT
The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention
By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.
That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger. The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.
"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.
"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
Well, almost none.
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."
READ THE REST??
BUT THEN THINK ABOUT A DIRTY BOMB??
AND THANK OUR GUYS WHO STOPPED THIS FROM FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF ISLAMIC TERRORIST!!!!
at July 18, 2005 9:14 PM
About putting out of commission the roads into and out of Mecca, and the airfields all over Arabia. Whatever legitimacy the Al-Saud family may be said to possess in the eyes of any Muslim, it is as the "Keeper of the Two Holy Places" -- Mecca and Medina. This is a solemn duty.
Imagine that representatives of the American government, in camera, held a meeting with the highest ranking Saudis. Imagine further that the American representatives handed them the Freedom House report on anti-Infidel propaganda supplied by Saudi Arabia, to be found in mosques, almost all of them Saudi-built and Saudi-maintained, to be found all over the Western world. Imagine if, further, those American representatives told the Saudis that they now had to cease every single bit of such funding, and that one by one, those mosques would, no longer being paid for (oh, here and there some local group might manage to hold on for a while), would be closed. Permanently.
The Saudi representatives look on in astonishment. Their lips curl in that well-known Saudi sneer of cold command.
"But what about being able to buy our oil?" the head of the Saudi delegation asks?
"What about it" reply the Americans. "You have to sell it. We buy it, but most reluctantly. Oh, and we forgot to tell you -- we are putting taxes on oil, and other taxes on gasoline at the pump. And those taxes will rise, steadily, month by month. And demand will go down. And those taxes will be plowed into other energy projects. Nothing personal you see -- we're just worried about the environment."
The Saudis look on now, silent.
"And we have to tell you that we've been calculating the cost of your funding of mosques and madrasas in this country, and the propaganda that you feed Muslims and non-Muslims. We've asked some people invovled in a new specialty -- you might call it forensic economics, and they've determined that over the past few years, just since September 2001, you've cost our country $400 billion. Well, we can't recover that, but we are seizing, as enemy assets, various bits of residential and commercial real estate, and a little gold that we happen to have located, owned by assorted princelings of the Al-Saud family. And whatever we can recover from the sale of those assets will reiumburse the American treasury, the American taxpayers, for what you have been costing us. And we will find other ways to seize other assets -- all over the world. The little game is over."
"But, but..." sputters the man in the business suit, who a week before had been in Riyadh, doing a little collective dagger-swirling dance along with other dishdasha-ed men, feeling quite pleased with himself, with his fellow princes, with the way things were going with the silly Infidels.
"No, and there's something else you had best keep in mind. Remember you are the Protectors of, the Guardians of, the Two Holy Places. If something should happen to either, or both, of those Two Holy Places -- even, say, a main artery in were to be permanently put out of commission, or the nearest functioning airport be, say, in Yemen or Ethiopia, then you wouldn't exactly be doing a good job as the Guardians of the Two Holy Places, would you? And many Muslims might think you deserved special punishment. And they could find you, anywhere."
"But after all we've done for..." sputters the Saudi.
"It's time for the nonsense to stop. You have always assumed you could find refuge, if you needed it, in America, or England, or somewhere in the Infidel world. Sorry. We've all decided you'd be too hot to handle. We can't accommodate you. This isn't the 1950s, with all those ex-dictators, Juan Peron and so forth, finding refuge with Salazar or Franco. There's no where you can hide. Or, not unless you start to play ball with us. We're not fanatics. You can deal with us. We can, in the end, protect you or at least hold out the possiblity of refuge. Now, you wouldn't like it to be revealed that you are completely incapable of protecting those Two Holy Places, would you? Think of the reaction. You know how your fellow Sunnis can get. And thos Shi'a too. Remember how the French soldiers had to be called in in November 1979 to finally flush out the Muslim rebels that had seized control of the holiest mosque in the world? If you think that was embarrassing...."
The Saudis are very very silent. No sneers of cold command. A look, one that no member of the Al-Saud has ever exhibited before, or at least not since before that victory over the Jabal Shammar in 1920. "But..." the Saudi sneers again, this time not quite with that same air of cold command. Now it is a look of, not quite puzzlement, not quite confusion, not quite fear, not quite despair -- but a wonderful mix of all of these emotions.
A sight for Infidel eyes. Too bad the Americans forgot to have the scene taped. But forgive those Americans. They were excited. It was their first time.
Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2005 9:19 PM
Or, we could, halt all Muslim immigration, period.
Seal off the American/Mexican border, period.
Then allow increased immigration of Hindus.
at July 18, 2005 9:19 PM
Catherine, who would that be? Not surprised, most large newspapers are already infiltrated with Muslim apologists and idiot dhimmis (that's a dhimmi that doesn't know it).
Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 9:26 PM
Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 09:26 PM
DON'T REMEMBER THE GUYS NAME BUT HEARD IT ON FOX??
ALSO HEARD THAT THE GERMANS LET A ISLAMIC TERRORIST BANKER GO??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162875,00.html
Thailand Prepares for State of Emergency
Monday, July 18, 2005
NARATHIWAT, Thailand — Thai authorities prepared Monday to impose a state of emergency for insurgency-hit areas of the country's Muslim south, as violence continued unabated with two slayings and a bombing that wounded seven security personnel.
SEAMS THEY ARE EVERY WHERE AND KILLING PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS NOT JUST JEWS??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162542,00.html
Multiple Attacks Rock Southern Thai Town
Thursday, July 14, 2005
BANGKOK, Thailand — Suspected Islamic separatists set off five bombs and exchanged gunfire with security personnel in an attack Thursday in Muslim-dominated southern Thailand (search), killing a police officer and wounding 19 other people.
LOOK WHAT CHINA SAID TO ROMA AT THE SAME TIME THEM THE CHINESE GENRAL AND MAKES YOU WONDER IF THEY HAVE OPENED PANDORS BOX LIKE THE PAKIS???
COULD BE WHY SOMANY DIE IN THE COAL MIND BLASTS????
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
Ck the London Times?? Also heard sadder call terrorist acts to stop???
PSS
I get a little mixed up when I go shopping Found some great Blue Sandles and some Short Skirts Will have to go get my toes done!!!
at July 18, 2005 10:09 PM
Several comments are necessary on the postings above.
