November 25, 2006
A Word on Genocide...
Not everyone pays attention to the reader comments. For those you who do, you may have noticed a wide variety of commenters here at The Jawa Report. I've heard the comments section described as the "Mos Eisley Cantina" of The Jawa Report. You can certainly find all manner of "species" there. At times, those who yell the loudest and are the most abusive have their voices heard most clearly. It can be an uncivilized place--even by local standards. On the bright side, only the Sith Jawas and their padawans carry weapons, so if you can handle some yelling and a little shoving, you'll probably get in and out in one piece.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
I've noticed there's a certain group of Jawa commenters for whom the answer to every problem seems to be to "nuke Mecca," to nuke this or that Arab city and/or otherwise kill massive numbers of Muslims in some genocidal campaign. To my knowledge, none of the commenters offering these solutions have ever been able to explain how this plan is supposed to work out in practice to our benefit. I suspect there's a reason for that. I suspect that "nuke 'em" is a knee-jerk, emotional reaction, and little (if anything) more than that. Little (if any) thought given to winning the long-term conflict. Little (if any) thought given to a long-term strategy.
If you really think nuking Mecca, Riyadh, Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Islamabad or all of the above is a good strategy for winning this conflict, then you really ought to do the rest of us the courtesy of laying out what you expect to happen in the aftermath of the suggested nuclear holocaust and why. If you haven't really considered what happens in the aftermath, then you shouldn't be surprised when others are disinclined to take the idea seriously.
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:46 PM
| Comments (86)
| Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Officially, I never said I would prefer to nuke Iran. I said I thought we would eventually have to. I believe I even indicated I didn't like the idea. Mecca may become an issue, but not yet.
We will have to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat somehow. Once Iran has nukes, they will be able to find a way to use them. We can't allow that. We need to be able to totally destroy the means of production of such weapons. Nukes are an indescriminant but efficient way to get the job done.
It may also be a good way to encourage rogue states to stop being rogue states.
North Korea is a similar threat. The biggest problem in using force to remove North Korea's nukes, is the xenophobia that China's leadership still has towards the capitalist west. Shocking China into a frightened reaction could be worse in the grand scheme.
With Iran, I would go as far as recommending China particpate in rebuilding. They have more interest in Iran's economy than we do.
Wherever we may need to use nukes, I am sure we will have to help rebuild. Like we did in Japan. In so doing, we will have a hand in creating a new relationship, like the one we developed with Japan.
I have no problem with Wafa Sultan's idea of transforming Islam, and I see no problem with a rational form of Islam existing. We need to keep all options on the table against violent, aggressive Islam.
Now, I'm not supposed to be here, cause I am very busy this weekend. So catch you all later
USA all the way!
We will have to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat somehow. Once Iran has nukes, they will be able to find a way to use them. We can't allow that. We need to be able to totally destroy the means of production of such weapons. Nukes are an indescriminant but efficient way to get the job done.
It may also be a good way to encourage rogue states to stop being rogue states.
North Korea is a similar threat. The biggest problem in using force to remove North Korea's nukes, is the xenophobia that China's leadership still has towards the capitalist west. Shocking China into a frightened reaction could be worse in the grand scheme.
With Iran, I would go as far as recommending China particpate in rebuilding. They have more interest in Iran's economy than we do.
Wherever we may need to use nukes, I am sure we will have to help rebuild. Like we did in Japan. In so doing, we will have a hand in creating a new relationship, like the one we developed with Japan.
I have no problem with Wafa Sultan's idea of transforming Islam, and I see no problem with a rational form of Islam existing. We need to keep all options on the table against violent, aggressive Islam.
Now, I'm not supposed to be here, cause I am very busy this weekend. So catch you all later
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 25, 2006 02:35 PM (2OHpj)
2
I think most of those "nuke Mecca" comments are throwaway hyperbole, and I haven't actually seen very many of them.
What's more reprehensible is the recent surge in the number of mentally challenged trolls who get all of their news from Airhead America, and who are determined to drown out any opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:03 PM (vBK4C)
3
I must get more than my share on posts I write.
To be clear, I wasn't only referring to the "nuke Mecca" comments. I know those aren't quite as common as "It's long since time we turned that whole place into a parking lot / glass factory" and similar comments, but it's the same idea.
