If they force such drastic action to happen it'll be safe to say that those one billion will be neutralized both in the West and in the ummah. We can only hope that the peaceful ones won't push things to that point for their own sake because even though the West will suffer casualties it'll be nothing compared to the casualties the ummah will suffer.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at August 8, 2007 3:29 PM

One billion suicide bombers? Well, that's at least one way to change some demographic facts. Personally, I believe we should have bombed S.A. on 9/14/2001. And we should still do it.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at August 8, 2007 3:31 PM

Is that a promise or a threat?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at August 8, 2007 3:34 PM

If the Muslim world agrees that "US aid is like killer disease AIDS We curse it.", then I guess we won't be getting any aid requests for the victims of today's earthquake in Indonesia.

Posted by: Infidel at August 8, 2007 3:34 PM

If that's what it takes to get rid of Islam why don't we encourage them to start blowing already?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 8, 2007 3:38 PM

Didn't Richard Nixon say that in matters of diplomacy and war, it helps if your adversary suspects that you might be a little CRAZY?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at August 8, 2007 3:40 PM

Gee, Tancredo said what one or two (at least) posters at JW/DW got their comments deleted for saying.

If any of those places are destroyed one way or another, will Muslims lose faith when the Mahdi fails to be aroused?

Posted by: Pelayo at August 8, 2007 3:43 PM

The Tancredo doctrine has finally struck the nerve that all in the non-Muslim world have been waiting to see exposed. The cold war MAD doctrine just needed to be slightly modified to work with the modern Muslim threat to the non-Muslim world (dar al-harb). Though the suicidal maniacs do not fear their own destruction, it is clear that they do indeed fear the eschatological and dogmatic complications that arise from the spectre of two big holes in the ground in the Hijaz. Even a billion suicide bombers cannot prevent a single US Navy boomer from doing the job ten times over.

Posted by: DrMack at August 8, 2007 3:44 PM

Well if they nuke Israel or the USA, count on it. No matter how much quran rattling will stop a ICBM from sending the ka-ba to the moon.

Posted by: SoteriA at August 8, 2007 3:44 PM

"Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists. Those who are engaged in freedom war are freedom fighters."

This is a perfect example of how Islam turns morality upside down -- Evil becomes good, and good becomes evil.

Anyone who risists Muslim terrorism, or critizes the injustices of Islamic societies, are targeting humanity and justice.

Anyone Muslim who walks into a crowded restaurant in Tel Aviv, or a subway station in London, and blows hundreds of innocent people to pieces, are freedom fighters and martyrs, engaged in Freedom war.

Islam is truly an evil religion, and Western political and religious leaders should stop treating it as respectable world religion.

Posted by: rational at August 8, 2007 3:46 PM

They don't know how to spell Vatican. Wonder if they can read a map and find their way to it?

Posted by: atheling at August 8, 2007 3:46 PM

Well then ,lets roll.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 8, 2007 3:49 PM

Whether or not attacking these sites, or threatening to do so, is immoral or unwise is irrelevant:

Can you jihadis reading this rest assured that this will never happen? Can you say with confidence that a nuclear power will never, ever choose to do so, say, at some point later in this century? When you will have to reap the fruits of 1400 years of aggression against the kuffar, can this option be ruled out forever? I don't think so.

How will you protect these sites from incoming missiles? You cannot hide them underground. You will have to make these structures accesible to the pilgrims. Does the future of your belief system depend on a missile shield forever keeping smart nukes from penetrating it?

Just how confident are you that Mecca and Medina will still exist in a hundred years' time? Indefinitely?

How does it feel to be so vulnerable? Your faith does not exist independently from man made artifacts and geological structures. Some faith. Colour me awestruck.

I realize that this is a sensitive issue here (so no offense if you delete it), but rest assured that I have no say in this being carried out. However, if I were American I'd put my money on Tom Tancredo, for putting this out in the public discourse.

Posted by: anti-uffe at August 8, 2007 3:51 PM

If one billion suicide bombers successfully detonate themselves, then we won't have to worry about islamic terrorism or the "demographic" threat any longer once it's over. Go for it. Most of those "billion suicide bombers" are still in the Ummah, so go ahead and explode yourselves. And if the jihadis present in the Dar al Harb start suicide bombing in civilian areas like shopping malls and movie theaters their more "peaceful" co-religionists are going to be run out by angry indigenous infidels before they get a chance to strap on the TATP and go jihad. It's not like you can cook that stuff up overnight, although pipe bombs are relatively simple -- but Chaudry said suicide bombers, and pipe bombs aren't the best way to go about that, they need more sophisticated materials.

Tancredo really struck a nerve, and not only that, their reaction to him just proved that the muslims' "holy sites" are their number one weakness. They show no respect for anyone else's "holy sites", so turnabout's fair play, and these objects are the only things they really care about.

Posted by: Tasty Beverage at August 8, 2007 3:52 PM

One billion eh? Sounds to me like that would be the time to nuke the crap outta them. If they really want to start a war with the free world...then it is clear that they seek death. Do you believe for one moment that these various Crapistans can stand up to the might of the U.S. and the rest of the free world for more than a few days? Just one of our nuke equipped submarines could erase every Muslim country on the planet with firepower left over for cleanup. If they start a Holy war I have NO DOUBT how it will end.
These barbarians are poking a Grizzly bear with a stick, trying to kill it. The day will inevitably come when the bear will reach out and behead its tormentor with one swipe of its paw.
Bomb them back to the stone age? Hell...that fits in with their plans for the planet anyway! No music, no electricity, women as slaves, children as sex toys. Islam...the cult of death and slavery. I've learned so much in the past year...I pray our leaders learn the truth before it's too late. Thank God for Robert Spencer and those like him who work to expose Islam for what it is.

Posted by: Alaskan at August 8, 2007 3:56 PM

In dealing with, as Robert so eloquently put it, a revenge culture, we have to keep all cards on the table. Even if our only option(s) are reprehensible to us, we must keep in mind that the secret to terrorism is escalation; as a terrorist (generally speaking) you start your campaign by bombing mailboxes, and then you continue down the slippery slope, when, finally (if you're a ghazi) you blow yourself up, taking as many innocent infidels with you. And, as the comments of the Pakistani National Assembly showed, most Muslims have not qualms when it comes to threatening the Vatican. Their threats betray their lies, revealing Islam for what it is.

We have to show the kind of face our Roman ancestors showed; it doesn't matter if they want to wipe Pushkar, Lhasa, or Rome off the face of the earth, if they try to, we will sack Medina and Mecca, level every structure to the ground, send the native populations into exile, and before we leave for good, we will salt the earth so that no living thing can ever live there again. That is a threat. Do we want to do this? Of course not. Will we do it. If they push us far enough, we will do what we have to to survive. It's called staying in the game.

Incidently, did anyone notice how one of the Pakistani NA members referred to Western Aid as akin to AIDS ("we curse it")? So if that's the case, can we pull the rug out from underneath the legs of every petty Islamic and Arab dictator/government, from Morocco to Indonesia? Leave the wolves be in their den and worry about the ones at your front door.

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 8, 2007 3:56 PM

How ironic is it that this discussion is taking place between August 6th and 9th? Only the United States has ever actually done it. The mujahadeen worldwide need to meditate deeply on this fact. Let them also ponder the existence of this place: USSTRATCOM. Perhaps Yamamoto's mythical giant is finally stirring.

Posted by: DrMack at August 8, 2007 3:59 PM

The whole nation does not want US aid.

Ya hear that GW and Condi? They don't want our foreign aid. Send a few million to me and I'll put it to peaceful use.

Posted by: walterc at August 8, 2007 4:00 PM

Let's do some figgerin' - They could only scrape together enough explosives so that one billion Muslim suicide bombers will probably be able to have about one half to one pound of any explosive for each of them. Considering that most of those potential bomb toting creatures are less intellegent than the average mule and will botch the mission, I like those odds.

Muslims are the craaaazzzziest people. Their exaggerated and ludicrous threats prove it.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 8, 2007 4:04 PM

After a few thousand "suicide" (aka dead) bombers, it's gonna be open season:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9oX5Q2ftmA

Posted by: Charles Bogle at August 8, 2007 4:06 PM

Even a billion suicide bombers cannot prevent a single US Navy boomer from doing the job ten times over.
Posted by: DrMack at August 8, 2007 3:44 PM

Check out this photo of MIRV warhead testing. Spiffy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

Posted by: Charles Bogle at August 8, 2007 4:15 PM

Of course, Tancredo is right, as the predictable mahometan reaction shows. The jihad has one underlying purpose, to advance the cause of islam. As a pathologically superstitious lot, the mahometans DO revere the house of allah, and would definitely not regard its annihilation as a good thing for islam. I mean, if allah can't even protect his own domain, what good is he? As Tancredo knows, however, the threat must be credible. Civilized man is not prepared to make that credible threat until two or three hundred million more are slaughtered in the filthy name of mahomet.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 8, 2007 4:16 PM

Unless I've missed it, other than the clowns from the pakistan national assembly, I haven't heard of any hyterics from muslims who normally experience uncontrolled stupidity when anyone not muslim says anything about islam. maybe its that they know what Tancredo said is very doable.

Posted by: rgr50279 at August 8, 2007 4:21 PM

...and Hitler said the Reich will last a thousand years...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 8, 2007 4:24 PM

"The treasury and opposition members in National Assembly (NA) Wednesday have made it clear on US that one billion Muslims will turn into suicide bombers if the holiest places of Makkah and Madina are attacked and warned Vetican City will not remain secure if any such threat is materialized."

It has been said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Every time one of these RoP "spokesmen" rant on about bringin' it down on the Vatican, it only reveals what century they are perpetually stuck within. They expect to have an outrageous response to their threats but will get none.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at August 8, 2007 4:25 PM

For those who continue to labor under the mindset of the crusader era,the Vatican would be the primary target of their ire. Isn't it quite revealing to note,however, the assumption that an attack on Rome is an attack on Christianity and therefore the U.S.? As if American and Vatican interests are one and the same. Quite a weak comparison when weighed against the relationship Mecca and Medina have to Muslims. What will it be? Runaway explosive laden SUV trying to ram the Swiss Guard? Maybe just the Sistine Chapel,symbolism and all that.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at August 8, 2007 4:34 PM

If they are making such threats they don’t believe ours. If they plan on using suicide bombers they don’t believe we will respond by deliberately targeting civilians as we did in Japan in WWII. They don’t believe we are the same America. We are a paper tiger in their eyes.

The whole purpose of suicide bombers is to attack our families while we maintain the moral scruples against attacking their families. What they fear most is harm to the family or tribe. They will kill their own son or daughter (usually the latter) for the safety and honor of the family. A full scale mobilization of suicide bombers would remove our moral inhibitions. And they would lose what is move precious to them.

Posted by: JasonP at August 8, 2007 4:34 PM

Then let the 1 billion become suicide bombers.

It would be hard for the MSM and the Democrats to cover that up.

This RoP comment should draw condemnation from Al Gore, think of the Global Warming of 1 billion bombers smoldering.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at August 8, 2007 4:35 PM

At this point casinos and online poker/gambling sites ought to be inviting gamers to place bets on how long it will take for pakiland to become a flat out, full blown, balls to the wall jihadi state. I'd be willing to start betting at about eight months for that to happen, then three more years after that for the west to finally figure out that pakis are not, and from Day One back in 1947 were not, our comrades (sic). Anyone want to raise or lower that by any chance?

Posted by: maxwell46&2 at August 8, 2007 4:38 PM

I agree with Seymour Payne who wrote: "Personally, I believe we should have bombed S.A. on 9/14/2001" except that we should have bombed on September 10, 2001.

This is a primitive superstitious vile religion whose adherents pray to rocks and glories to cut throats and limbs and drip blood for its god, allah. Adherents readily admit that they thirst for blood. They require their children to butcher large animals at a young age. They are told to beat their children if the child does not behave like a zombie five times a day after the child reaches 10. To fight a war against such a primitive people requires that you smash its idols so that these ignorant child like zombies see they are praying to a false god. One needs the cognitive dissonance of how can the omnipotent allah let his monument be destroyed to show these people they are praying to the wrong god. Teach them that if allah was what they claim he would not allow mecca and medina to be destroyed. Actually and paradoxically, cartoons and burned korans are exactly the therapy that these psycopaths need. The worst thing one can do is to humour the psychopath with any forms of flattery, concern, jiza, respect or tolerance.

Posted by: David England at August 8, 2007 4:38 PM

Why would the infinitely divine, all powerful, all magnificent, all knowing...all bullshit - lord of all worlds, Allah need the aid of his "little helpers"? Why doesn't Allah protect these so called holy sites himself since Allah's such a big shot?

I'll offer my own head to the nearest Imam to do his hilal thing the day the hand of Allah stops any and all attacks against these tourist sites...oh, sorry HOLY sites.

On the other hand, if we have one billion Islamic bombs-on-legs, we won't have to play hide & seek or whack-a-mole anymore will we?

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at August 8, 2007 4:42 PM

The minions of mohammad think the time has come for islam to ascend again. They believe they cannot be defeated, as allah is on their side and the mahdi is coming. Oh how I hope we get to show them how much allah cares for them...