Firstly, MAD worked during the cold war because the west would have been the first to use them in any conflict with the Soviet Union. The Soviets understood that if they gained a conventional superiority, the threat of nukes would ensure that any invasion would be fruitless. MAD would not work with these idiots since they think that the angels would be with them and Allah would either grant them victory, if then defeat then it's kismet, his whimiscal will.
Secoundly, should they ever use a nuke on western soil, then the best response probably wouldn't be nuclear, but conventional. A nuclear strike would kill a few, slow down the jihad, but it will start up again, even if the respite was for one century. Europe (including Russia) alone can still raise over 2,000 divisions, America probably another 500. The muslims, even if they mobilized their entire populace from say 14 to 60 would be no match for these. It would be slaughter.
But one shouldn't consider such a fight a conventional war by any means. The purpose of the forces would be to denude the muslim civilian populace cover (they may arm their civilians, it would be to no avail) who would then be driven into the open (napalm, shell, bomb, etc. their villages, if they remain they fry, or starve) then they can be gunned down, napalmed and survivors starved (they won't last long in the desert, remember the Armenians, etc). As far as the cities are concerned, these can be bombed (build say a fleet of 2,000 B52s or other types that would make Dresden look like a picnic party). When our invading forces arrive, no need to take them Stalingrad style, blockage them (mining extensively the approaches and starving them out, no surrender, disease will take care of the rest).
Unconquered lands as yet, would be bombed relentlessly, the transportation system paralised, dams such as Aswan smashed, even chemicals (eg agent orange and others) used to poison water supplies and damage crops. When one considers the difficulties they have in feeding their own populations, the effect would be devastating.
Most importantly the newly cleansed lands to be colonised as speedily as possible, so that the muslims can never recover them.
This way, we would exterminate maybe not 100%, but certainly over 90%, the rest could be whittled down in time. Our casualties would not be too excessive, most probably less than the total cost in WW2.
The biggest problem would be the enemy within our lands, but the infidel populace could be armed (the muslims remaining unarmed, or much less armed, we would have tanks, helicopters, etc they pistols and rifles)and they could be dealt with Montenegrin style (Vespers, 1709) again no survivors or the few that do survive, might sucide bomb or kill on for a few more years, but have no chance to mutiply or propagate their barbarious cult. Their children can be taken away from them and indoctrinated to hate muslims and islam, a reverse janissary.
The war would probably take ten years, if that, but can we carry our people, can we harden their hearts for such an undertaking?
The bomb will do much of that. The truth being told about islam will do the rest. When people realise that they are not fighting to save their own skins, or to save their daughters from being raped, or their sons enslaved, but to prevent a islamic victory.
When our people realise en masse that islam makes a man kill, rape, enslave and abuse 'fellow' humanity without mercy without pity and that their offspring will eventually become rapists, slavers, murderers with no hope of any reformation, self questioning (the inner jihad), an end to their most basic humanistic instincts. An end to free and critical inquiry ("do not pursue what you know not of" and "seek science even to China" , what happens when the infidels, the Qu'ran's China, vannish as they did under muslim occupation in the middle east?), just eternal mental enslavement, their will surrendered to Allah, or in one word - islam.
How will the infidels feel or better think of the future that, not just their offspring, but the whole of humanity will have? Further more when westerners realise that they can never be pacified by our art, culture, science or civilization as Yazdgird III thought, wrongly ("We have thousands of years of culture behind us, a powerful tool indeed!" much good their culture of 'good deeds' did the Persians, from Cyrus to Khomeini!).
They'll reject this at all cost, and choose death than surrender. Then the prospect of killing others whose humanity has been stripped away by the Qu'ran won't be so difficult to comtemplate but a necessity not of their making or blame.
I'll leave to the reader to decide whether or not this is a 'spoof' posting.
JV
Posted by: jv at July 18, 2005 10:12 PM
Geoff, Reset;
I found your reasoning identical to the one articulated in my, enclosed below, letter which I sent a long time ago to the WorldNetDaily. It was in response to one Mr. Herm’s post where he expresses a concern that “nuking Mecca would immediately polarize the entire Muslim world as well as the civilized world against us”. I argue that nuking mecca, would be both terminal for Islam and at the same time most providential for Moslems. Regrettably, my letter was never published. Oh well,…
Anyway, here it goes:
Mr. Herm says in his last post that nuking Mecca “would immediately polarize the entire Muslim world as well as the civilized world against us”.
Well, for the starts, there wouldn’t be any “Moslem world” left to be “polarized”. Please, let me explain.
Moslems believe that Allah is the SUPREME MACHO who will not be humiliated – especially by the Infidel. Additionally, Allah can not tolerate the destruction of Islam’s holiest site AND, at the same time, expect Moslems to do the obligatory Hadj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). This would be a contradiction and it is impossible that Allah, who is perfect, should contradict himself. Therefore, as the Supreme MACHO and Perfect LOGICIAN he would prevent the nuking of Mecca - possibly by changing the path of the US missiles to explode over, for example, New York, Philadelphia, or/and, Los Angeles. And, of course, Tel-Aviv.
Islam is a faith of all or nothing and such an unyielding and absolute creed is also fatally brittle. Even a tiniest chink on its perfect face turns it into nothing. How much more the destruction of its most holy site.
Because if Allah can’t protect his Mecca by smiting the Infidel for attempting such cosmic sacrilege then, in Moslem eyes, something is terribly wrong with Allah and, by extension, Islam. They will have to conclude that Allah is as real as the tooth fairy and the whole Islam is one miserable humbug. There will be a stampede of ex-Moslems toward Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, moonism, shamanism, nudism, ice skating … Anything but Mohammedanism.
A billion people will re-join mankind after a 1400 years of imprisonment in the Islamic dungeon of history. Try to imagine their joy!
Actually, the same effect could be achieved by dropping a few (a hundred?) tons of pig manure on Mecca. I should think that variant may actually be ecologically and humanely preferable. Admittedly, the site would stink to heaven for a couple of weeks until the whole mess is hosed down, but on the other hand, the operation would be considerably less noisy and, of course, non-radioactive. Nobody dies, everybody wins.
As for Mr. Herm’s certainty that taking out Mecca would also polarize “the civilized world against us” I wish to tell him he has nothing to fear. If Mr. Herm includes Europe in his “civilized world” then, as an average European who shares the sentiments of the VAST majority of other Europeans, I can assure him we would be absolutely delighted if the US puts an end to that global nuisance represented by Islam.