To be clear, I wasn't only referring to the "nuke Mecca" comments. I know those aren't quite as common as "It's long since time we turned that whole place into a parking lot / glass factory" and similar comments, but it's the same idea.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at November 25, 2006 03:13 PM (ab5VJ)
4
It may have something to do with hastening the end times, and the end of days and the coming rapture.
The Time magazine reported 1/3 of those polls are paying more attention to the news headlines today in light of the end of times.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/story.html
For those so inclined there is the Rapture Ready Index which touts itself as being similar to the Dow Jones stock average. It had 2 million individual hits on ONE day ! Today's index is 161 somewhat below its all time high but still VERY HIGH !!
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.ht2.html
2 million hits !!
The Time magazine reported 1/3 of those polls are paying more attention to the news headlines today in light of the end of times.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/story.html
For those so inclined there is the Rapture Ready Index which touts itself as being similar to the Dow Jones stock average. It had 2 million individual hits on ONE day ! Today's index is 161 somewhat below its all time high but still VERY HIGH !!
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.ht2.html
2 million hits !!
Posted by: John Ryan at November 25, 2006 03:15 PM (TcoRJ)
5
A few weeks ago, a local radio host seriously advocated nuking Teheran, Damascus, and Pyongyang. Maybe the view is more "mainstream" than we thought.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:16 PM (vBK4C)
6
After the massive numbers of dead 300x10^6, you have to deal with the decaying remains. You have to deal with the tons of spoiling food stuffs, dead livestock, pets, etc. You have to deal with the fundamental change you've just brought about by being the most prolific killer of humanity in all of history. You've got radiation that might last for 100x10^3 years before land is habitable again. The death and destruction would be monumental. G_d help us all if it comes down to either us or them killing those numbers.
Posted by: Capt Hook at November 25, 2006 03:17 PM (nzqB7)
7
We don't have to NUKE anyone, because we are winning the war, and (1)
North Korea has no usable weapons; their "fizzle" shot occurred because
they only have REACTOR grade plutonium (80% pure or less), which could
only be refined to weapons grade at enormous cost. They don't
have significant usable uranium, (3) most Russian nukes are
mothballed and have degraded to an unusable state, (4) Iran has no idea
what they're doing, and Russia is just taking their money. Iran
seems to have hoped to get a North Korea nuke, but now realize that
huge, ship-sized nukes that only fizzle are useless.
Here are some of the people who are helping us win this war:
Lebanese Girl (no viruses):
http://ikbis.com/beirut%20girl/shot/1300
THIS is what it's all about. Democracies have to be willing to die, so
this person can do this anytime she wants, without interference or
persecution. (It's not dirty, it's just FUN, and full of spirit, and
hope, and JOY). Islamists will never win, as long as we all agree
that this girls’ freedom is worth dying for. Her dance precedes
the birth of Islam.
North Korea has no usable weapons; their "fizzle" shot occurred because
they only have REACTOR grade plutonium (80% pure or less), which could
only be refined to weapons grade at enormous cost. They don't
have significant usable uranium, (3) most Russian nukes are
mothballed and have degraded to an unusable state, (4) Iran has no idea
what they're doing, and Russia is just taking their money. Iran
seems to have hoped to get a North Korea nuke, but now realize that
huge, ship-sized nukes that only fizzle are useless.
Here are some of the people who are helping us win this war:
Lebanese Girl (no viruses):
http://ikbis.com/beirut%20girl/shot/1300
THIS is what it's all about. Democracies have to be willing to die, so
this person can do this anytime she wants, without interference or
persecution. (It's not dirty, it's just FUN, and full of spirit, and
hope, and JOY). Islamists will never win, as long as we all agree
that this girls’ freedom is worth dying for. Her dance precedes
the birth of Islam.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 25, 2006 03:25 PM (+WNUd)
8
Ragnar and Bluto,
Since I have made a similar remark in the past let me please make amply clear that I do not condone genocide. I leave that to the Hitler's and Stalins and Mao's and Islamists of this world.
My suggestion of wiping out Mecca and Medina, after ample notice of evacuation, is in relation to the Muslim psyche. Namely, a psyche that only understands force and dominance. Wiping out the primary focal point of their (pseudo)-religion will give them the jolt they need to understand that gone are the days of 1400 years ago when could, by shear brutality, invade and kill and convert other peoples and destroy their civilizations and then claim the accomplishments of their victims as their own. You see, from their perspective the patience and tolerance of the West and its willingness to comprise are weaknesses that they want to use to defeat the west.