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 8, 2007 4:49 PM

"For those who continue to labor under the mindset of the crusader era,the Vatican would be the primary target of their ire. Isn't it quite revealing to note,however, the assumption that an attack on Rome is an attack on Christianity and therefore the U.S.? As if American and Vatican interests are one and the same."

It has nothing to do with political "interests". This is a religious war. The oldest and most visible head of Christianity is the Vatican. Like Hitler's Baedeker bombings in England, there's no real strategic point to the proposed destruction, but simply a means to demoralize and nullify the will of the people.

What the Muslims don't understand is that even if the Vatican were destroyed (and all of its art treasures and libraries), Christianity will still survive.

Posted by: atheling at August 8, 2007 4:49 PM

Charles Bogle,

Thank you for the link! What a cool pic!!

The link below provides a wealth of info and awesome pics about what happens on the receiving end. If you go to the testing page, some of the links (for example, Dominic) will take you to all kinds of data for individual tests in that series.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/index.html

Personally, I could spend all day looking through these pages. The amount of firepower we possess is absolutely unbelievable.

Posted by: livefreeordie! at August 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Aw hell, we don't even need to use the firepower. All we'd have to do is drop vats of pigs blood over them...

Sorry to all the pig farmers here...

Posted by: atheling at August 8, 2007 4:53 PM

But I thought that Mecca and Medina were protected by allah, and no harm could come to them.

So much for that Moslem belief then.

Posted by: DP111 at August 8, 2007 4:54 PM

I can't say the elimination of the Vatican is what I am most worried about. But hey they don't seem to realize what century it is anyway. Threats make for good entertainment. Especially when the ones making the threats can't back them up.

Can we doubt that bombing the Vatican isn't already on the table of plans in Bin Laden's group? I'm surprised it hasn't been said before. Probably just wanted to catch us off guard lol.

Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 8, 2007 4:57 PM

What I find noteworthy is that Ejaz Chaudhry threatens a billion suicide bombers. He doesn't threaten a general war of all Muslim countries against the U.S.; instead, he threatens that almost all the world's Muslims will take up a tactic that we are endlessly told the majority of them abhor as un-Islamic, since "Islam forbids suicide."

This echoes what Dinesh D'Souza charged about my critical writings on Islam and jihad: that an examination of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to make recruits and incite to violence would drive peaceful Muslims to become jihadists themselves.

What I don't understand in both cases is why any provocation would lead them to adopt a stance that they had hitherto condemned as immoral. There are plenty of ways to retaliate short of suicide bombing; if one billion Muslims really condemn suicide bombing as contravening the Qur'an's prohibition against suicide, why would they adopt the practice under any provocation?

It would be considered suicide, but a holy act of jihad.

In anycase, it's all bluster anyway. No one will bomb Mecca or Medina; and there won't EVER be one billion suicide-murderers.

Reminds me of a conversation I once had with a couple drunken sailors.

Posted by: witness at August 8, 2007 5:01 PM

Terrorism only works because of the moral paralysis of the victim.

To keep us feeling guilty and complacent, they specialize. The CAIR's of the world do not send out suicide bombers, claim credit for mass murder, and are careful not to openly praise murder. The HAMAS' of the world do the dirty work. They are clearly partners in crime, but they rely on our inability to see it.

The day that Islam itself--and its 1 billion adherents--declares war on us and their overt intent to murder us, we will wipe them out. Imagine Nihad Awad proclaiming that it's time to murder infidels and calling on muslims to blow up shopping malls--and muslims actually start doing this. I think two things would happen domestically.

First, the FBI and police would arrest every cleric, mullah, sheik, imam, and ayatollah located within our borders. Islamberg would be raided, along with every other similar site.

Second, I think alot of citizen-militias would surface and take the fight to the streets.

Militarily, we would wipe out every enemy in a matter of days or weeks. Look at how quickly we were able to beat Saddam's supposedly crack military. And that was with self-sacraficial rules of engagement, and regard for the lives of Iraqi citizens.

In a world in which every muslim openly says his goal is to kill us, our unfettered military would do the job very quickly.

P.S. I think we should wipe out Iran right now. If we prevent them from getting the bomb, it will prevent this other scenario from occuring.

Posted by: Bearster at August 8, 2007 5:05 PM

Rather than suicide bombers more likely over 1 billion Muslims would become EX-Muslims, and I think the Muslims are very afraid of Tancredo's idea. Now I’m not calling for the nuking of Mecca & Medina, and I think, for purely practical considerations, not even the threat of such as deterrence by the USA is called for – not useful for Saudi Arabia, Egypt & others to be outraged at us at this point. For Israel, however, I doubt this impracticality holds.

I ‘m only saying that subconsciously Muslims have deeply suppressed doubts, which is why they get so upset at even moderate cartoons of Mo or quotes by the pope. Their violent demonstrations are basically loud noise to drown out these deeply suppressed doubts. For the fact is that for a not-already brainwashed investigator, the Koran seems a most likely fabrication. It was not even put together and written down as a whole until decades after Muhammad’s death by caliphs with their own agendas and htis fact, whether Muslims admit it or not, hardly makes for a reliable record of what Muhammad claimed he heard over a span of 23 years(!). Come on, lets be serious. And the revealing satanic verse episode and all those convenient self serving revelations Mo can up with whenever he lusted after some new girl (and he had many more than four wives) should hardly fool anyone but children. Moreover, the Koran says often that Muslims are supposed to be winners, not the obvious third-world losers that they have been for over a hundred years.

IMO if Mecca & Medina were systematically evaporated (http://www.ourmedia.org/node/129759 ) under concentrated & very dirty nuclear devices that would preclude their reconstruction, the credibility of the impractical 7th century cult of Muhammad would be completely blown and Muslims would fairly quickly face reality. Mecca & Medina are absolutely essential and Muslims surely don’t believe Allah would permit their total annihilation. No Mecca & Medina, no Allah, and Mo is just another con artist.

Posted by: FM at August 8, 2007 5:06 PM

any step towards eradicating islam would be positive. It is going to have to happen at some point, anyway.

Instead of everyone peeing in their pants over what might happen - lets just do and see what happens.

Maybe then we can get these cowards out from under their rocks and crush them.

Posted by: infidel! at August 8, 2007 5:12 PM

The U.S. are cowards? What a pant load. The U.S. aren't sending people out with bomb vests and running into crowds of women and children.

The islamic "fighter" is the poster child for coward.

Plus if one billion muslims,which there are NO one billion muslims,are so easy to turn into suicide bombers then whats the use of talking about peace anymore?

As far as the aid goes believe me buddy there are plenty who do not wish for ANY islamic state or nation to recieve one thin dime or one red cent of our hard earned money.

Islam mekka and medina can all burn now or later it makes no difference to me. I prefer sooner though as we could get the show on the road.

Islam hasn't the guts for a real war,a manly war.Muhammad gave them no guts for fighting only hiding behind women and children.

How many more threats must we endure from these cretons.

Down with islam,all the way down.Islam has earned NOTHING either inside or outside the free world.

LET THEM ROT as allah wills it.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at August 8, 2007 5:15 PM

Very telling indeed...suicide bombers are contrary to islam, the "peaceful" religion. Yada, yada, yada, The Vatican will be attacked...and we are told that muslims are not fighting a religious war against the world? Has the Vatican threatened muslims? No.

Posted by: jawa at August 8, 2007 5:19 PM

Didn't Richard Nixon say that in matters of diplomacy and war, it helps if your adversary suspects that you might be a little CRAZY?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

It always helps to let people think you are crazy.
Nobody likes to mess with crazy. Nobody.

Posted by: Suz at August 8, 2007 5:19 PM

If one billion Muslims would become suicide bombers, then five billion Infidels will quickly lose patience with the ‘moderates’.

The suicide-by-cop types should consider something more exotic and exciting. When all has been said and done, who wants to get shot by some civil servant at a gas station in Ohio?

Posted by: pez at August 8, 2007 5:22 PM

You mean we may someday reach a situation where either the U.S. or associated civilized Western societies have to resort to other methods of ‘diplomacy’ besides building schools; repairing power plants; and handing out candy bars to social aborigines? With such Chamberlinesque methods of ‘capturing hearts & minds’ and kombya ‘peace in our time’ tactics wearing somewhat thin, maybe a more General Pershingesque option of wrapping their pagan edifices in a ‘pigskin’ of spent nuclear glass might prove a viable future deterrent.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 8, 2007 5:25 PM

So...We're supposed to concede that moslem "holy" sites are sacrosanct to everyone, even non moslems, but moslems have a perfect right to blow up giant Buddhist statues, desecrate Christian churches, destroy synagogues, etc-and , of course, murder , maim, and rape nonmoslems . Got it.

If Mecca and Medina were destroyed many moslems would indeed become enraged-but surely a good percentage would realize that their 7th century religion is no longer feasable-if allah can't defend his own 'holy' cities, then how can he possibly be an all-powerful God?

But the destruction of "holy" sites is such an utterly moslem thing to do that it should be a last resort.

Posted by: labrat at August 8, 2007 5:42 PM

1 billion suicide bombers is a concept that doesn't accept deterrence at any level. They are telling us, its us or them, only one can survive.

We shouldn't wait for them to nuke us. We need to draft 4 million men, do a ground invasion of Iran, surround Pakistan and get their nukes.

We need to recognize that Islam is a program for Muslims. They are programmed to follow it just like fascism and communism programmed their followers.

When the Germans woke up from fascism, they couldn't understand why they did it. This is the same situation, except Muslims don't really wake up from Islam. This is why Turkey won't admit its genocide.

We have to recognize that Islam is a cult in the sense of having programmed its members to carry out tasks. In this case, the task of subjugating us. They carry out the program in Islam. Its not a system of self discovery.

Islam is programmed to subjugate us, and the leftist comments at New York Times on Tancredo are programmed to surrender. That is what is happening now:

Tancredo New York Times blog

Posted by: Old Atlantic at August 8, 2007 5:45 PM

US aid is like killer disease AIDS We curse it. The whole nation does not want US aid.

Maybe you should communicate that to Condi and Congress. No one here will be offended. (Maybe Musharraf can let me have $100G of unused funds?)

Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists.

Very good. You must have been looking in a mirror. Please pass the message to your local imam.

"If US dared to hatch unholy conspiracy to attack Makkah and Medina then one billion Muslims will become suicide bombers and I will also be among them", he added.

One billion out of 1.3 billion will kill themselves? That leaves us about 300 million Muslims to deal with. Easily done.

Whatever happened to the "suicide bombers are extremists" argument? One billion suicide bombers? By my calculations, that's almost seventy-seven percent of all Muslims who would violate Islamic tenets and commit suicide.

Where are the billion going to detonate their suicide bombs? How much time will it take for Western countries to issue seven hundred million visas (some have to stay close to home) and how many planes will be needed to transport everyone to a Western target?

Posted by: PMK at August 8, 2007 5:53 PM

Some of you people have danced around the concept of an all powerful Allah (Oz?) failing to protect the holiest site in Islamdom. I'm going to do some more dancing a little closer to the hat. Let's not say Mecca is destroyed, but damaged, or occupied by an infidel army, the imapact to the Muslim psyche would have to be devastating. If any harm should come to that little black building, I think Islam would fall apart.

To a lot of Muslims. Allah is so powerful and mysterious, it is useless to study science because Allah could change it all in an eye-blink.
The loss of Mecca would be the single most important event in the last 1300 years for Muslims and infidels alike.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 8, 2007 5:56 PM

What the Muslims don't understand is that even if the Vatican were destroyed (and all of its art treasures and libraries), Christianity will still survive.

Atheling,

That was my idea as well. They don't get that our religion doesn't require a city to make it legitimate. It doesn't even require a building. It survived the Muslim conquest of the holy land. It is stronger than a church or a cathedral. Many such buildings have been lost to Islam. They don't matter. The Vatican is a building. The Pope is a man. Neither is permanent. The faith (Judaism as well as Christianity) is strong enough to withstand the loss of material objects.
People tried to murder the last pope. The faith would have survived even if John Paul II had not.

Posted by: PMK at August 8, 2007 6:06 PM

What I really like about Tancredo, as opposed to Bush and many others, is that his animus is directed at the right target: Islam. He doesn't beat around the bush (no pun intended) with bromides about democracy and freedom and other abstractions.
My difference with him is tactical. It doesn't make sense to first target the central holy sites, but rather to target individual mosques and madrassas. First, let's wipe out all the peripheral Islamic institutions, send all the imams to remote re-education camps in the jungle, and then when we wipe out Mecca and Medina. Then they'll go with a whimper.

Posted by: jewdog at August 8, 2007 6:08 PM

There we have it; a muslim, no other but a muslim - Ejaz Chaudhry, stating -to the world - that a billion muslims (i.e. all of them) will offer themselves up, a la suicide (by exploding themselves) - if provoked by certain actions. Islam will not last much longer ...

Posted by: TINBH at August 8, 2007 6:10 PM

Is Islam a cult? at Faith Freedom

Posted by: Old Atlantic at August 8, 2007 6:15 PM

Robert Spencer wrote:

Maybe a threat intended to deter just won't work with a revenge culture; it will only become a pretext for counterthreats.