Europeans are disgusted with the Moslem invasion to a degree you, our American friends, can not imagine. We are fed up with that ungrateful, tactless, hostile and bigoted mob of mostly freeloaders who scream “bloody racism” when they don’t get what they want. And they want absolutely everything.
By the way, in Denmark where I live, the mostly Moslem immigrants and their offspring constitute a full 82 percent of our prison population. They also represent the majority of the social benefit recipients and, of course, bulk of the patients in maternity wards.
It may also interest Mr. Herm that local Moslems were a full 100 percent of those who danced on the street of Copenhagen and distributed sweets to children celebrating the incineration of 3000 of Americans in New York. It is a pity Mr. Herm was not here to see how the newest residents of the “civilized world” rejoiced at the anguish of America.
But the most alarming thing about Moslems is not so much their incompatibility with European mores and laws as their increasingly brazen declarations that their goal is Islamization of Europe, or Eurabia. With Moslem explosive demographics this is almost inevitable.
Mr. Herm, most Europeans are sick and tired of Moslem’s pathological “civilization” that is being forced down our throat by our socialist ruling elites determined to replace the traditional, national and indigenous reality with multicultural lunatic fancy regardless of how much misery, repression, insecurity and devastation, both cultural and material, it brings.
.
The typical European despises our “civilized” elites for betraying their country and people, their history and culture and who, like the Quislings of yesteryear, collaborate with the invaders recognizing their usefulness in stamping out the Judeo-Christian heart of Europe thus hastening the dawn of Multicultural Europe. These fools are tragically unaware that far from being the masters of the process they are themselves pawns, or useful idiots, running errands for increasingly powerful, self-assertive and hostile “European” Islam. They delude themselves that they are ushering in the paradise of Multicultural Europe, but in fact they are patsies fully employed in creation of the nightmare of Eurabia.
Therefore, Mr. Herm, I can assure you that if you, Yanks, one day should neutralize Mecca, preferably without nuking it, there will be a lot of rejoicing, street dancing and sweets passing in the European nook of the “civilized world”. Not to speak of generous tar-and-feather application to the traitors who delivered us to the Moslem barbarians.
Of course, there will be some “civilized” voices of indignation - just like those who condemned Israelis for taking off Iraqi nuclear facility. But very few will take them seriously. Overwhelming majority would agree that it is better to be uncivilized for one day than Islamized for ever. Wouldn’t you, Mr. Herm?
at July 18, 2005 10:13 PM
The war would probably take ten years, if that, but can we carry our people, can we harden their hearts for such an undertaking?
I'll leave to the reader to decide whether or not this is a 'spoof' posting.
JV
Posted by: jv at July 18, 2005 10:12 PM
And Remember we have the MOAB & MOP!!!!
I say we have hard hearts and the Shivo story tells us this??
REMEMBER
The prince who had a place in Aspen is depressed and moving back to SA????
Hugh Gold Star for you you put the G8 meeting in a new light??
jv gets a Gold Star as well!!!
BUT I LIKE THE PIG SPERM IN SPACE!!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO vICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECIEVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
jv
You talk about they will die for their cause some will but Afgahanistan is an example on how they will swich sides??? then switch back again??
the people I talked to today get it understand this will be a hard fight but are in for the long hall??
Posted by: Catherine at July 18, 2005 10:34 PM
http://www.wabcradio.com/listenlive.asp
talking about the german court who let the islamic terrorist go??
Part of the American Tribe
Posted by: Catherine at July 18, 2005 10:43 PM
Fred, Third World War?
We won the Third World War when the Soviet Empire collapsed. We are no engaged in the 4th World War. And it is a shooting war. With real casualties.
I'm with non-prophet. If we're nuked we nuke back. No first use, but extreme retaliation. And a civilian target is perfect. Like Hiroshima, it lets the enemy know you will go all the way and then some. Massive, immediate, and conclusive destruction. Declare the doctrine early. Let them know that ALL MUSLIMS have something to lose.
Posted by: texan at July 18, 2005 10:49 PM
son-of-walker your website http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/ Enjoyed reading some of the articles and will copy parts or all of them to my website I am developing. Mine is going to be more educational,and a naming names website.
Reset
Posted by: reset at July 18, 2005 10:51 PM
I think there has to be nuclear testing again.
Our nukes are very old decades of neglect. It
would be wise to actually test a few before we
try to nuke the place. Remeber how embarassing it
was when Carter had that brillant raid into Iran
that failed before Iran even knew they had been
invaded. To try to attack the center of Islam
and fail would be worse than attacking and succeeding
I use to hear people bitch about the nukes having
Jane Fonda fusing. I am not sure our nukes are
still good. We may need a few indian scientists
to check them out unless you trust the chinese
ones we have trained. I fear the chinese know
better the state of our nukes than us. To fail to
have them work in Mecca would verify to the Chinese
that we are weak and they would attack us.
Of course they would also hopefully take care of the islamic disease at the same time.
at July 18, 2005 10:56 PM
do it. Lets do it.
Posted by: Chris at July 18, 2005 10:56 PM
Let them know that, in no uncertain terms, should something terrible happen to America due to their spreading of their anti-Semitic propaganda and their West-hating bile, we reserve the right to 'end it' once and for all. Let them know that the West will prove to them the power of their Allah by nuking their entire existence into oblivion and, should it happen, their Allah is therefore a joke, a lie, and they've been misled for centuries. Conquering the place will never work -does anyone think that they'd ever leave us alone?
posted by illustr8rg8r
I think that the threat of annihilating Islam's holy sites would serve to deter the muslim lunatics from detonating nukes in America. They fear absolutely nothing but allah and everything they do is in defense of Islam. There is nothing they value any more than the religion of Islam, and Mecca is the epicenter of Islam, the nexus that manifests its essense and soul. Over a billion muslims grovel in that direction every day. All muslims are required to chant incantations and throw stones at the Kabah at least once in their lifetimes. Without Mecca, Islam would be mortally wounded. If it ever comes to that, and I hope it does not, it would prove to them that allah is not all powerful.
We must have some leverage to use against these fiends and I can't think of anything else that would faze them. If the threat of nuking Mecca would prevent a nuclear attack here, how could anyone object, especially when muslim jihadists have stated that they intend to use nuclear weapons against us.