In the words of William Shakespear
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility. But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. .... Summon up the blood, disguise the fair nature with hard-favour'd rage ..." [King Henry V Scene I]
Since I have made a similar remark in the past let me please make amply clear that I do not condone genocide. I leave that to the Hitler's and Stalins and Mao's and Islamists of this world.
My suggestion of wiping out Mecca and Medina, after ample notice of evacuation, is in relation to the Muslim psyche. Namely, a psyche that only understands force and dominance. Wiping out the primary focal point of their (pseudo)-religion will give them the jolt they need to understand that gone are the days of 1400 years ago when could, by shear brutality, invade and kill and convert other peoples and destroy their civilizations and then claim the accomplishments of their victims as their own. You see, from their perspective the patience and tolerance of the West and its willingness to comprise are weaknesses that they want to use to defeat the west.
In the words of William Shakespear
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility. But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. .... Summon up the blood, disguise the fair nature with hard-favour'd rage ..." [King Henry V Scene I]
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:21 PM (EdIIN)
9
I'm sure that in early 1945 some people, who were in the know in government, were advocating dropping the bomb in Japan. I suspect that many thought such idea was militant to looney.
But we did it. Not just ONE time, but TWICE.
I believe in pre-emptive defense. We can NOT let Iran get the nuke and I don't believe our government or anyone else has a clue as to when actually they will get the bomb. I do believe that they are further along than we estimate.
It is evident that the only way to deal with the militant faith of Islam is to eliminate it.
I would applaud and support President Bush if he launched a surpirse nuculear attack on Qom and Tehran, Iran. Damascus needs to be seriously considered as well.
The aftermath of conducting a preemptive nuclear strike or strikes and the aftermath that follows, i.e. a lot of dead people in an enemy nation, is far more palatable than doing nothing and waiting to let them strike a western nation or Israel first. Then we respond.
But we will wait and wait hoping in vain that the matter will blow over, but in the meantime our enemies will grow stronger and more powerful with nuclear bombs and more of them.
I prefer the "aftermath" of killing hordes of them first, before they kill hordes of us first.
If we had the nuculear bombs in January 1941-1942 and used them, we could have saved alot more American and Japanese lives.
The Japanese who if having the knowledge that we had nukes in 1941 and we indeed were to have had them then, they might not have struck Pearl Harbor. However, Iran is looking to create a Holocaust to bring back their false messiah and they know we got nukes and their leadership still is not phased by such knowledge for their religious ideology blinds them to reality.
So let's give them their Holocaust without our mutually being a part of what is laid to waste, by striking them first.
We can do it FIRST or do it TOGETHER, i.e. a nuclear response. I prefer doing it first.
So yes to genocide...nuke Syria and Iran.
But we did it. Not just ONE time, but TWICE.
I believe in pre-emptive defense. We can NOT let Iran get the nuke and I don't believe our government or anyone else has a clue as to when actually they will get the bomb. I do believe that they are further along than we estimate.
It is evident that the only way to deal with the militant faith of Islam is to eliminate it.
I would applaud and support President Bush if he launched a surpirse nuculear attack on Qom and Tehran, Iran. Damascus needs to be seriously considered as well.
The aftermath of conducting a preemptive nuclear strike or strikes and the aftermath that follows, i.e. a lot of dead people in an enemy nation, is far more palatable than doing nothing and waiting to let them strike a western nation or Israel first. Then we respond.
But we will wait and wait hoping in vain that the matter will blow over, but in the meantime our enemies will grow stronger and more powerful with nuclear bombs and more of them.
I prefer the "aftermath" of killing hordes of them first, before they kill hordes of us first.
If we had the nuculear bombs in January 1941-1942 and used them, we could have saved alot more American and Japanese lives.
The Japanese who if having the knowledge that we had nukes in 1941 and we indeed were to have had them then, they might not have struck Pearl Harbor. However, Iran is looking to create a Holocaust to bring back their false messiah and they know we got nukes and their leadership still is not phased by such knowledge for their religious ideology blinds them to reality.
So let's give them their Holocaust without our mutually being a part of what is laid to waste, by striking them first.