Yes. Yet maybe the most relevent distinction here is not between a revenge culture and a conciliatory culture. Maybe the critical distinction is between a shame/honor culture on the one hand, and a guilt culture on the other.

More than the guilt culture, the shame/honor culture is preoccupied with appearances and reputations and what the collective might say. Concern with the actual truth becomes relatively secondary. By contrast a guilt culture, at least to a greater extent, emphasizes individual conscience, individual thinking, open and free debate, and is willing to acknowledge error publicly. The shame culture is more likely to seek to hide error at all costs, even at the cost of survival.

Thus even in the face of Tancredo's credible threat of annihilation, the shame/honor culture instinctively looks to save face and present the mere appearance of unflappable invincibility, rather than engage in honest reflection and reconsideration that might provide an actual, not merely apparent, improvement in chances of survival.

All cultures seem to embody both the shame orientation and the guilt orientation, but in varying proportions.

Posted by: traeh at August 8, 2007 6:15 PM

Fine - Kill yourselves, Mohammedans!

And Good Riddance! Buh-bye!

(P.S. You're not going to that Bordello Paradise - it was made up by false jackass Mohammed to get his ignorant male minions to die for him, LOL!)

Posted by: darcy at August 8, 2007 6:18 PM

Those poor dumb, EXCUSE me SMART sapps had better not wish a nuke pointed at mecca, as the big mo foe might soil his hammer pants.

Posted by: mustang65 at August 8, 2007 6:21 PM

If they all want to blow themselves up....

can't we help them along?

Posted by: The Goobs at August 8, 2007 6:22 PM

FlushKoran,

I don't think anyone seriously considered NUKING these cities, just reducing them to rubble.

You seem to discount the threats by pointing out:

As for the threat of 1,000,000,000 suicide bombers, we already had such threat before. Remember the Iraq propadanda minister speech on the brink of the US operations - "If US attacks us, thousands of burning civilian airplanes will go down, our young people love death more than yours love life, etc. etc." - nothing ever came out of it.

This leads to complacency and we lose our will to resist. How many of us laughed at Osama's threats, which were made from the hinterlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan? Many of us thought it was just bluster - for local consumption. He could attack in Africa but not in the US. It was what we were told for twenty years about the Saudis - they really love us. Don't worry about what they say back home. That's just to pacify some of their own people.

We have to stop underestimating their ability and their desire to destroy us. We have to be willing to fight fire with fire.

Posted by: PMK at August 8, 2007 6:22 PM

Just who would 1,000,000,000 muslim suicide bombers blow up?

There are not nearly enough infidels close enough to provide targets for 1,000,000,000 muslim suicide bombers.

I guess the big majority of them would have to settle for blowing up other muslims.

Posted by: feralcat9 at August 8, 2007 6:29 PM

I admit, every time I see them huddling around the kabaa at Mecca, I imagine how much more peaceful the planet would be if a Tomahawk Cruise missile with a nuclear warhead mad a visit.

I know for a fact that every square inch of the middle east is mapped out on the Digital Scene Matching Area Coordinator (DSMAC) and a missile could be launched from a plane, sub or a carrier (or land base--we have several in Europe).

There I go, I'll be next on the radical website.
I never pity people who get killed when they're plotting to murder others.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 8, 2007 6:32 PM

The Muslims certainly have a collective chip on their shoulders. I think they actually enjoy conflict and feeling as though they're being attacked, as a sort of emulation of old Mo, even when they're not. For example, a few weeks ago, the Israelis started work on a harmless new walkway outside the Temple Mount, so paranoid Muslims all over started screaming for Israel to be nuked. It was sick.
Tancredo's comments feed into this self-serving paranoia. Perhaps it would be better to remember what Teddy Roosevelt once said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Posted by: jewdog at August 8, 2007 6:33 PM

Can you detect the righteousness and the rage in these Muslim fanatics? Their arrogance and narcissism is off the charts. The ONLY thing that will work with them is to defeat them utterly and decisively. No half-measures will work. Tancredo is right on target with his remarks. There is a German saying, here in translation: "Better to end something with a shock than to suffer shocks without end." Our government needs to get serious and defeat these killers. It's inevitable they will push us to do just that. They seem to have a death wish.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at August 8, 2007 6:37 PM

"Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists. Those who are engaged in freedom war are freedom fighters."

This is a perfect example of how Islam turns morality upside down -- Evil becomes good, and good becomes evil. Posted by Rational"

I blame the idiot liberal socialist pacifist media who do not have a CLUE of the dangers of Islam because most of them are athiest or agnostics who HATE Christianity, Jews, moral values and are themselves disobedient to God because they choose to dismiss Him.

If someone intentionally targets civilians, they are TERRORISTS. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST. Get a clue out there you bunch of pc political boneheads at the UN.

If they blow themselves up with the intent to kill others, they are murderers and
HOMICIDE bombers.

Generally, when people commit SUICIDE, they don't do it to kill OTHER people. They generally aren't brainwashed by satanic theology that they've had drilled into their heads. Unless you consider the kids that listen to Marilyn Manson and then do a school shooting before killing themselves. Another prime example of satanic influence resulting in EVIL actions.

Freedom fighters are patriots that stand up AGAINST the spread of evil to protect our freedom to worship the TRUE God and to live a free life.

By the way Muslims, if God wanted robots to worship Him, he would have FORCED people HIMSELF. He would have needed to tell an illiterate in a cave via one of his fallen angels how to brainwash people into worshiping satan (in the disguise of allah) in order to kill the people of God.

Posted by: The Goobs at August 8, 2007 6:38 PM

"Those who are targeting humanity and justice are terrorists. Those who are engaged in freedom war are freedom fighters."

This is a perfect example of how Islam turns morality upside down -- Evil becomes good, and good becomes evil. Posted by Rational"

I blame the idiot liberal socialist pacifist media who do not have a CLUE of the dangers of Islam because most of them are athiest or agnostics who HATE Christianity, Jews, moral values and are themselves disobedient to God because they choose to dismiss Him.

If someone intentionally targets civilians, they are TERRORISTS. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A TERRORIST. Get a clue out there you bunch of pc political boneheads at the UN.

If they blow themselves up with the intent to kill others, they are murderers and
HOMICIDE bombers.

Generally, when people commit SUICIDE, they don't do it to kill OTHER people. They generally aren't brainwashed by satanic theology that they've had drilled into their heads. Unless you consider the kids that listen to Marilyn Manson and then do a school shooting before killing themselves. Another prime example of satanic influence resulting in EVIL actions.

Freedom fighters are patriots that stand up AGAINST the spread of evil to protect our freedom to worship the TRUE God and to live a free life.

By the way Muslims, if God wanted robots to worship Him, he would have FORCED people HIMSELF. He would NOT have needed to tell an illiterate in a cave via one of his fallen angels how to brainwash people into worshiping satan (in the disguise of allah) in order to kill the people of God.

Posted by: The Goobs at August 8, 2007 6:39 PM

When did Tancradio say this?

Like Mr. Spencer says thought the mulsums said they were about peace?

I think this is bluster because they are looseing seams to be having a problem standing together seams that they like swimming pools to cool off too!

But just in case I like the Bear Idea Too!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22212313-663,00.html
Dutch politician calls for ban on Koran
August 8, 2007
correspondents in Amsterdam
DUTCH anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders has called for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands, branding it a "fascist book" in the vein of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf which legitimises violence.

Posted by: Charles Bogle at August 8, 2007 4:06 PM

Yea but if you want to dance stepping on the hood is so much better!
Hear more Islamic terrorist are dead today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI&mode=related&search=

I like what the Italians call these want to blow themselves up Kamikaze bombers just think about it?

Posted by: Catherine at August 8, 2007 6:40 PM

Everyone - Go and comment on that Pakistan News Service Link, NOW!

Great - Go and OFF yourselves, Mohammedans! Just makes the job of ridding ourselves of you easier!

Posted by: darcy at August 8, 2007 6:42 PM

I agree with the above poster who says at least Tancredo directs his attention to ISLAM rather than identifying any muslim nation, terrorist group, or jihadist leader.

But, he does a very job at expressing himself. All the comments here seem to understand the message in Tancredo's statement but Tancredo did a very poor job of explaining himself and for this he gains only a few points with voters and sets off the uninformed with replies like those comments found in the New Duranty Times link provided above.

I don't know the circumstances of the original statement made, but there is a recorded conversation between Tancredo and Mike Gallager radio show host at Townhall.com where Tancredo defends his position.
And he does a very poor job of it in my opinion.

I like Tancredo. He probably understands jihadist idealogy better than other candidates. But the "great communicator" he is not.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 8, 2007 6:46 PM

I know this isn’t funny stuff but I find myself chuckling nonetheless.

I can’t exactly blame the Pakis here. What they’re doing is exactly what Tancredo is doing. Trying to DETER. If you attack our holy sites then in revenge we will do thus and so to you. Although since Saudi Arabia is actually funding the global jihad, while the Vatican isn’t funding any Crusade it makes a lot more rational sense to attack Mecca and Medina than it does to attack the Vatican in retaliation. It would have made more sense for them to threaten to attack the United States – talk about random!.

And indeed, what would they do with 1 billion suicide bombers? Most of the 1 billion Muslims are living amongst Muslims in Muslim countries. Do they plan to blow eachother up? Or do they actually think that after we were to nuke Mecca and Medina, we’d be filling up flights with a billion Muslims heading for the west? I can see the customs agents now.

“And the purpose of your visit today, Muhammad?”

“Tourism”

“I see. And what will you be visiting on your trip Muhammad?

“The White House, Capital Hill, the Empire State Building, Disneyland, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Mall of the Americas”.

“Well by all means Muhammad. Welcome to the United States! And have a nice vacation”!

So obviously the billion Muslim suicide threat is absurd. Besides, as soon as a few Muslims living in the west started retaliating randomly – by blowing up the Vatican, or New York subways or any other place, most western Muslims would probably be instantly rounded up into internment camps. So the threat of a billion suicide bombers is obviously an empty threat.

That said, what seems to have escaped the Pakis notice here, is that UBL has ALREADY stated his intention to kill several million Americans. We already know – and have been living for 5 years now, with the daily knowledge that one or more of our cities could be nuked. THAT is the context of Tancredo’s statement. He didn’t just come out of the blue and suggest that we should nuke Mecca and Medina. He is trying to provide a deterrence to a threat that we’ve already been living with for 5 years!

Tancredo’s statement is merely putting the shoe on the other foot and saying IF you do THAT, we will do THIS. And the Paki’s are then following suit and saying well if you do THAT, then we will do THIS!

To which the appropriate counter-response seems to me to be – well if you do THAT, then we will do THIS! And “THIS” could mean that if a bunch of you Paki’s living in the west become a bunch of suicide bombers then we will nuke Pakistan! Or, we will destroy all the mosques in the west, or we will take out Tehran! Whatever!

But in the end, obviously we will win, and Islam will be destroyed. So it doesn’t matter what counter-threats you issue, because obviously if you follow through with them – we can retaliate back even bigger and Islam will be destroyed.

And that is the point of deterrence. Don’t nuke one of our cities. Something we already know you all plan to do anyway. Because we will retaliate. And your threats to retaliate back don’t matter because we will retaliate back even bigger. And you will be destroyed.

Is that crazy? Of course it’s crazy! Whoever came up with the acronym “MAD” obviously had a sense of humor!

Of course, we already know that they’re a little crazy. But as a number of posters have pointed out above, I don’t think it hurts for the enemy to contemplate the possibility that we just might be a little crazy too. The very idea that we find ourselves trying to figure out how to defend 21st century civilization against 7th century religious fanatics bent on our destruction is insane. It’s – dare I say it – MAD!

Which is why I find myself not only chuckling a bit but sometimes actually LOL!

Posted by: Caroline at August 8, 2007 6:49 PM

What the Muslims don't understand is that even if the Vatican were destroyed (and all of its art treasures and libraries), Christianity will still survive.

Atheling and PMK,

I think Islam is far less resiliant, to say the least, than Christianity, and is probably much more vulnerable to destruction than is commonly realized, but it's not clear to me that the destruction of Mecca and Medina would destroy Islam. Some research has shown, or claimed to show, that the failure of vital aspects of a cult -- for example the failure of one of the prophecies made by a cult leader -- can actually strengthen the cult, and cause its members to redouble their faith.

Irrational belief -- especially belief in such a concept as the Muslim "Allah," who is thought to be so transcendent as to be above reason and not in any way answerable to it -- such irrational belief can incorporate just about any disconcerting event while hardly breaking a sweat. That's somewhat less true of Christianity, insofar as the Christian God is not understood as being so exclusively transcendent, and has generally been considered bound by Reason, of one substance with the Logos. The Muslims, by contrast, say Allah is entirely "unfettered." That is apparently why science, for the most part, has never really developed in the Muslim world except through the aid of non-Muslims: Allah does not "obey" the laws of reason, natural laws, or anything but himself. So Muslims naturally assume there is no point in seeking to use reason to discover cosmic laws, since the very existence of such laws is barely suspected. Allah is unfettered and rules by arbitrary fiat.