If our elected leaders were as wise and prudent as they should be, we wouldn't be living under the spectre of Islamic terrorism at home. There would be no terror cells thriving in America and growing bigger and stronger every day as muslim terrorists pour through our porous borders. There wouldn't be two or three million bellicose muslims living in our country, filing frivilous lawsuits, suing employers, demanding special privileges, and generally making a nuisance of themselves. Muslim immigration to America would have stopped after 9-11. CAIR, the MSA, and dozens of other subversive Islamic groups would no longer be operating on our soil.
Hugh's ideas are excellent, as always, and I wish he had the power and authority to go to Washington and implement every one of them tomorrow because the Bush administration won't, Congress won't, and the American people are still trying to figure out who the enemy is. If the "American Hiroshima" plot is real, we have less than a month to figure out what the Islamic butchers love more than they hate us.
Posted by: Susanp at July 18, 2005 11:00 PM
well i say we do it asap
Posted by: Chris at July 18, 2005 11:03 PM
Let it be known that if we are attacked with a nuclear weapon we will make Mecca radioactive for a thousand years, kinda like Chernobyl. Poison all the pilgrims who set foot there.
Posted by: texan at July 18, 2005 11:10 PM
In order for MAD to work, wouldn't we have to respond? Otherwise it's SAD, Self Assured Destruction.
at July 18, 2005 11:13 PM
What we have here is a failure -- my failure -- to communicate. And this is not a movie.
Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2005 11:13 PM
for peeps sake, forget the politics of this whole thing. like i said...just do it. even if we don't have a reason to :)
Posted by: Chris at July 18, 2005 11:15 PM
Has anybody heard from Yam lately? I tried to insult him last week about making a video of his song lyrics.
I wish he would come back so he could rant a little about this talk of nuking Mecca.
Posted by: texan at July 18, 2005 11:19 PM
What we have here is a failure -- my failure -- to communicate. And this is not a movie.
Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2005 11:13 PM
NO IT IS NOT!!
ALL OF EUROPE ISSUED A WARING TO DISENGAGE FROM ALL MULSUM LANDS??
WELL WE HEARD LONDON IS THE NEW MECCA OF ISLAM WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??
ABA MUSRA BERGAIDE??
SEAMS THEY HAVE UP THE ANTIE??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
DO YOU HAVE YOUR STORM BOX COMPLET BETTER GET MOVING??
at July 18, 2005 11:49 PM
Hugh, I think you communcated some excellent, practical ideas very well, indeed. I think there is a certain resignation here, and doubt that ANYTHING, anything at all, will be done by our governments until AFTER a catastrophic WMD attack that kills tens or hundreds of thousands has taken place. Governments will have to fear anarchy and the wrath of their citizens before they are moved to action of any kind, and many of the practical ideas you suggest may simply not be sufficient to stave off anarchy if/when the time comes.
Posted by: NonProphet16 at July 19, 2005 12:30 AM
What is the probability of Muslim terrorists nuking a western city, even if they had nukes? It is possible that the terrorists, if they know we will retaliate with nukes, will decide the best policy is to simply wait until the west is Islamizised. If they are really smart they will use methods of attack that are just below our fresh-hold for nuclear retaliation. Remember that Mohammad knew when to hold off to ensure victory. So will they be as smart as their prophet?
Then again the ideologies of tyrants often turns them into strategic idiots so they may nuke us if they beleive in their own propaganda enough.
Posted by: obl r us at July 19, 2005 12:38 AM
This is all good food for thought in the event of a minor attack, which I think is Hugh's supposition... I have been a proponent of raising the ante with Muslims all along -- They must be made to understand how seriously we take this wmd affair, and how the consequences for their actions are rising in seriousness daily.
In a way, who can blame the Muslims? Their fantasist arrogance is fed by the lack of consequences we have provided for the last 35 years. They have been lashing out against us on manifold fronts -- terror attacks, terror threats, jiggering our legal system, overwhelming our immigration systems, employing ex-Presidents and ex_Ambassadors to do their dirty work for them... claiming they are the true victims each time they rape our culture and our economy, forcing us to incur ruinous expenditures for the pleasure of their company on our soil....
We have been filling their coffers with uncounted riches, our leaders have become defenders of their faith, and we have placed unprecedented strictures on our own citizenry in order to appease their Islamic sensibilities and not make them feel isolated -- Why wouldn't they think they're is winning??? Aren't we acting exactly as predicted in their execrable book?
6.110] And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
This was the passage UBL quoted to a friend as they marvelled at how their blessed hijackers passed through our society completely undetected...
I think something in the style of JFK to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile crisis -- Any mass destruction attack on any Western target in the US or Europe will be considered an attack by the usual suspects (SA, Pak, Iran, etc...) on America and will meet an overwhelming response. The first targets need to be all nuclear and nuclear related sites (military, labs, reactors, and ALL suspected sites -- bomb first, ask questions later...) across the Muslim world... Pakistan would no longer have nukes -- no more reactors in Iran or wherever else in the Islamic world -- And we should let them know this is just for starters. It's always good to have an 11, a 12, and a 13 on the volume knob...
Posted by: jsla at July 19, 2005 12:44 AM
Genetically targeted germs
Genetically targeted germ warfare… The most environmentally friendly form of war
I agree with Hugh… Nuking Mecca would not get us nowhere, except millions upon millions of suicide killers. Most adherents to Islam belong to a handful of ethnic groups with very distinct genetic markers: Gulf Arab, Berber, Bengali, Pashtun, Baluchi, Sindhi, Punjabi, Malay-Indonesian, Persian, Kurdish, and Turkic. There was a talk that it may be possible to genetically engineer a virus to attack the unique genetic markers of certain ethnic groups. With my limited understanding of genetics, I do not see why the West and Israel should not investigate this form of warfare as a weapon of last resort. Are nuclear weapons any more horrible a-method of genocide than germs? If the world is headed toward destruction as a result of the determined fanaticism of entire races that are subject to the evil ideology of Islam, I see no alternative than putting them down as one would do to a rabid dog. This space ship hurling through space that we call earth is not big enough for Islam and anything else.
at July 19, 2005 1:06 AM
Hugh, good points. These are far more destructive to the threat of islam than would be a bombing of mecca. Although, a complete destruction of mecca would help encourage a final "rumble" between islam and everyone else. An end to this insane ideology would ensure a reasonable amount of security for our coming generations.
Posted by: boxter at July 19, 2005 1:11 AM
Here's a Quiz for you all:
Why would Muslim terrorists, if they had the capability to do it, NEVER nuke Jerusalem?
Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 1:44 AM
"Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.""
on the BBC world news a few monents ago spoken by a skumbag from CAIR
Is there such a thing as a mini-nuke that can take care of the BEEB
at July 19, 2005 2:13 AM
"Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind.""
on the BBC world news a few monents ago spoken by a skumsag from CAIR
Is there such a thing as a mini-nuke that can take care of the BEEB
at July 19, 2005 2:13 AM
The Al Aqsa mosque is there but it is taqiyya. Built on the rubble of the Jewish temple long after Mo's death, and the 'false history' was created - Mo lifted off the top of it on his horse to heavens. But it was built centuries after Mo died. It's all taqiyya, a wedge in Israel's heart,Jerusalem. All the Muslims know that but tell you how important it is. The Jews should have destroyed it long time ago.
Reset
Posted by: reset at July 19, 2005 2:27 AM
reset,
It doesn't matter to my point that the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was based on stolen land and stolen architecture.
My point is that it is the #3 most holy spot on Earth for all Muslims, after Mecca and Medina, and that's why not one Muslim terrorist would ever destroy it.
Muslims have the most psychologically intense topolatry in the history of religions. Threatening Mecca with destruction with a credible and sober threat would paralyze the vast majority of Muslims with shock and fear.
(Indeed, Muslims have long spread rumors about how Israel is about to destroy Mecca -- one such rumor spread while Saddam was invading Kuwait that he was doing it in order keep going and save Mecca from being destroyed by Israel...!)
Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 2:51 AM
These might include, not destroying Mecca, which would cause maddened Muslims everywhere to attack and kill Infidels -- and the problem with Islam is that it contains many elements of a violent cult that cannot be wished away, or hidden any longer.
i thought this was already in affect due to other things that are pointed at at numourous times hear and other sites if you actually look at the attacks and death toll?
sorry had to throw my 2 cents in
Posted by: Vardos the Dark Putz at July 19, 2005 3:05 AM
Why would Muslim terrorists, if they had the capability to do it, NEVER nuke Jerusalem?
HMMMMM
Mecca should be the target regardless where-ever the mussis detonate a nuke
I agree that many of Hughes comments sound good,but im the long term they will only deepen the hate towards us
Myself I support a first strike policy in light of the amount of killing that is happening at the present time.Not by nuking mecca,but constructing pink pigs like the one that escaped from the Pink Floyd concert in London and then fly them over Mecca,,,,PINK PIGS drop a few (a hundred?) tons of pig manure on Mecca.
And a warning that nukes will follow should there be another terror attack
The virus of islam has been allowed to spread to long,so maybe drastic action is the only cure
at July 19, 2005 3:06 AM
Excellent! Let me get my Khukri sharpened for such an event. A chance to avenge my ancestors! Ayo Gorkhali!
Posted by: Gorkhali at July 19, 2005 3:33 AM
I recall a catholic priest friend of mine telling me over lunch that the Kabba was full of idols, and the Saudi Royals know this but keep it tight lipped since Mohound (Mohammed) had them (the idols) all sealed inside the big box after he conquered Mecca. Is there any truth to this Hugh?
at July 19, 2005 3:39 AM
Actually, I'd like to amend my support for bombing Mecca slightly: Before we do it, we should send in a SWAT team to videotape everything there -- including the inside of the mosque, every nook and cranny, and take blowtorches to the Kaaba and film its innards too.
Then: Thumbs up to the satellite on high, copter out of there, and initiate "Operation Enough's Enough".
Posted by: metaxy at July 19, 2005 3:54 AM
"Muslims have the most psychologically intense topolatry in the history of religions."
--- from a posting above by metaxy
"Topolatry" -- worship of places. The statement may or may not be true, but the insistence on using the right word needs to be noticed.
As for the query, in a different posting, about what may or may not be "inside the big box" or black stone, it is I think is a solid cube. Several similar black cubes, I have been told, can be found elsewhere in western and southern Arabia.
A black cube, but not a Rubik's Cube, for no Infidel will find a solution to the unanswerable puzzle it poses.
Is the Magic Wonderstone of Mecca really the object of litholatry, or is it simply a central point around which, and around which, must go, widdershins and seven times, the Muslim pilgrims who have incorporated a good deal of pre-Islamic pagan lore and rituals into Islam?
Beats me.
But, in the mean time, at least two other useful words have been brought to our collective attention.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 3:57 AM
Yet another thought. I recall that back in the late 1960s, the Israelis somehow managed to airlift in the night a complete Egyptian radar station -- simply took it all away.
Well, how heavy are these cubes? Impossibly heavy, or just very heavy, to airlift? Could one of the cubes similar to that in Mecca be airlifeted out (by the way, the mere existence of such cubes is something the Arabs do not wish to be known, for it supports the idea of the pagan worship of such stones, and destroys the belief in the uniqueness of the Magic Wonderstone), set down somewhere (in the midst of the American desert, possibly), and a gigantic amount of attention would then be directed at the simply inexplicable appearance, right there in the United States, of such a stone.
It might throw the world's Muslims into confusion and demoralization. It might be interpreted as a sign that Allah had switched his allegiance from the Arabs, the "best of peoples," who turn out to be, at least in Saudi Arabia, ruled by a corrupt family. It might be taken, or at least used, as a "sign" that the period of Islam was over.
On the other hand, there is always the possiblity that an alternative interpretation, that which would suggest, to some Americans, that now they were deemed, by the magical power of whatever or whoever made that stone appear, to accept the True Islam.
And that theme might be taken up by Muslims elsewhere. Yes, America is now a Muslim country. Look, a black cube appeared. A sure sign from Allah. And for all I know, someone will show up, clutching a Qur'an, and announcing that he is the Prophet (American version).
Well, this is too good an idea for a Hollywood plot not to attract a Director and a Script-Writer for its future appearance on the Silver Screen. So I hereby copyright this idea for the whole United States, as Gabby Hayes used to say, and Texas. And everywhere else, you international idea-stealers, you.
Now all I have to do is fill in the details around the removal of the Magic Wonderstone, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. You know, make sure the plot thickens?