Posted by: traeh at August 8, 2007 6:53 PM

Pelayo,
Are there enough infidels willing to go into the Army and occupy Mecca and Medina? I shudder to think at what would have to happen before an invasion. How many Western cities would have been destroyed?

Rather than destroy the cities, can't we just wipe out the areas around the major holy sites, such as the Grand Mosque? Given that the Saudis have themselves been busy destroying Mecca's heritage and some traditional pilgrimage sites (on the grounds that it's idolatrous) I don't think they would care all that much.

Destroy the closest airports, making the hajj that much more difficult and removing one source of capital for the Saudis. Wipe out the Grand Mosque and, if possible, the Kaaba. We can inflict a devastating blow on Islam without invading.

Posted by: PMK at August 8, 2007 6:54 PM

Personally, I believe we should have bombed S.A. on 9/14/2001. And we should still do it.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at August 8, 2007 3:31 PM

9/14/2001? Saudis bought and pocketed Bush way before that: http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

Tom Tancredo, on the other hand cares for America and is willing to stand up and do whatever it takes, for America: http://www.teamtancredo.com/

Posted by: Alert at August 8, 2007 6:59 PM

CAIR set-up....

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0833871920070808?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

The Flying Imams are going to exposed as frauds and we shall see the Sky Marshall's video of their behavior on you-tube one day. This "incident" is a manufactured propaganda event, part of the "big lie" tactics that CAIR uses.

Posted by: Frank at August 8, 2007 6:59 PM

P.S. to my above comment of 6:53 pm: Of course the Muslim attitude to science today entails huge cognitive dissonance, since the effectiveness of science is plain by now to almost every Muslim.

Posted by: traeh at August 8, 2007 7:00 PM

labrat has a good point:
"o...We're supposed to concede that moslem "holy" sites are sacrosanct to everyone, even non moslems, but moslems have a perfect right to blow up giant Buddhist statues, desecrate Christian churches, destroy synagogues, etc..."

The infidel response to islam should invoke a single linkage: upon the destruction of any single ash ran, church, synagogue, or house of worship of any peaceful infidel religion, then in that event your mecca mosque is forfeit. It is to be destroyed. The moslems should be told to govern their conduct accordingly as this will be the only infidel notice.

The threat of destruction of Mohammed's mosque in Mecca should be direct and specific and it should be linked as response to an islamic provocation.

The benefit of a pre-announced destruction of the mosque upon contingency will give the leaders of the zombie moslems fair notice to change their conduct. It additionally gives them fair notice to vacate the premises in Mecca upon the occurrence of a forbidden event. This makes destruction of the mosque a fair target by any law or morality. Such strategy is designed to have Chaudry plead to his billion fellow followers to give up the path to destruction of infidel property or face the prospect of the destruction of Mohammed's mosque. Evil must be forced to behave otherwise. Chaudry and others should be on notice to rally the rabble billion to behave or else. A good negotiating strategy is to to be very clear what the consequences are of undesired behavior. Also, we must shift responsibility to control the undesired behavior of some moslems to the moslems themselves.

Posted by: David England at August 8, 2007 7:04 PM

I'll bet well coached members of the Mosque tossed the bottle. CAIR is on a level with the German-American Nazi Bund of pre-World War 2. Ibby Hooper is a liar. CAIR is a collection of liars. The truth is going to come out re this very sinister organization. It's only a matter of time before everyone sees the truth re CAIR.

Posted by: Frank at August 8, 2007 7:07 PM

"One billion Muslims will become suicide bombers if Mecca, Medina are attacked"

I think what he meant to say was "One billion Muslims -- minus the Imams, Ayatolahs, Mullahs, himself, and all their families."

Allah never seems to call them to Martyrdom. It seems Allah only calls them to call others to to do the job.

It could be that they, and their families, are not worthy to be favored to perform such a noble task, But, more likely, they love their own children to much to strap an explosive device to them and send them out to commit suicide. As for themselves, they're scared s**tless of what they'll find on the other side.

Leave it to some other deveived ignoramus to find out.

Posted by: rational at August 8, 2007 7:15 PM

Which is why I find myself not only chuckling a bit but sometimes actually LOL!

Posted by: Caroline at August 8, 2007 6:49 PM

Me Too;-)

Posted by: Catherine at August 8, 2007 7:16 PM

And if the Vatican was wiped out by a Muslim nuke, most Roman Catholics while angry would in time forgive the Muslims for "not knowing what they are doing." Just as John Paul the Great forgave the Muslim who shot him.

This is the main difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam reacts with the sword and Christianity primarily reacts with the cross (ie forgiveness). Sure we had the crusades, but only after 400 years of provocation by Islamic violence.

Posted by: James Martel at August 8, 2007 7:17 PM

traeh,
I never suggested that Islam would fall without Mecca and Medina. My point was that Christianity will NOT suffer just because Muslims attack a building and kill one man, and so their threats are meaningless. Catholics don't go on pilgrimage to the Vatican. We don't go to Jerusalem or Bethlehem. It's not a requirement of the faith.

Muslims, on the other hand, value Mecca and Medina and their faith requires them to make the pilgrimage. They deserve to pay for their deeds by losing those sites. The fact that such a threat might not be an active deterrent doesn't matter. If they're willing to pray toward a hole in the ground that's fine.

Some people aren't deterred by laws against murder. Do we let them get away with it or make murder legal? Of course not.

We lay down our marker. If you do this, your religious centers will be destroyed. The choice is yours to make. They may be whackos, but that cannot be a reason for our not taking action. Not everyone who is a Muslim is incapable of reason. Those who can reason will have to decide if the glorification of Islam by a few nuts is worth the price we will require them to pay.

The Saudis will have to decide how they will fare once they lose the right to claim the title of "guardian of the holy places". Is that a situation they are willing to confront? If not, then they have a chance to do something about it before things get out of hand.

Unlike the Saudis, no Western government derives its legitimacy from the presence of Christian or Jewish holy sites on its soil. Christians and Jews lost access to most of their religious sites in the Middle East long ago and both faiths continue to prosper. Constantinople, once the seat of the Eastern Church was lost to Islam long ago. The Hagia Sophia became a mosque. Christians didn't lose much sleep over the loss of a building. Maybe Islam will learn to do without Mecca and Medina. Only time will tell.

Posted by: PMK at August 8, 2007 7:18 PM

Maybe it should be quoted once again what a certain Muslim, I think the leader of Turkey, please do respond with an answer.

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, the believers our soldiers."

So the Paki governing body should really talk.

Thanks for the response.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 8, 2007 7:18 PM

Got to remember that in Mecca is the place where the Muslims worship their god, the moon-rock god called allah that is why they would go nuts if it was distroyed.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 8, 2007 7:22 PM

correction to first sentence second para. above post.

He does NOT.

(I'm in charge of dinner tonight and got lost in this thread-sorry)

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 8, 2007 7:27 PM

Me Too;-) Posted by: Catherine [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2007 7:16 PM

With all due respect Catherine - I already knew you were crazy! :-)

"Crazy like a fox", I believe the saying goes...:-)

Posted by: Caroline at August 8, 2007 7:28 PM

What I find noteworthy is that Ejaz Chaudhry threatens a billion suicide bombers.

Hey.. that's billion GREAT REASONS to attack!!

Do they PROMISE these will be a billion SUICIDE bombers??

That'll take care of two problems. islam.. and overpopulation.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 7:28 PM

Goodbye, one billion Muslims!

(Did you think we would miss you, or something?)

Posted by: darcy at August 8, 2007 7:29 PM

I am beginning to think Tancredo/Obama 08..

JUST KIDDING!!

Though if theses are the two most hated by the paks.. that must mean something GOOD!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 7:32 PM

A two-year-old posting on the matter, put up the last time Tancredo raised the matter of deterrence and a retaliatory attack on Mecca:

"Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him -- if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that -- see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration -- Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupuscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam -- in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the atteention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right -- that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understnading that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limiation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR -- of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats. But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved -- are we not? -- that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide -- not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer -- and some "martyrs"are wiling to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibliities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia -- the House of Al-Saud -- both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam incuclates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt -- unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel." Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt -- save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim --- falsely, obviously -- to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must -- it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatend with a total removal of American guarantees, that they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats -- imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care. And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil -- you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described -- even more disturbingly -- as "former senior director for MIddle Eastern affaris at the National Security Council" -- and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to undersand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

Congressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it -- that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

But the question of the psychology of Muslims -- of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight -- needs more examination.

However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving -- but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigages, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions -- or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions -- by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluced that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupuscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life."

[Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2005 9:38 AM]

Posted by: Hugh at August 8, 2007 7:33 PM

Tanc's remarks remind me of the warning sign at the park.

Keep your dogs leashed at all times ... and clean up after them.

I consider that good advice to the Muslim world.

Tom has my vote.

Posted by: LoneRanger at August 8, 2007 7:35 PM

But the destruction of "holy" sites is such an utterly moslem thing to do that it should be a last resort.
Posted by: labrat

And as such it is something they would UNDERSTAND. As in WE REALLY MEAN BUSINESS.

I like those odds..

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 7:38 PM

And a few weeks later, an article on the same subject, that lists many other possible ways to retaliate, including the forcible removal of Muslim populations wholesale from the Western world (on the same theory that Benes and Masaryk and the Czechs used to end, once and for all, the perceived security threat to Czechoslovakia posed, so they had good recent reason to believe, by the more than 3 million Sudeten Gemans) and, not the destruction of Mecca itself, but rather the systematic destruction of the means -- airports, rail and bus stations, seaports, roads -- by which millions of would=be performers of the hajj normally would get to Mecca. After all, for centuries Muslims blocked access by Christians and Jews, or made it exceedingly difficult, for them to travel freely to what for the first was the Holy Land and what for the second was Eretz Israel. From 1948 to 1967 Muslim Arabs completely prevented Jews from visiting the Old City, and the Western Wall.

Or has that all been forgotten?

Far better not to destroy Mecca, but make it, if necessary, very difficult of access.

Here's that article:

"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 Hugh at July 18, 2005 4:40 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at August 8, 2007 7:41 PM

What a stupid threat!!! one billion suicide bombers , think of the target practice we will get defending our homelands .

Posted by: thedoc at August 8, 2007 7:43 PM

You know if we could just get all the suicide bombers together in one area, and let them go off like pop corn, it might not be such a bad thing....

Posted by: Robert at August 8, 2007 7:46 PM

I use to be quite anti-american Canadian, but the more these "religion of peace" Muslim leaders rant, the more I love America and understand what the choices are.

Sure, the Americans have done wrong in the past, Jesus said that "Those who say they do not sin, the truth is not in them.", HOWEVER, comparing the Americans with almost any other superpower, I'd take America!

I might even put an "I love the USA" bumper sticker on my car!

My only complaint with America is that you have too much debt and your going to tank your economy, which will tank Canada. It is time to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and focus your dollars on building a strong energy independent America. We Canadians are trying to help ... the oil patch is booming and we're building a huge gas refinery in Alberta. There is talk of building some nuclear power plants too in order to extract more oil from the tar sands.

Screw the Jihadists ... Canadians may bitch sometimes (it is a national past time up here) but deep down we love America!

Posted by: James Martel at August 8, 2007 7:47 PM

Looks like now we know what % of Muslims are against Jihad - something like 0.3b, or

Somehow, the Mohammedans haven't stopped to consider that eviscerating the Vatican will have no spiritual effect on Protestants or Orthodox Christians, beyond the common outrage that all non-Muslims opposed to Islam will express. Unlike Mecca, which is adored by Sunni & Shia, Wahabi & Sufi, and all Islamic sects alike.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 8, 2007 7:49 PM

I hate to keep bringing up the Vatican (the PNA twit brought it up first after all), but we cannot underestimate the significance of the city of Rome in this conflict. Remember, the Qu'ran (through Muhammad, naturally) says that one day Rome will fall to Islam. In the Middle-East they are literally salivating over the prospect of taking Rome (go on to You Tube and look up a recent speech Gadhafi gave in West Africa or read Fallaci to see what I mean). I should have been more discriminating in my earlier post, with regards to the significance (in this conflict) of the Vatican and the city of Rome.

Remember, this is 1,400 year old conflict between the West and Islam. You can (literally) trace the the history of Western Civilization, westwards from Athens in the 5th and 4th centuries before Christ, to the Republic in Rome and eventually the Empire in the first century AD, then further westward again, from Rome to London in the 17th century and from there to the New World and America in the 21st century. Granted I'm leaving a whole lot out, but as Homer Simpson would say, "like the French count". And besides, we can argue over history and what I left out at another time and place. The importance of Rome, at least to me, has absolutely nothing to do with the Vatican and the Catholic Church (if you haven't already figured out that I'm a Protestant, just look at how many times I use the word "literally" in this posting). As someone pointed out earlier, the Vatican's interests and ours do not always line up entirely. I'm sure, somewhere really nice in heaven I hope, Fallaci is shaking her fists, screaming at me in agreement. Case in point, here in Canada, it has been general knowledge for many years that the Catholic Church, for the better part of the last century, backed the separatists in Quebec behind our backs (ironically, Quebec's independence is probably the only area where the Vatican and I are likely to agree). As an earlier post put it best, the Vatican is (thankfully) no longer the sole representative of all Christianity.