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 4:15 AM
Bessonitsa. Gomer Pyle. And Paris in her Hilton.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 4:32 AM
Bessonitsa. Gomer Pyle. And Paris in her Hilton.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 4:34 AM
"widdershins and seven times"
So I am not the only one to realise the significance of that ritual.
at July 19, 2005 4:42 AM
No. You and I and the White Horse of Uffington.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 4:50 AM
What nobody has yet mentioned in this thread (with respect to nuclear attacks by the proponents of Islam)is that the communists, being atheists, were deterred by the prospect of a retaliatory nuclear strike, as they did not believe in an afterlife, nor in divine rewards for martyrdom. This, of course, is not true of the fanatics running Iran. When the mullahs have a nuclear arsenal, I fear there is a high probability that this arsenal will be used for Jihad. I fervently hope that the our governments understand this and are preparing for preemptive destruction of all Iranian nuclear installations before it's too late.
Posted by: commonsense
at July 19, 2005 5:46 AM
What nobody has yet mentioned in this thread (with respect to nuclear attacks by the proponents of Islam)is that the communists, being atheists, were deterred by the prospect of a retaliatory nuclear strike, as they did not believe in an afterlife, nor in divine rewards for martyrdom. This, of course, is not true of the fanatics running Iran. When the mullahs have a nuclear arsenal, I fear there is a high probability that this arsenal will be used for Jihad. I fervently hope that our governments understand this and are preparing for preemptive destruction of all Iranian nuclear installations before it's too late.
Posted by: commonsense
at July 19, 2005 5:47 AM
Longtime ago around the end of the ninteenth century Snouck Hougronje sugested in one of his personal letters to occupy Mecca. According to him it was the only change moslims would accept Western supremacy.
at July 19, 2005 6:26 AM
Longtime ago around the end of the ninteenth century Snouck Hougronje sugested in one of his personal letters to occupy Mecca. According to him it was the only change moslims would accept Western supremacy.
at July 19, 2005 6:26 AM
The sixt measure is very urgent. But all are good.
Posted by: Franze at July 19, 2005 6:38 AM
"Are maddened millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of inconsolable Muslims, for whom Mecca no longer exists, and so with nothing further to lose, what we wish to bring into being? No. But the idea of discussing possible means of deterrence, not of the determined suicide-bomber, but of all those who have helped to fund mosques and madrasas, or to supply the emotional and financial and intellectual support system (including the continued smooth practitioners of taqiyya-and-kitman in the West), and who can be threatened in all sorts of ways."
Hugh: How about threatening to nuke Jeddah or Riyadh as a strategy, then? After all, bombing Qadaffi's tent had something of a deterrent effect, didn't it? (I know, I know, the likelihood of Blair or Bush actually holding the Al-Sauds responsible for their perfidy is pretty slim.)
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 19, 2005 8:47 AM
Hugh, your ideas are good, but could never be implemented. In terms of practical measures, you may as well propose to build an invisible force field around all our cities.
Some of your proposals actually further the aims of OBL/UBL/whatever. The destabilization of the governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan are current goals. Several of your measures would accomplish these goals for him.
I'm anxious to hear from you or anyone else the means to deter a relatively small, extragovernmental organization that believes they are the last defenders of true Islam. These methods need to operate in the short term, i.e. what would deter a group in possession of one or more "suitcase nukes"? Those who argue for the destruction of Mecca and/or Medina hope to put the following thought in their minds: "If I push this button, I will be responsible for the obliteration of Washington, DC, (a good thing), but I will also be responsible for the destruction of Mecca and Medina (a very bad thing, so bad I might only not get my 72 virgins but could be tormented for eternity, etc)."
Even the bombing of Mecca is not a deterrent unless the person/group to be deterred believes we would do it. Believability is a key element in deterrence. Would anyone in the US support bombing a major population center with a hundred thousand innocents? Probably not (especially if we can't even bring ourselves to agree on whether the 9/11 hijackers were terrorists, freedom fighters, or latter day incarnations of the Founding Fathers), so the threat of nuking Tehran or Riyadh is not believable.
Deterrence needs to be believable and the deterring consequence must be immediate to have any hope for effect.
I'm anxious to hear serious proposals that meet these criteria. You seem like a serious guy, so can you augment your current proposals with some additional deterrents that address what is probably a relatively near-term threat?
Thanks for your time and the forum.
at July 19, 2005 9:29 AM
July 19, 2005
Been thinking about this nuke mecca thing won’t make that much difference [but would make people feel better]?,But what about putting the Israelis in their fallout shelters and nuking the palis?? Don’t the mulsums say it is their fault with the west?? Would not even really need nukes could use the MOAB or the MOP!! This is what the mulsums blame for all their hate of the west and it would stop a lot of dimmi tax too!!
Part of the American Tribe
PS
Seamd the Swiss arrested some islamic terrorist crying deplomat??
and another arrest some Russian for stealing 9million seams that was money bill gave to help destroy nukes in Russia seams he put the money in his Swiss bank account?????
Posted by: Catherine at July 19, 2005 9:49 AM
Hugh,
Whether you’ve failed or not to communicate your message to us is not terribly important.
What is important is that you succeed communicating your message to the US government. As long as you can’t do that we may entertain ourselves exchanging funny fantasies until the number of Moslems here grows high enough to give them political clout to make the government close your website.
Well, perhaps not exactly. Perhaps they will be satisfied to confine all “resistance” to the internet. In other words, to the virtual reality where we can plan, wage and even win our virtual war with islam.
at July 19, 2005 9:50 AM
I'm with Andrei Rublev on this one. A further problem with the nuclear option is that hitting Makkah and Medina would not be enough; and the number of nukes needed to do the job could have longstanding environmental effects--including the radiation getting blown right back at us, ultimately.
Hugh and Granny Weathwerwax, I need to confess that the only tongues I speak are English, Chinese (2 kinds), Thai, a Little French, a little German, and have a few that I read but do not speak. What are widdershins and all them other things? Scratch the head and look puzzled do I!
But here's a brain fart for all to ponder (and it scares me as I consider it):
The Islamofascists essentially want a people's war. This is one in which there are no non-combatants, that anything is permissible when you have prisoners, and any form of destruction can be practiced on the enemy. If you follow the Geneva conventions, you cannot defeat a people's war. However, the Roman treatment of the Jews in 70 and 135 AD, American pacification of the Plains Indians, the Soviet pacifications of the Caucasus and Central Asia (after the 1917 revolution), Mao's treatment of Sharki Turkistan and Tibet, and the North Viet treatment of the Hmong and Montagnards after the US bugged out show that whole peoples can be defeated with sufficient ruthlessness. Coupled with this would be the willingness to coerce the consciences of the conquered by forced conversion to something else.
However, if such policies were adopted, I would bet the proverbial farm and bottom dollar that you'd see several generations of "Mahdis" appearing all over the Islamic world after the US Marines or whoever has barbecued pork before the Kaaba. You'd have to be in for such a thing for the long haul.
But, as the old Icelandic Eddas said, such times would be ages of swords, wolves, and the absence of mercy. It would be an era in which people would have to be cruel. That is why I mourn.
at July 19, 2005 10:16 AM
"What is important is that you succeed communicating your message to the US government. As long as you can’t do that..."
-- from a posting above
You overlooked a phrase, which might offer a hint, in my original article.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 10:23 AM
"I'm anxious to hear from you or anyone else the means to deter a relatively small, extragovernmental organization that believes they are the last defenders of true Islam."
--- from a posting above
Waht is this "relatively small" and "extragovernmental organization" you have in mind? I suspect you have in mind something we like to identify as Al Qaeda, but which would also have to include every single one of its affiliates, succursales, subsidiaries, emulating or emulated groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Gemaa Islamiyah, Laskar Jihad, Jaish-e-Toiba, and a thousnad other groups the names of which can be found at various websites. If it were they alone, and if their numbers were limited, one could deal with those "relatively small" groups. But their memberships are neither "relatively small" (compared to what?) nor fixed; kill them all, and more will join, as long as the ideology of Jihad persists.
And focusing on dealing with this or that named terrorist group distracts attention from all the other instruments of Jihad. The greatest worry, aside from the acquisition, by Iran or ANY OTHER Muslim state (and the only good reason for invading Iraq, the only one that can be justified, that makes sense, is that of seizing, destroying, and disrupting the weaponry that Saddam Hussein -- and hence possibly other Muslim groups or states at some point -- may have acquired or been developing).
Even thinking in terms of a "relatively small" group, which turns one's attention away from the nature of Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and the remarkable defensiveness even of those whom we too easily label as "moderates" (without defining the term very carefully, and without knowing how we can distinguish the permanent and real moderate from the feigned or temporary one, and furthermore have no answer to the question of that "My-Son-the-Fanatic" and "Manchurian-Candidate" problems: the younger generation that becomes more, not less, fanatically Muslim, and the person who seems completely integrated but somehow, from the early brainwashing in Islamic doctrine or even the mere awareness that "I am a Muslim" may later set off, triggered by personal setbacks or depressions, a renewed interest in Islam, even an interest that meant a murderous desire to kill Infidels (see the case of that Intel engineer Mike Hawash).
Why should we be content to kill or capture Bin Laden, or half or 2/3 or every single current member of his group? It would be meaningless. Meanwhile, the Da'wa and the demographic conquest, behind enemy(Infidel) lines, continues, undealt with, as the solemn pieties echo through all the newsrooms, television studios, and chanceries of the West.
Which of my ideas "could never be implemented"? If the "idea" of a war-footing approach to other sources of energy cannot be implemented, then we all be living in such an incredibly awful world, given our ingratitude to Mother Nature or to Whom It May Concern, and perhaps, then, we will not have to worry about the islamization of Europe because the world itself will not make it. Why is this notion incapable of being "implemented" if enough people understand the real cost, the internalized cost, of every barrel of Muslim or Arab oil?
Is it impossible to have Mr. Grade, or Mr. Blair, or some group of indignant citizens, demand a complete change of policy and personnel at the BBC?
Why is it simply impossible to "implement" a policy that will make clear to the Saudis something they may not realize -- in wartime, and wartime can be defined by Congress, passing a resolution, enemy assets are routinely seized? Why is the seizure of Saudi-owned assets so preposterous an idea -- because too many powerful people in the Western world have been living as paid promoters of Saudi and Arab views, and of course as careful apologists for Islam -- think just of those ex-diplomats and ex-CIA men who became "international business consultants with a special interest in the Middle East." It is quite possible to publicize their names, have them investigated by Congress, list their take, and to do the same with their fellows in academic life, or among journalists.
Why is it impossible to end the "jizyah" -- that is, the by-now almost automatic transfer of wealth, above the $10 trillion that the OPEC oil states have received since the fall of 1973 -- in the form of Infidel foreign aid? Why is that impossible? If it is discussed, if it is understood that the best way to use up some of Saudi Arabia's discretionary income (always put ot nefarious uses) is to force them to divert some of it to Egypt, Pakistan, the "Palestinians" (whose unviable state can only exist on outside aid, aid which Infidels should be the last people supplying), Jordan, and other Arabs or Muslims somehow left out of the oil bonanza.
And by ending such aid, and accompanying the ending of it with a pretened high-minded appeal for the "generous Arabs and Muslims who have benefited so greatly from oil revenues, and even more from the latest rise in prices" will "we know" be "happy to take up the slack, and help to supply financial aid for the poorer Muslims and fellow Arabs."
Of course they won't be happy to do so. But whether they refuse outright, or come through with something, they will be resented, even hated, by the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the "Palestinians" and the Pakistanis -- the resentment of the poor for the rich. For if we are all Believers together, all part of one umma al-islamiyya, it is grating that the richer members of that "one community" are so stingy, selfish, when it actually comes to sharing their wealth. The resentments and hatreds will be one more intra-Islamic fissure, created not by doing something, but simply by not doing something -- not supplying "jizya" to countries that, like malevolent Egypt, seem to think it is now theirs by right, no matter how many commitments (to Israel under the Camp David Accords, to the Bush Administration with all that facade of democratizing measures) they break.
Again, why is this ending of the jizya something that would be "impossible to implement"?
And why is it impossible to ban Muslim migration to the Western world? If more people learn what is contained in the canonical texts of Islam, the passages that are right there, for all to see (in some cases one keyboard click away from viewing), they will demand such a ban? There is no obligation to admit into one's midst people who do not wish one, one's children, one's society, one's polity, one's anything, well. None. Why such a feeling of hopelessness, paralysis? It has only been three years since a few people began to study Islam, and the numbers go up every day. And I don't mean study the way, say, CAIR would have you "study" Islam under its careful guidance.
Why is it impossible for the government to fund private institutes to teach Arabic and related languages, and about Islam -- free from the army of apologists for Islam and Uruba (see the memoir about teaching Arabic at Middlebury Summer School posted at www.eccelibano.blogspot.com)? Why can't this be "implemented" if enough Congressmen become aware of the Columbia ("That-Awful-Mess-on-Morningside-Heights") Problem, which is merely an extreme example, with a certain amount of unusual administrative omerta, of what is widespread among the army of apologists who now dominate MESA Nostra.