The significance of Rome is that, in Rome during the years of the Republic (and then into the Imperial years) the project that is Western Civilization was advanced by the Romans to a staggering degree. The Greeks began it, but the Romans expanded upon it. For this reason alone, the safety of Rome (and Athens) should be of concern to all Westerners. I can think of no better way to encourage suicide at the hands of Islam, than to simply react with indifference to such threats posed to the very heart of Western Civilization. I wish I lived during the last war. Say what you want, but (back then) we didn't spend hours, days, and years trying to convince each other (then) of the necessity to defend London, let alone liberate Rome and Athens. Is this indicative of where we're at as far as civilization goes? Our own ancient cities are more significant to our enemies, than they are to us.

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 8, 2007 8:01 PM

Tancredo needs to learn how to take what Hugh wrote above and turn it into Hannity/Limbaugh/ORielly size sound bites for public consumption. Until then, he will, unfortunately, be treated as a mad man. Look at the Duranty Times comments and any other blogs referencing his statement and comments made thereon.
The man is courageous and should be encouraged to speak more on this topic. He has a message but if his interview that I heard the other day is an indication of his communication skills, he won't be heard by John Q. Public.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 8, 2007 8:06 PM

Tell the Saudis to go home and leave our Booze and Whores alone. Demand the return of those they enslaved as well.

I would suggest a Special Operation where we obscond with that rock they worship and drop it in the deepest part of the Ocean we can find.

An even 20 Trillion might be enough for us to get it back for them. It wouldn't be destroyed, just moved a little.

As for a Billion suicide Bombers. They may be a little off

I think we are aware of how upset Islam would be if Mecca and Medina were reduced to Glass. If things get to that point, then other targets would be hit as well. Taking full account of the Billion Bomber threat.

I think this is the first time in my memory where the Jews were not threatened with destruction first. Now the Vatican has Top Billing. Progress.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at August 8, 2007 8:07 PM

The Diggler - check out this recent post by Spengler, about the phenomenal growth of Christianity among the Chinese:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IH07Ad03.html

And also note how aggressive they are in terms of proselytization. The implication appears to be that even if Europe goes down to Islam, Christianity, fueled by the East, will inevitably win out in the end.

I can see some positive outcomes here. Asians appear to have the highest IQ's on the planet. So if they win in the end (long after we're dead), not only will smart people dominate the planet but hopefully their intellectual capacity will be informed by moral intelligence as well - namely Christianity (mixed with a healthy dose of surviving eastern philosophy).

But add to that, that when Asians mix with either black or white folks - you get some darned good-looking people - like Keanu Reeves or Tiger Woods, to take but a few examples.

Not a bad long-term prospect for planet earth, IMHO.

Posted by: Caroline at August 8, 2007 8:16 PM

You know if we could just get all the suicide bombers together in one area, and let them go off like pop corn, it might not be such a bad thing.... - Robert

No, you supply the oil and butter. I'll bring the salt.
A billion at once: a gigacide jihadiboom.

Posted by: jewdog at August 8, 2007 8:17 PM

Gee wiz seeings how there all in one place..........

Posted by: FUNNY GUY at August 8, 2007 8:25 PM

Boy I can see all there smiling faces.Just beautiful.those kids sooo nice with all those toys..........what a second those aren't toys.....Run for your lives' there comin.
I think there really pissed at someone!??

Posted by: FUNNY GUY at August 8, 2007 8:37 PM

Musing on the Tancredo solution.

Why is a site called holy?
What makes it precious, hallowed ground?
What happened here that deserves our hearts,
why should we respect it and be bound by its laws?

On this site
allah,
the violent, the vengeful god
of the primitive arabians,
is worshiped
by kissing the black rock
and walking widdershins
round and round its temple.
Here the arab charlatan
plotted and schemed
with his alter ego
and brought suffering
to his family, friends, members
of his community, his towns,
and worse then, to the whole world.
For lying, cheating, stealing,
rape and murder have all been
made sacred by his moon god
of dual ethics, his baal
of the forked tongue
who demands the high price
of a blood sacrifice.

Let us see where there are lies,
face the fact that we are under attack
by those who want not only our lives
but want our souls as well.
For me, these places are as close
as it comes to hell, spiritually bereft,
and baking in the hot desert sun.

Posted by: the poetess at August 8, 2007 8:48 PM

He has a message but if his interview that I heard the other day is an indication of his communication skills, he won't be heard by John Q. Public.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at August 8, 2007 8:06 PM

In this war for survival, rather than a savvy, smooth-talking, tip-toeing sellout politician, Americans should elect a straight-shooting American patriot like Tom Tancredo: http://www.teamtancredo.com

Isn't that what America is about?

Posted by: Alert at August 8, 2007 8:59 PM

So, one billion suicide bombers? Since the usually-quoted figure for the world, moslem population is 1.3 billion, that means that there are about 300 million slackers, who aren't willing to kill themselves for Al and Mo. They will have to be dealt with first by the suiciders so as to leave no potential back-stabbers. If we assume they go down fighting, and each take one with them, that leaves only 700 million. Whee! Islam cut nearly in half before they even get started.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 8, 2007 9:04 PM

Ya know, forget the fact that those "1 billion" are vastly outnumbered...
They conveniantly omit the one inescapable fact, classic taqqiyah...
What they seek to evade is the fact that their axis ally, the iranian munchkin, speaks openly of IMMINENTLY wiping Israel, and even the US, off the Earth...
NOT in hypothetical "what if" format like Tancredo's comment was, but IMMINENT USAGE as soon as they get it.
(We NORMAL folks who use common sense and are not susceptible to the retardation ravages of political correctness know there's a BIG difference...obviously, the insecure, hypersensitive, narcissistic islamofascists DON'T, and freak out over the merest HINT of such things)

Classic taqqiyah (thanks for proving out point)
Classic disingenuousness (again, thanks)
Classic hypocrisy of the NTH degree (again...*yawn*)
Man, this is getting just too easy, letting them prove OUR point for us.

LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at August 8, 2007 9:20 PM

Has anyone else noticed that Jerusalem has been left off of everyone's list of potential targets?

Posted by: USBeast at August 8, 2007 9:26 PM

The apostolic sees of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Ephesus, Alexandria, et al. have already fallen prey to the benevolence of this peaceful religion. Popes have been killed before. Rome has been conquered. Do they think Christians will suddenly throw in the towel if another city, another bishop falls victim to their altruism? Muslims, no doubt would feel a sense of triumph and vindication. Westerners would be angry. Americans would bomb somebody.

Normally I abhore and dislike suicide as a horrible act of despair. It is an act of violence in which the victim is also the aggressor. These types of suicide awaken a sense of pity. However, kamikaze attacks, suicide with the intent to kill others, I have no sympathy for. Even if I, or my family, were to die in this proposed monsterous suicide party, I think it would be a noble sacrifice to rid the world of 1 billion murderous death-cult members. Even if 2 or 3 billion non-lunat... non-Muslims were to die, think of the world the survivors would have. Of course they won't do it, their threat is all hyperbole.

Someone on another website was fretting about our scattered threats to bomb these cess-lestial cities: Pakistan has nukes! So? Western nukes have the ability to turn Pakistan into the prettiest green glass. Pakistani nukes might be able to blow up a few Indian towns. They have tactical and theater nukes; we have strategic nukes. Blowing up M&M is all bluff on our part, barring a major incident. We bluffed about blowing up Moscow for years and never did. (But we did create the technology for doing so...)

Part of me hopes they will, then we will, then they will, then we finish it. More likely is the hard, slow struggle Hugh envisions.

Frank, if you are going to talk about things Off Topic, at least give some reference to what you are talking about.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at August 8, 2007 9:37 PM

If one billion Muslims became suicide bombers, that would mean that at the end of their missions, there would be no Muslims left. Hmmm....

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at August 8, 2007 9:39 PM

Tancredo's idea is not revolutionary. We will strike back with nuclear weapons if we are attacked with nuclear weapons. That is called MAD (as other posters have already pointed out). Perhaps it is time the muslim world understands the results of getting nuclear weapons. If you want to play with "big boys" be ready for this kind of talk.

Fine Ejaz Chaudhry and the rest of Pakistan. We will be kind so we won't nuke Mecca first however because Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the biggest supporters of Islamic Jihadist around the world we should make it clear to both "If Islamic Jihadist use nuclear arms against us we will attack in kind and sense we have no worthy targets we will instead attack their two biggest supporters which of course is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia". Thus in other words good bye Islamabad and Riyadh.

There is a price for everything in this world. Perhaps the mistake was using Mecca and Medina as the first strike targets because most people in the West are not ready for that kind of talk. To prevent yourself from being labled a "mad man" and "lunatic" it might be wise to start using other important cities in the Islamic world as potential targets. It is not as "sexy" but at least you can explain it to people today. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are arming sunni lslamic jihadist. Sunni islamic jihadist set off nuclear weapon in the U.S. then it would make sense to hold those nations to account with a nuclear strike on their capital cities. Make this clear to both of them that as long as they support Islamic jihad with money and weapons they will be treated as the target nations for a counter-strike. No questions and no debate.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 8, 2007 9:45 PM

Anti Dhimmitude in Eurabia:

‘Demonstration For Freedom, Stop the Islamization of Europe!’

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/09/geert-wilders-calls-for-banning-the-koran-again/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 8, 2007 9:49 PM

Jerusalem is a mutually held holy site and truly only holy for Jews and Christians and it will survive Mecca and Medina.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 8, 2007 9:52 PM

Chaudhry is one huge bag of wind. Most of those billions are in a jungle somewhere. Who is going to pay their busfare to the US, Chaudrhy?
And if the US, a secular gov, attacks Islam's holy sites, muslims would attack the Vetican as revenge?
Dont they know they would be risking the fury of billions of Veticans? A Vetican in heat is an awesome sight to behold.

I dont think it is a good idea to tell your enemy that you 'wont' do certain things. Why make them feel safe anywhere? It would be good to make the entire world Ummah nervous about what the US 'might do'. Just mentioning bombing Mecca by an American official, and candidate for Prez, has thrown Chaudhry and his fellows into a panic.
This is a good thing. Muslim panic is the wests gain. Keep them panicking, keep them unsure, and at the same time, follow all those suggestions made bt Hugh above...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 8, 2007 9:53 PM

All this reminded me of an IMAO site article for a reasonable peace plan...funny, but makes you think.

A Realistic Plan for World Peace
a.k.a
Nuke the Moon
by Frank J. (originally written August 15th, 2002)
101 blog reactions

"Gotta nuke something."
-20th century philosopher Nelson Muntz

World peace cannot be achieved by sitting around on our duffs singing hippy songs to the moon. Peace can only be achieved through excessive acts of seemingly mindless violence. Who do bullies pick on in the playground? The giant, crazy looking guy who looks ready to snap and kill the person nearest or some harmless looking weenie who appears to do anything to avoid conflict? People pick on the weenie because people like to start fights they think they can win. In the same way, people will continue to attack America and our interests when they get the idea that they can piss off America without us immediately eradicating them and everyone around them in the most painful way possible.

Now, if I were president, here's what I would do. Next time some country does something we don't take a pining too, such as supporting terrorism or speaking French, I'd pick the dumbest reason for an attack, e.g., "A 'q' should always be followed by a 'u'. I don't make the rules, Iraq, but I will enforce them." The more irrational you look, the more scared the country will be that you will really hit them hard. I'd then give the country the old one-week notice until bombing starts. Then, after just twenty-four hours, I'd start bombing. When the stupid dictator calls to complain, I'd say, "I meant one week max. Oh, and by the way, ground troops - one week." I'm sure that would be enough to capitulate the average evildoer, but some extra measures could help intimidate others as well. Like, instead of just saturation bombing a city, super-saturation bomb it. After annihilating everything until nothing but ash is left, I'd nuke the ashes. It's that extra bit of extremely disproportionate use of force that makes other countries start to wonder if America "has it all together" and really worrying who we'll lash out against next.

Of course, Europe will start complaining, and Europe's bad mouthing of America gives comfort to our enemies. I mean, those guys values are so messed up they think calling someone a "cowboy" is an insult. Best idea would be to assassinate the leader of the first European country we hear a peep out of. This will probably make us look evil, though, when we want the image of crazy and violent. So, when the Europeans ask why, I'd claim to never have heard of the person: "I didn't even know France had a leader. Sure it wasn't suicide? Yeah, committing suicide with a sniper rifle would be hard, but not impossible if you had a five-hundred yard length of string to work the trigger." Assassination does seem a little extreme, but we're talking about Europe. I mean, what are they going to do other than quickly capitulate under a mild threat of force. We'll probably start seeing, "We all love America!" parades in bids to not be our next targets.