There is a problem, but not a short-term one. It has no end point. Either the Infidels will realize that the only way to permanently protect themselves is to severely limit the numbers of Muslims in their midst, and then to create, or allow to be created, such conditions in dar al-Islam that will allow, or even force, a sufficient number of Muslims (in the manner of Ataturk) to have to confront the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own societies, and to put the blame where it belongs. For the failures of Muslim peoples and Muslim societies everywhere is a fault, not of Infidels (as Islam teaches) but of Islam itself. That is the point that should never be lost sight of -- how to create the conditions that makes that realization as possible as it was, for Communism, in Soviet Russia.
Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2005 10:32 AM
But, as the old Icelandic Eddas said, such times would be ages of swords, wolves, and the absence of mercy. It would be an era in which people would have to be cruel. That is why I mourn.
Posted by: Kepha at July 19, 2005 10:16 AM
MORN BUT REMEMBER TO WIN??
sympathy?
We need to learn and keep in mind that word sympathy is in the dictionary between the words SH_T and SYPHILIS!!!
THIS RELIGION HAS DECLARED WAR ON THE WEST ONCE AGAIN ARE YOU GOING TO FIGHT OR LAY DOWN??
http://www.islamistwatch.org/main.html
Declaration of War on America
August 23, 1996 Hindukush Mountains, Khurasan, Afghanistan
By Usama Bin Laden
Declaration of War on America
August 23, 1996 Hindukush Mountains, Khurasan, Afghanistan
By Usama Bin Laden
REMEMBER ALL THE ISLAMIC GROUPS WERE THERE FROM AROUND THE WORLD??
MANY TIMES HE SPEAKS OF THE 2HOLY PLACES AND THIS IS WHAT THEY FIGHT FOR??
TALKS ABOUT MO-HAM-OD BEING IN PALISTIAN WELL WE KNOW THAT IS A LIE THE SEIGE OF 10 YEARS AND HE NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN ISRAEL DIED BEFOR THE WAR WAS SICEFIRED??
ENOUGH TIME TO GET ON WITH THIS WAR AND THE MULSUMS WHO CONDIM THAT IS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK ANY MORE TIME TO TURN IN THE MONSTERS EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US!!!!
PAKIS HAVE BEEN SENDING ISLAMIC TERRORIST TO FIGHT??
ALL THE WESTERN COUNTRIES WHO HAVE FULED THE FIRE BY DOING NOTHING??
LOOK AT EVEN ENGLAND LET THEM PREACH HATE AND KILL IN THEIR OWN STREETS WE HAVE SEEN THIS EVEN AFTER 9/11!!
NOW TONY PLAYS A GAME WITH THE MULSUMS WHO GIVE COVER??
ARE YOU AFRAID OF LIB JUDGES WHO WILL HIDE LIKE COWARDS WHEN THE FIGHTING STARTS IN YOUR STREETS OR ARE YOU WILLING TO FIGHT TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN???
I AM SICK OF ALL THIS PC CRAP AND SO ARE MOST AMERICANS!!
IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHERE THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST ARE IN THE USA LOOK THE MAP BUSH COUNTRY CAN FIND IT ON newsmax.com
THEN YOU WILL SEE WERE THE TROUBLE IS??
ALL THOSE BLUE SPOTS HAVE MANY MULSUMS IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME LOOK IT UP??
APESSEMENT DOES NOT WORK TIME FOR???
We are Determined that before the Sun Sets on this terrible struggle our Flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of FREEDOM on one hand and of OVERWHELMING FORCE on the other.
G.W. Marshal
at July 19, 2005 11:12 AM
Hugh,
Nice strawman. Of course, the construction of your irrelevant strawman (arguing from the general threat of extragovernmental entities, not subject to deterrents aimed at governments, to saying that eliminating a specific organization, is clever but besides the point, i.e. a strawman). So your extremely verbose reply misses the point, unless the point was the self-admiration of your own prose.
Back to the point which you evaded. Deterring governments is not the near-term problem. Deterring individual terrorists is the problem. I don't care what they call themselves or if they have no name at all. Their actions must be deterred. Threatening governments that they already despise is not likely to help.
It has been said before that we have to bat 1000, and they only have to bat 1. If they only have to bat 1, then we need to deter that 1, no matter who he or she is. The question then becomes how to deter that fanatic at a level that is meaningful to that fanatic. The threat that their fanatical action (blowing up Washington, DC) would lead to an immediate consequence they considered to be unthinkable (the destruction of Mecca, etc) seems closer to reality than taking away their library card (denying them access to our universities, etc).
Posted by: OCBill at July 19, 2005 11:13 AM
below is the link for the audio of Tancredo's actual remarks;
http://www.540wfla.com/timages/page/media/Tancredo_comments_071405.mp3
It seems clear to me he was speaking hypotheticly about making a threat.
Posted by: kevin at July 19, 2005 11:42 AM
OCBill:
Where Hugh is dead on is where he talks about the money behind the jihaddists. I can't even begin to imagine the cost of the infrastructure, from building the propaganda mill/recruiting centre mosques and madrassahs right down the line to the compensation paid to the martyrs' families.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 19, 2005 12:32 PM
Might I suggest that if we adopt an explicit policy to nuke Mecca in the event of a nuclear terror event happening on American soil, then anti-Muslim extremists anywhere in the world would have an incentive to attack America with nuclear weapons.
Just food for thought.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 19, 2005 12:34 PM
"The question then becomes how to deter that fanatic at a level that is meaningful to that fanatic."
--- from a posting above
So here we are back at the begining: you think threatening to bomb Mecca will do, or is the only way to try to do, the trick. I think, on the other hand, that even to suggest such a thing would be a grave error. And it would not deter the "fanatic" who, if he trusts in Allah, who can intervene at any time for any reason in human affairs, would not possibly believe that such an attack could conceivably be successful. It just can't be.
And therefore I come back to all the other things I suggested. One of those suggestions, what I took to be an acceptable variant on an impossible and dangerous idea (bombing Mecca itself), would allow for the limiting access to Mecca of those performing the hajj.But it would allow for incremental steps, thus waiting to see their effect.
If the question is "how to deter a fanatic" anyone's guess is as good as that of anyone else. But to threaten what should be the last step, as the first one, and in so doing madden tens
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)