Now the world will be pretty convinced that America is frick'n nuts and just looking for a fight, but we need to really ingrain it into everyone's conscious so that no one will ever even contemplate crossing us. This requires making good use of our nukes. I know, nukes can kill millions of people, but they sure aren't doing anyone any good just sitting around. I mean, how many years has it been since we last dropped a bomb on someone? No one even thinks we'll actually use one now. Of course, using nukes shouldn't be done haphazardly; all uses have to be well planned out because the explosions are so cool looking that we'll want to give the press plenty of notice so they can get pictures of the mushroom cloud from all sorts of different angles. But what to nuke? Well, usually the idea is populated cities, but, by the beliefs of my morally superior religion, killing is wrong. So why can't we be more creative than nuking people. My idea is to nuke the moon; just say we thought we saw moon people or something. There is no one actually there to kill (unless we time it poorly) and everyone in the world could see the results. And all the other countries would exclaim, "Holy @$#%! They are nuking the moon! America has gone insane! I better go eat at McDonald's before they think I don't like them."

But why stop there. We've got like tons of national parks; we surely wouldn't miss just one if we nuked it. Our excuse will be that we heard a drug dealer was hiding there. Then the foreign nations would be like, "Sacre bleu! These Americans are nuking themselves! Surely they will think nothing of bombing us! Let's adapt their vapid culture as our own so they might consider us one of them."

Now all other countries will be completely freaked out and never even dream of messing with us. They'll say the name of America with hushed whispers and always praise us in public for fear of reprisal. We'd be like an Old Testament god to them; perhaps they would even start worshiping us - actually, we should make that a condition of favored trade status. Not only will we have ensured peace for ourselves, but we can also now easily end any conflict between other countries. We see two nations warring over some territory, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey, break it up," and they'll be racing to concede to each other rather than get on the bad side of the "crazy, homicidal Americans." And, if people are being oppressed by an evil government, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey you! Stop being communist!" and the next day they'll have elections, capitalism, and free-press to keep from having their country turned into a parking lot. It will be that easy to motivate our fellow man, because there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.

Now all that's needed to keep peace is to come up with new and creative ways of looking insane and belligerent without actually harming anyone. Missile defense is probably a good step in that direction. Next time some country steps out of line, we launch a nuclear missile at them. Just seconds before it hits, we blow it up with our missile defense so that everyone there sees the huge explosion in the sky. Then the president would just call up their leader and say, "Hey, we lost sight of our SDI test. Did you see if it worked?"

By now, you're probably saying, "Great idea. But how to do we pay for all these random acts of violence?" Just create an "Other Country Tax", a tax for being a country other than the U.S. After implementing my plan, all the countries will be eager to pay the money, and probably add a nice tip to win favor.

So there you have it, a real peace plan that could actually work. Warmongering pacifists want us to act all nice such that countries think we're rational and won't kill everyone with a blind fury, thus making it possible they might actually attack us and draw us into a war. But, if America follows my idea and lashes out at the slightest provocation with unmeasured vengeance, there can be peace. So there's the choice: either be a homicidal maniac thus ensuring peace and love in the world, or be some pacifist hippy while the streets flow with the blood of the innocent.
----

Posted by: jcom972 at August 8, 2007 9:56 PM

Let's make all sorts of crazy threats back at them. And then do a few of the minor ones.

Keep them wondering and worrying.

It always helps to let people think you are crazy.
Nobody likes to mess with crazy. Nobody.
-posted by: Suz at August 8, 2007 5:19 PM

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at August 8, 2007 10:07 PM

No one yet has noted that one can, in fact, nearly completely eradicate a fervently held religious practice (or practices) in a very short period of time, without resorting to mass murder.

For those who are interested in how it has been done, may I suggest reading "The Voices of Morebath" and/or "The Stripping of the Altars" by Eamon Duffy.

Mr. Tancredo understands, perhaps viscerally, what the English Reformers understood and put into action.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at August 8, 2007 10:21 PM

Ok, let's do the math: 1 billion muslims (presumably that's all of them) and there are, what, 5 billion people? 6 billion? 1 billion can't kill 5 billion more, and then it would be a world without any muslims...hey, goof idea, pakistan. We win, you lose. Strap 'em on!

Posted by: angryeagle at August 8, 2007 10:21 PM

Don't forget angryeagle,
they keep omitting the fact they don't attempt it where there's a chance of their victims shooting back...like 200 million armed Americans, with more registered firearms than our entire population of 300 million (newsweeks recent article doesn't know what the hell they're talking about), almost all of whom dislike the islamists intensely.

So let them spew their durkanese diatribe...we know the math, and that's most important.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 8, 2007 10:31 PM

I admit, every time I see them huddling around the kabaa at Mecca, I imagine how much more peaceful the planet would be if a Tomahawk Cruise missile with a nuclear warhead mad a visit.

I know for a fact that every square inch of the middle east is mapped out on the Digital Scene Matching Area Coordinator (DSMAC) and a missile could be launched from a plane, sub or a carrier (or land base--we have several in Europe).

There I go, I'll be next on the radical website.
I never pity people who get killed when they're plotting to murder others.

Posted by: CapitalistGig

Thats too funny in a way.I have a pic of mecca with all the zombies marching around it.When i saw it for the first time.....well just insert your comment here.........

It's actually a sad thought to have to have isn't it?

Posted by: Dar al-harb at August 8, 2007 10:39 PM

jcom972,

David the Fourth, King of Georgia, inherited his throne while he was 16 years old. He inherited a kingdom that was mostly overrun by immigrant Turks and Arabs and had become a tributary state under the Seljuk Turks. He didn't like that. He decided to "Live free or die." He fought the Turks and won a few victories. Then Sultan Mo ibn Mo declared a Jihad against Georgia and decided to crush these puny upstarts. Though greatly outnumbered, King David beat the Turks so decisively in 1121 that to this day Turks leave Georgians alone. Most of Georgia was dominated by Islam once. When have you heard a Muslim whipping up a crowd to go retake Georgia? They aim for easier targets.

It's sad to think that I live in a world where I think that nuking someone might be a good idea.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at August 8, 2007 10:48 PM

Murderous zombies....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DM7_KSifho

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 8, 2007 10:53 PM

The Vatican fear should also be used against the Islamists. The re-mobilization of "The Crusaders" once again assembled to repel the Islamist onslaught. Coupled with the Zionist alignment we could give them their worse nightmare. "By your threats and hatred we will fight you." No more diplomacy, except this time the weaponry will go beyond swords. Give bin Laden and his gangsters what they've been wishing for: another Holy War. Yes, the Pope and the President as one, all Christians under the cross, Jews beneath the star of David, Chinese calvary from the East...just like the good old days.

Posted by: Briars at August 8, 2007 10:54 PM

Al Jizzeera is more honest than Al Reuters, check this out:

The wankers from Al Reuters cannot resist smearing Wilders as a ‘populist’…

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL0819099220070808

and here the article from Al Jizz, but without the smears:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FAEC4703-83E2-44DA-9DA4-1A7702C354C1.htm

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 8, 2007 11:01 PM

If the Muslim world agrees that "US aid is like killer disease AIDS We curse it.", then I guess we won't be getting any aid requests for the victims of today's earthquake in Indonesia.
Posted by: Infidel

I've been praying for earthquakes and other disasters in the moslem workd.. as sign that they need to REPENT and forsake their ways.

Let these good works not be mitigated by wasting our money on aiding their misery.

After all.. it's the will of alla. It is written.

So if we keep our money in our pockets that is written too.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 11:02 PM

Very interesting posts. I like the feistiness of almost all who wrote here. This is indicative of the spirit demonstrated by the West against oriental tyranny from Salamis to Hiroshima. The colonial American motto, Don't Tread On Me, will hopefully be our guide. And if an American city or two might be nuked by followers of Mohammed's dysfunctional religion, why should America not indicate now that Mecca and Medina are also expendable? Muslims are not only an annoying but an amusing lot as well. They really do seem to believe that they can threaten us but we dare not threaten them. I say threaten away.

Posted by: Wellington at August 8, 2007 11:06 PM

Slightly OT, but relevant to James to respond..

"... We Canadians are trying to help ... the oil patch is booming and we're building a huge gas refinery in Alberta. There is talk of building some nuclear power plants too in order to extract more oil from the tar sands.

Posted by: James Martel [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 8, 2007 7:47 PM"

>> Right on, brother! I've read reports that there's more oil potential in the Alberta tar sands than all of the M.E. Let us all hope and pray that common sense prevails to let those "dirty capitalist" oil companies do what is needed: EXPLOIT OUR OWN NATURAL RESOURCES!

I would love nothing more than to flip a "collective" finger at the Al-Saud family, and tell them they can drink their f**ing oil!

BTW: I've been to Calgary many times (and Banff NP) and I just love it! What a beautiful city! Very kind, generous, and easy-going. Calgary should very proud of itself!

Posted by: boneshack at August 8, 2007 11:16 PM

A few weeks ago, I had advocated the exact same idea on a JW post and it was deleted !
Anyway, now that the honorable Congressman has made the same point - I say amen to that.
This is a good idea. The muslims of this world need to be aware of repercussions for their terrorism.
Pakistan + Saudi Arabia + China = the REAL axis of evil.

Posted by: karyakarta92 at August 8, 2007 11:28 PM

If their Mohammedan jihadis strike us hard, Muslims must expect to be hit back harder.

Because the Ummah will have failed to stop their brothers in Islam from attacking us, the Ummah's derelection of duty will need a painful reminder: to be more effective in stopping their homegrown terrorists in the future.

It may not be a "holy" site.

Or it may.

We're slightly crazy when pissed.

Best not to see how crazy.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 8, 2007 11:34 PM

What I don't understand in both cases is why any provocation would lead them to adopt a stance that they had hitherto condemned as immoral?

Because moderate Muslims always have a plan B.
Because moderate muslims are playing the "good cop" along with the "bad cop" of the militants.

Islam is soo predictable.

Posted by: rocky at August 8, 2007 11:42 PM

My hunch is the Paks will attack India should we attack them. The dhimmi parts of Indian Society will then blame US instead of the ifascists.

As will the EU-Dhimmis..

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 11:44 PM

These were not kooks from the Red Mosque stating that they will be Islamikazis. These are members of the Pakistani National Assembly and the Treasury.

I’m on the record for some time now predicting a Musharraf book tour kickoff on August 17th. Musharraf is rumored to be ready to announce a national state of emergency.

If I’m right within a few days, do I get a prize? Like a copy of Robert’s new book?

Musharraf to announce state of emergency:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL16312820070808?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

Posted by: pez at August 8, 2007 11:46 PM

I GUESS THESE MUSLIMS DO NOT TRUST IN THE WILL OF ALLAH TO KEEP MECCA SAFE. IS ALLAH SO WEAK THAT HE CAN'T EVEN KEEP HIS HOME FROM BEING DESTROYED?

Posted by: desidude at August 8, 2007 11:56 PM

A comment of mine was deleted a few weeks ago for suggesting the same thing that Congressman Tancredo suggested. Fair enough. I can understand why Robert or Hugh would do so, as they are continually under pressure from the legal beagles of Islamic organizations regarding this site. Yet, why is it off limits for us to state openly what we all know to be true: that we have the ability to destroy them forever if we so choose, providing the right provocation? There are millions of Americans who, if the enemy do use WMD's against us, will DEMAND such retaliation.

I do not fear their threats of retaliation so much as I fear our own weakness and lack of resolve. We may in the future not have the luxury of delicate moral rectitude.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at August 9, 2007 12:01 AM

We are constantly being told that Islam is "religion"--a religion of of peace, happiness, bliss, etc.

But most of us don't see anything resembling a "religion" with Islam. I think most people would concur that what we are seeing is not a "religion" but countless millions of lunatics running around in semblance of a B-horror flick about zombies ("INVASIONOF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) springs to mind).

Lunatics running around who are playing al-lah's favorite tune: "5 Billion People Screaming at Once as the Earth Goes Dark."

Posted by: pythagoras at August 9, 2007 12:01 AM

OT
We all knew this, but here is Arafat's Dr. confirming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YBCirT9ydM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edebbieschlussel%2Ecom%2F

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 9, 2007 12:02 AM

Anyone catch the CNN online treatment of Tancredo's remark? It's here

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/

and it displays an incredible lapse of professional competence since the headline got it right (*threat* of attacking holy sites) while the lead paragraph clearly states that his intention is to bomb *first* as a deterrent. Gross negligence or sabotage? It certainly generated a lot of comments but we don't know if readers picked up on the mistake (at least one did) and so what they are responding to is in question. Shame on CNN.

Posted by: lycaste at August 9, 2007 12:09 AM

I woke up this morning and found this strong and courageous article and the comments full of energy, clarity and determination.
I think this is a sign that Western civilization is finally waking up of its slumber. I have been praying for this for years. It is the dawn of the West, it will be unstoppable.
Robert deserves commendation for steadfastly seeing us through the long tedious night.
This is a beautiful day!

Posted by: rocky at August 9, 2007 12:12 AM

Already CNN and other useful idiots are villifying Tancredo far more than they ever would the billion plus Muslims, including those cuddly, noble, brave and enlightened ones known as "moderates," who find solace, truth and wisdom in the many disturbing, misanthropic comments found in the Koran and Hadith and Sharia and.... Upside down world, no? Think we'll make it?

Posted by: Wellington at August 9, 2007 12:29 AM

ka'aba goes KA-BOOM!

Posted by: Tookson at August 9, 2007 12:40 AM

"My hunch is the Paks will attack India should we attack them. The dhimmi parts of Indian Society will then blame US instead of the ifascists.
As will the EU-Dhimmis.."

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 8, 2007 11:44 PM

This is a likely scenario. If the USA nukes Pakistan, Pakistan nukes India, Indian/Euro-dhimmis blame the USA. It makes complete Islamic logic.

You should have also added the following:

And American dhimmis like
Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger etc will be prescribing "restraint" to the
non-dhimmi Indians

Posted by: karyakarta92 at August 9, 2007 1:05 AM

now i have a muslim librarian,,with a hijab gonna chek out some goodies..

Posted by: Madduck at August 9, 2007 1:18 AM

gonna chek out some stuff just to annoy the hijab librarian

Posted by: Madduck at August 9, 2007 1:21 AM

Thanks for Hugh's reposts. They are enlightening.

In all this tiresome talk, there is one thing that stands out and it may seem off-topic to all of you, and that is James Martel posting: suggesting that we should develop our own resources...Canada and the USA. A closer alliance could solve some problems shorthand, until we come up with grander schemes. And these; we can come up with.

Beyond the obvious...Alaska, offshore drilling in the Socialist Republic of California, the Northeastern shelf and the Gulf of Mexico, the great deposits of shale oil and crude oil in the western states and just the damn sheer invention of the northern western hemisphere. What's so difficult in that?

Absolute human stupidity, prejudice and ignorance(political indoctrination of all forms); is why this can not happen. Alas, also because of lack of critical thinking..or the fear of such thought. Corporate greed. Political expedience. Blah, blah. I can list and moan all day.

I'm tired of the moaning and the groaning. I'm truly tired of a lack of resolve to address the problems that face us. I do admire those like Tancredo and others who deign to make it worthwhile to study, dissect, and at least give an honest answer to a simple question and understand that there is a problem that cannot and will not be solved by PC idiocy. This is rare. A pinprick of light in a darkening sky. It is difficult to read by a pinprick of light. It is hard to see and discern shapes and forms. All is swallowed by this darkening. Will it swallow our Age?

Posted by: breezy55 at August 9, 2007 1:29 AM

The Goobs,

Like you, I blame Western politicians and leaders for not taking a moral stand against Islam.

But I blame religious leaders more than political leaders. They are supposed to be the ones that give moral guidance to the rest of us. They are the ones that are supposed call evil by its right name, but, with a few exceptions, they are the ones that continue to treat Islam as if it's a perfectly normal and respectable religion like other religions.

There is nothing normal or repectable about Islam. Its moral values and teachings are in direct contrast to Christianity, Judaism, and most other world religions. It is, in fact, immoral by the standards of just about any other religion on earth.

By refusing to take a real moral stand, religious leaders continue to perpetuate the idea that the basic teachings of Islam have something in common with the rest of us, and terrorists are flukes who are deviating from the basic good moral teachings of Islam.

If we had real moral leaders in our churches, they would condemn Islam as a perversion of religion, having nothing to do with any normal understanding of morality.

Posted by: rational at August 9, 2007 2:04 AM

if America gets nuked or WMDed, the current President regardless if it is a dem or a rep.....

will have two choices to nuke Mecca and Medina and the terrorists centers in the ME or there will be a new President that will.

do you thing that once the nukes fly, that the mexicans will run for mexico?????????

war is coming........

and it can not be stopped...........

you need to prepare............

you need to be armed.............

you need to be ready..........

for the war can start at any time............

if Israel gets attacked.......... go buy as much food, ammo and fuel as you can........... and have an escape plan for the poop will hit the fan...........

just how many mos and chinamen will 5,700 armed and ready American nukes wipe out????????

promises and promises and never any action out of the mos...........

just get the war started............

Posted by: Texican at August 9, 2007 2:15 AM

i hear ya tex,doing what i can to get ready,funny you mention how nuks we got,i couldnt remember today when i got into a pak over on live leak,and he was trying to scare me,with telling me pakistan has 150 nuks,still laughing at him

Posted by: patriot10 at August 9, 2007 2:24 AM

1 Billion, that's a heck of a lot of exploding Muslims. Good riddance, it would be a chain reaction as one bomber going off will set the 10 nearest to him off too. Just like nuclear fission.

Posted by: Dumbo at August 9, 2007 2:26 AM

Don't count on china helping us...they've been behind this whole damned thing from the word "go" (see the book "Unrestricted Warfare"), as they're keeping us busy while they arm for their intended driving us from the pacific rim (as per Bush's very first Threat Matrix theday he assumed office, and based on decoded evidence from their military codes we cracked & had been reading since 1974), but that aside...

I don't know about you end over there, Tex, but here in CA & AZ, the border suddenly got inexplicably quiet (and it sure as hell wasn't anything we did) without warning and no apparent reason, even as we're PULLING NG troops AWAY from there. Somebody knows something, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with illegal border crossings. (It's a good bet illegals heard something ominous through the grapevine-as nothing short of something terrifying would scare them off like that, and it sure isn't any worthless paperwork called legislation).
This is grossly out of character, above and beyond odd. Something's up.
Keep vigil.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 9, 2007 2:37 AM

Muslims have destroyed, sadistically and systematically, thousands of churches, synagogues, and Hindu and Buddhist temples, all the way through history. Hey, they're doing it RIGHT NOW, in Kosovo and in Indonesia. I'm sure they dream of blowing up Notre Dame and Koln Cathedral and the Kremlin. Perhaps it's time they found out what it feels like to have that happen to THEIR special buildings. Some people only understand the principle of reciprocity the hard way: "Be done by as you did".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 9, 2007 2:49 AM

Someone on another website was fretting about our scattered threats to bomb these cess-lestial cities: Pakistan has nukes! So? Western nukes have the ability to turn Pakistan into the prettiest green glass. Pakistani nukes might be able to blow up a few Indian towns. They have tactical and theater nukes; we have strategic nukes.

The difference between the Paki and US nukes are that the US has ICBMs, the Pakis don't. The latter have a few mid range missiles, like Ghori, Ghaznavi, Abdali and Babur (all named after Mohammedan invaders of India), which cover most of India. That works as a deterrent against India, but there is no reason why it needs to be a deterrent against the US. A few ICBMs with H-bombs that level Karachi, Islamabad/Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Quetta, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan - and a neutron bomb for Lahore (so that Amritsar doesn't get affected) - should take care of them, without their being able to hunt down a single American.

And if the US wants to include in this the pre-emption of any attacks on India (if done, this should exact political concessions from India, such as a cancellation of the Iranian pipeline and a renunciation of the anti-US club in the UN, and a crackdown on Muslim activists within India), it could do that by taking out Pakistan's nuke sites - all of them in Baluchistan.

Now, if I were president, here's what I would do. Next time some country does something we don't take a pining too, such as supporting terrorism or speaking French, I'd pick the dumbest reason for an attack, e.g., "A 'q' should always be followed by a 'u'. I don't make the rules, Iraq, but I will enforce them." The more irrational you look, the more scared the country will be that you will really hit them hard. I'd then give the country the old one-week notice until bombing starts. Then, after just twenty-four hours, I'd start bombing. When the stupid dictator calls to complain, I'd say, "I meant one week max. Oh, and by the way, ground troops - one week." I'm sure that would be enough to capitulate the average evildoer, but some extra measures could help intimidate others as well. Like, instead of just saturation bombing a city, super-saturation bomb it. After annihilating everything until nothing but ash is left, I'd nuke the ashes. It's that extra bit of extremely disproportionate use of force that makes other countries start to wonder if America "has it all together" and really worrying who we'll lash out against next.

I love this plan. Problem with the UN and the world is that they try to placate the irrational, while totally ignoring the rational. But remember, during the cold war, most of the countries in the UN were s#!# scared of pissing off the Soviets for fear of their governments being overthrown or worse. OTOH, the US was taken for granted, and only rarely, during the time of Jeane Kirkpatrick was the US taken seriously at the UN.

However, if the US started doing what you are recommending, it would certainly scare not only countries like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but also countries in Europe, as well as India, Venezuela, Turkey, and put Russia and China on alert. One way could be to openly announce that the US recognizes Western Europe as Russian territory, and sides with the Kremlin in most of their disputes with Western Europe. While previously, everybody knew that the US had its marbles, and therefore took us for granted. But once we start wars as though we are being run by a Stalin or a Brezhnev, countries will start acting like they need to not only please us like they do our enemies, but be ostentatious about it.

Rush Limbaugh once suggested restricting foreign aid only to those countries that publicly support the US in the UN and say good things about it. I'd not only do that, but be pretty random about what I do to countries that are in the habit of slamming the US. For instance, let's say a politician in France puts pressure on the French government to oppose the US in the security council. The US would then respond either by assassinating the pol in question, taking out a French Foreign legion unit in Africa, or making it look like a J-DAM while en route to the Middle East 'accidentally' falls on Muslim enclaves in France, or some place where a voting base of the said pol resides. Or let's say there is a Chavez demonstration in Caracas against the Gringos. Guess what - the demonstration gets bombed without any warning, and then the bombers disappear. What would Venezuela do - declare war on the US? Once the world sees that there are random consequences for merely criticizing the US, everybody will either start talking rationally or shut up, depending on whether they think these issues through.

Bottom line - make the criticism of the US a dangerous business for countries that are suspect. You'll see those countries start electing pro-US parties, if for no other reason, self preservation. Over time, ratchet up the demands - one day, demand that a synagogue be built in Medina; next day, demand that the Quran be edited, and provide the edits; another day, demand that OPEC set aside $10b a year to spread Judaism in Muslim countries... you get the idea. Once the world gets used to this new, bullying America (hey, they accuse us of that now, so why bother about looking like nice people to them?), then we can keep working until optimal changes are achieved in all these Islamic countries (and some non-Islamic countries as well), and then, over time, we get back into our current mode.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 9, 2007 2:54 AM

If one billion Muslims became suicide bombers, that would mean that at the end of their missions, there would be no Muslims left. Hmmm....
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble

Maybe they could do it on July 4th.. Would be a HELL of a Fireworks display.. we can put a lot of them on old barges on the East River and on the Hudson so that everyone can get a real good view..

What do you think, Nazeem?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 9, 2007 3:06 AM

sounds good infidel,when you gunna run?

Posted by: patriot10 at August 9, 2007 3:28 AM

Infidel Pride, you said:

For instance, let's say a politician in France puts pressure on the French government to oppose the US in the security council. The US would then respond either by assassinating the pol in question, taking out a French Foreign legion unit in Africa, or making it look like a J-DAM while en route to the Middle East 'accidentally' falls on Muslim enclaves in France, or some place where a voting base of the said pol resides.

A policy that the U.S. should assassinate a democratically elected politician in France, merely for opposing the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council, or your proposal to drop a JDAM on people who happen to live in the pol's voting district, is madness, except perhaps in the most exceptional and extreme circumstances.

Bottom line - make the criticism of the US a dangerous business for countries that are suspect.

Your proposal to bomb people merely because they verbally criticize the U.S. sounds like the kind of radicalism that ends up devouring its children. The kind of indiscriminate killing you propose, in response to mere criticism -- is, as I said, madness, except perhaps in very exceptional circumstances. Even leaving aside the immorality of carrying out such a proposal, in practical terms it would be as self-destructive as the former Soviet Union's approach to governing. Your notion of killing people merely for what they say, and not merely in the most exceptional and rare circumstances, but whenever they criticize, seems utterly out of tune with the ideas of the Founding Fathers. I prefer the latter. Maybe I shouldn't tell you my address though, in case you happen to have a JDAM.

Posted by: traeh at August 9, 2007 3:49 AM

Traeh

I conceded that it's madness. But you missed the points - both mine and jcom's - that that's the only way the majority of the world would not only take us seriously, but also look at things through our POV rather than always assume that we are the bad guys. We need if not the support, at least the disintegration of the opposition that we face abroad, which is not merely carping at us, but in the larger scheme of things, making it more dangerous for the US. Once we make people who oppose us abroad as scared of us as they may be of our enemies, we can at least force other countries to recognize that we have a rational goal that we are pursuing irrationally, as opposed to having them think that we are irrational because of who we are.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 9, 2007 4:03 AM

"The treasury and opposition members in National Assembly (NA) Wednesday have made it clear on US that one billion Muslims will turn into suicide bombers if the holiest places of Makkah and Madina are attacked and warned Vetican City will not remain secure if any such threat is materialized."

Last I heard, the pope has yet to build a nuclear bomb. Yet, they threaten Rome.

Perhaps this is another awaking, that the followers of islam can be in the sights of terror as well, and the west can provide enough to shake islam's foundation.

And if us, (or any nation that could pull the trigger), come to do such a thing, then let islam guess as to where the attacks came, never admit or claim it as our own. Let them strike blindly, that will be their great error.

Terror can be used , even by the west.

Reap what you sow.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at August 9, 2007 4:19 AM

The first thing that came into my mind when I saw that title was Zombies. Only these Zombies have nothing supernatural about them.

Pure bluster. They are pretty sure we won't and we are pretty sure we won't use nukes on Mecca or Medina. That is why they are making political hay out of this situation.

If they truly believed that we would do as Tancredo said, you'd see some house cleaning take place in the Islamic Community of Believers.

Our nukes are useless as a deterrent to these people because certain political elements in our own countries view the use of nuclear weapons as anathema.

Maybe we should do something crazy like Nuke the Moon just to show these people we're not to be trifled with, but the enemy here at home seems to rule the nest.

Posted by: Thunder Pig at August 9, 2007 5:03 AM

We wouldn't even need to use nukes...
Take our weapons pods originally to be used for chemical weapons dispersal in atomized mist, just dispense mass amounts of swine liquids, especially blood, all over the target sites...by 1,000 heavy bombers on 1,000 sorties...
on their streets, they won't walk outside
on their cars, they can't do homicide bombs
on their mosques, there goes their armories
on the ka'aba, there goes the "pilgrimmage"
on their houses, then they have a serious dilemma
on their drinking water sources, they die in days
all around their oilfields, there goes OPECs booty
...you want to see some terrified terrorists, that would be it.
All without a nuke fired...now THAT would be one helluva deterrent...and they KNOW it.

Combat rule #17: "when forced, give 'em what they want, just not the way they expect it."
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 9, 2007 5:10 AM

Infidel Pride:
I've now read the longer post by jcom where he talks about random-acts-of-violence-and-bizarre-behavior strategy.

Couple of thoughts. First, jcom seems at most half serious in that post. It's entertaining, satirical, and highlights the irony that people will sometimes be more likely to respect you if you occasionally act a little like a violent lunatic than if you act reasonably.

Second, the "crazy" strategy, but in much more restrained form, has been supported by Victor Davis Hanson. I agree with his limited form of the strategy. The world needs to understand that the U.S. is willing sometimes to take action in response to dictators -- not merely engage in endless ratiocination like some Europeans. All action, by comparison with mere reason, is to some extent or other risky, unpredictable, unreasonable, a leap based on trust that one will land on one's feet. But a sane willingness in some circumstances to take action against dictators doesn't extend to killing people merely because they criticize the U.S. That's going too far.

Third, the purpose of jcom's strategy, to the extent he meant it seriously at all, is deterrence, and stopping appeasement behavior. I agree we probably need to deter more and appease less. But not to the point of killing people for mere criticism.

Anyway, it's just not realistic to suppose that the U.S. could adopt such a radically tyrannical and violent strategy abroad while remaining democratic at home.

I sometimes wish that Western governments would assassinate any mullah anywhere in the world who issues a death fatwa against any journalist, artist, apostate, etc. (But the broad strategic situation might counsel against the wisdom of such assassinations.) But possible support for the assassination of those who incite violence against free speech and against freedom of religion is arguably in tune with a democratic sensibility. Whereas supporting assassination of those who merely criticize the U.S. and who do not incite to violence runs profoundly counter to the democratic sensibility.

But this discussion is merely that, a discussion with out a lot of reality to it, because there isn't a chance in a million that the U.S. government will adopt a policy of randomly killing off people merely for verbally criticizing the U.S. -- not unless the U.S. constitutional system is overthrown. In which case who'd want to defend the system that overthrew the constitutional one?

Perhaps for the time being we'll have to agree to disagree on this one...

Posted by: traeh at August 9, 2007 5:20 AM

The muslims know that the real christianism is the Catholic Church and they want to attack the center of the cross, this is a message for protestants and other non-catholic christians, the muslims say that.
And respect Tancredo, well Obama, Tancredo the elections in US are putting interesting although my favourite candidate is Ron Paul.

Posted by: Franze at August 9, 2007 5:35 AM

As a Christian and Catholic, I both fear and marvel at the prospect of the Catholic Church suffering, as Christ did on the cross, in these final days.
Perhaps it is part of God's plan, to prove God's majesty in giving his only begotten Son as a perfect sacfrifice in reparation for our wickedness.
Perhaps the heart of the Catholic Church, Rome and the Pontiff, will be pierced, as Christ's perfect heart was pierced on the cross.

Posted by: Mike_W at August 9, 2007 6:20 AM

I like Tancredo's retalitory threat. Whether it would be the best course of action in that case, I haven't decided, but I sure love the idea! We should also give notice that anyone who commits a suicide bombing will have pig's blood immediately poured over his remains, disqualifying him from the phoney paradise afterlife these filthy barbarian troglodytes called Muslims so crave. It may or may not prevent some suicide attacks, but we should start threatening back regardless! Kudos to Tancredo!

Posted by: tjn at August 9, 2007 7:05 AM

I disagree with Tancredo's specific threat, but he does not beat around the bush and clearly has defined Islam as the enemy.

Unfortunately, he can't speak and has zero chance of winnning the Republican nod. The statement by him was made to see how his polling would fair shortly afterwards. It won't make a difference.

The true value of Tancredo's statement is the typical over-the-top response by the Islamists. So far, one loud voice supposedly speaking for a billion Muslims is all that has been uttered that defends Tancredo's position. It is not nearly enough.

Maybe someone pertinent can learn about Islam from this exchange. Time will tell, but I'm not at all confident about the results.

Posted by: awake at August 9, 2007 8:55 AM

I don't think this person from Pakistan has the authority to speak for one billion muslims.

But if they do listen to him, all for the better. It will separate the goats from the sheep and we will have an easy time identifying those who wish us ill. Also, the amount of logistical effort involved in routing a billion bombers is simply beyond the ability of any of the islamic nations at this point in time.

It's nice to see this sort of talk after a few comments from western people. The best thing we could do to wake more people up is to launch a campaign that sustains an uninterrupted rhythm of potential threats for about a month. Then we can reap the whirlwind. The media will have to report on it when it approachs a fourth week and people start to call them out on it.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 9, 2007 9:53 AM

well islamists should leave the west after all they nothing but trouble wait till the tell your daughter or sister that men is the boss waith for liberals to comment about this they will not though to busy blaming the west and ayaan for everything.

Posted by: islamsucks at August 9, 2007 10:12 AM

jcom972's post above was most entertaining. Suggest we start "going muslim" on our own fellow travelers in the academy and in the print and broadcast media. The motoon affair showed how easily they are cowed by threats of physical violence.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 9, 2007 10:33 AM

Hugh raises the important and much neglected subject of deterrence (see the above.) Last year I complained that neither political party was addressing this issue. Hugh is right that deterrence starts not with the ultimate weapon but the willingness to take other retaliatory actions in measured steps. If we fail to establish such a posture by changing our foreign policy from a “winning hearts and minds” nations-building pipedream to a sound and muscular posture of retaliation, we will not have the credibility to issue threats of any kind. They have to know that we loathe their culture and that we see them as an enemy. The first step to establishing a deterrent is ending the 50 year policy of appeasement. End the jizya!

Posted by: JasonP at August 9, 2007 11:22 AM

St. David: another, more recent, Georgian was Stalin, who likewise fought a ruthless invader and crushed him. Of course, Stalin was a moral monster, and I don't mean to say King David was like him, but both knew how to deal with invaders intent on genocide. Tough customers, these Georgians.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 9, 2007 11:42 AM

Let us take our chances of nuking Mecca and Medina, and their threat of one Billion suicide bombers. They are going to start their suicide bombings in their home countries and kill their own people. If anybody left then they will target west. Oh, we can take care of leftovers.

So, I repeat, let us take our chances on nuking Mecca and Medina; they will be too radioactive and hence nobody will go and visit them afterwards; and that will be the end of Islam -- now I have no problem with that.

Posted by: Romesh Chander at August 9, 2007 1:40 PM

ebonystone,

King David IV is also known as St. David—he was no Stalin. He fought for the freedom of his land, his people and faith. He held no animosity for people of other faiths. He did not think it right that Georgia should be subject to them. I chose this moniker because he, like El Cid in Spain, at great personal risk decided he had had enough and did something about it.

A well-educated man, he preached tolerance and acceptance of other religions, abrogated taxes and services for the Muslims and Jews, and protected the Sufis and Muslim scholars. [...] Humane treatment of the Muslim population, as well as the representatives of other religions and cultures, set a standard for tolerance in his multiethnic kingdom. It was a hallmark not only for his enlightened reign, but for all of Georgian history and culture.
-Wikipedia: David the Builder

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at August 9, 2007 6:00 PM

Man, it must really suck for it to be the case that the United States Military can falisfy your religion in 36 minutes!

No Mecca, then the Koran must not be eternal after all because then there would be FOUR pillars of islam.

We live in hope. :)

Posted by: American_Palamite at August 9, 2007 7:08 PM

I should add, a propos my posting above, that I do not hate those people who are Muslims, although I utterly reject the ideology (Islam) which imprisons them, since - looked at rationally, objectively, in the harsh light of history - it comprises a system of destructive falsehoods and has been more wasteful of human life than the Aztecs, the Assyrians, the Mongols, Stalinism or Maoism.

I would never condone any private person's vandalising a mosque in a Western country. However, if members of a mosque congregation or their imam were proven to be actively supporting jihad plots in this country or abroad, I would support the closing down of that mosque and even, perhaps, its demolition.

I do not delight in visions of death and destruction. I would much rather that Muslims apostasised than that they be killed in large numbers in the course of our self-defence against the jihad.

But - as in the past, as at Tours in 732 or at Vienna in 1529 and 1683 - we may have no choice but to challenge Muslim aggression by all means necessary. The second battle at Vienna was terrible and thousands died. But: the West won; and two years later, in Germany, a child was born, and baptised Johann Sebastian Bach, and grew up to exercise his considerable gifts in the freedom of a non-Muslim, non-dhimmi society. That is one fruit of the bloody victory of 1683.

I must stress I would be extremely reluctant to condone any use of modern nuclear weapons (which are much more powerful than those used in Japan in 1945), given the danger from fallout. I would much prefer super-bunker-busters using conventional explosives, IF our governing authorities did become truly, rationally convinced, in some future extremity, that there was nothing else to be done but to flatten the central shrine of Islam.

The real question our psychologists, anthropologists and strategists have to discuss is this: would such an act help to defeat the jihad? Muslims, of course, are telling us loudly that it won't. But - what does history say?

Do we know whether, in the past, during (say) the Reconquista or the expulsion of the Turks from the Balkans (Greece comes to mind), or even the 'River War' in the Sudan, important mosques were destroyed as part of the campaign? If so: did it advance the anti-jihad effort? What were the observed long-term practical outcomes?.

As always, the core difficulty is that we are an open truth/falsehood culture, founded on the principle of reciprocity, confronting an extreme, inward-looking shame/honour culture which seems to have no interest in or regard for objective truth, and which seems neither to understand nor to practice reciprocity.

Let us reflect on some sober counsel from psychologist M. Scott Peck. In 'People of the Lie' he describes how he resorted to the use of temporal power to rescue a child from manifestly evil, abusive parents, and remarks "I have learned nothing in 20 years that would suggest that evil people can be RAPIDLY influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 9, 2007 10:49 PM

If a billion maniacs want to go out in a blaze of body parts and blood and raze their own cities and towns as well, let the games begin! Will they televise this extravaganza so we infidels can witness the destruction of the islamic world and everyone in it, live and in color?!

Muslims are hot air bags full of bravado, hubris, perverted values and a distorted, malevolent sense of "honor." Even if the poor, persecuted, victimized, maligned muslims that have invaded the West joined the umma in an orchestrated suicide/homicide campaign, the infidel death toll would be nominal. I'm so scared I can hardly stand it!

Posted by: Susanp at August 10, 2007 1:01 AM

I like Tancredo's retalitory threat. Whether it would be the best course of action in that case, I haven't decided, but I sure love the idea! We should also give notice that anyone who commits a suicide bombing will have pig's blood immediately poured over his remains, disqualifying him from the phoney paradise afterlife these filthy barbarian troglodytes called Muslims so crave. It may or may not prevent some suicide attacks, but we should start threatening back regardless! Kudos to Tancredo!
Posted by: tjn [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 9, 2007 7:05 AM
------------------------------

the previous intel from iraq is that some of the good guys use pig lard to grease there rounds before going on missions...........

Posted by: Texican at August 10, 2007 2:51 AM

How long until the jihadists blow up mecca and medina to create a "billion suicide bombers"?

There is a part of me that thinks it would be better to attack medina and mecca in order to bring about an all out conflict, or crusade, if you will.

Currently, all we see are muslims who have taken advantage of the wests' kindness and then turned on the west and murdered innocent people in the name of mohammed.

Let's not kid ourselves that they kill in the name of God (or as they call it, allah), they kill in the name of mohammed, a particularly bloodthirsty historical individual.

They threaten and they murder. Maybe it is time for the west to threaten back. Maybe it is time to say "if you attack us again we WILL bomb medina and mecca."

If we are going to end up in an all out war with islam maybe it is better to strike the first blow decisively.

The other alternative is the continuing insidious attacks on our culture and people, followed by hollow repentance by so called moderates, until islam turns dar-al-harb into dar-al-islam.

Posted by: DaveMate at August 10, 2007 3:27 PM