We can do it FIRST or do it TOGETHER, i.e. a nuclear response. I prefer doing it first.
So yes to genocide...nuke Syria and Iran.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:26 PM (38GUY)
10
So has anyone CONSIDERED the "aftermath" of a nuclear first strike on Israel or the West by Iran?
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:36 PM (38GUY)
11
I don't want to support genocide, but Islam is putting us in the corner and we have no choice but to fight. It is either their genocide of us or we them. Again I don't like genocide, but if forced into a corner I prefer genocide them!
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:43 PM (38GUY)
12
I only partially agree with FLLaw33870 in that if we don't do something decisive now; the enemy will acquire a nuclear arsenal and will force the west to nuke their populations. Please don't forget, the Mullahcracy of Iran cares absolutely nothing for the people and in point of fact they have already included in their apocalyptic arithmetic the deaths of tens of millions of Iranian while the principals of the regime survive in hardened bunkers.
I do love my Iran, but if decisive action is not taken now, what FLLaw33870 suggests, namely nuking population centres would become inevitable.
As things are now, I feel that round-the-clock unrelenting conventional bombardment of the concentrations of the primary prop of the regime namely the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp) and their auxiliaries Basiji with perhaps one or two tactical bunker-busting nukes against their nuclear and missile facilities is sufficient to do the job without having to kill millions of civilians. Put another way, if about 500,000 supporters of the regime are not killed soon; then there will be no choice but kill tens of millions of Iranian civilians most of whom have no love for the regime.
I do love my Iran, but if decisive action is not taken now, what FLLaw33870 suggests, namely nuking population centres would become inevitable.
As things are now, I feel that round-the-clock unrelenting conventional bombardment of the concentrations of the primary prop of the regime namely the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp) and their auxiliaries Basiji with perhaps one or two tactical bunker-busting nukes against their nuclear and missile facilities is sufficient to do the job without having to kill millions of civilians. Put another way, if about 500,000 supporters of the regime are not killed soon; then there will be no choice but kill tens of millions of Iranian civilians most of whom have no love for the regime.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:45 PM (EdIIN)
13
Iran is considering it as we speak. Half a dozen nukes would pretty much end Israel.
Posted by: Mark at November 25, 2006 04:48 PM (isTfo)
14
Here's another especially topical quote from the Bard:
"Under your pardon. You must note beside,
That we have tried the utmost of our friends,
Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth every day;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."
And not just our "ventures" but our liberties and lives.
"Under your pardon. You must note beside,
That we have tried the utmost of our friends,
Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth every day;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."
And not just our "ventures" but our liberties and lives.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:50 PM (EdIIN)
15
Mark,
The Mullah Regime of Iran already has about four nuclear war heads which they bought when the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Also, they already have missile which can, God forbid, carry these warheads to Israel. But they are trying to make even longer range missiles and make their own warheads; so that they can hold Europe hostage while they attack Isreal. In other words, they want to be able to dissuade the U.S. and it allies from a retaliatory strike (after the Mullahs have attacked Israel) by threatening to murder millions of Europeans.
The Mullah Regime of Iran already has about four nuclear war heads which they bought when the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Also, they already have missile which can, God forbid, carry these warheads to Israel. But they are trying to make even longer range missiles and make their own warheads; so that they can hold Europe hostage while they attack Isreal. In other words, they want to be able to dissuade the U.S. and it allies from a retaliatory strike (after the Mullahs have attacked Israel) by threatening to murder millions of Europeans.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:57 PM (EdIIN)
Posted by: Vinnie at November 25, 2006 05:10 PM (/qy9A)
17
Garduneh -
I wasn't focusing on your comments in particular. In fact, you have a long history here of supporting of your positions with well-reasoned arguments.
As to your point, I'm fairly confident that an announcement that Mecca was to be destroyed would be met with a mass overnight hajj to Mecca. Would we actually pull the trigger if Mecca were packed with millions of Muslim women and children, including some Americans? I seriously doubt that we would. If we failed to make good on our threat, our bluff will have been called. We will have been exposed as the paper tiger bin Laden accuses us of being.
On the other hand, suppose we pulled the trigger and made good on our promise. There would be 1.3 billion Muslims in the world whose Big Holy Box had just been incinerated by the U.S. How would they react? Would they cower in fear or despair, or would they redouble their efforts to make the West pay a price?
The second question, I don't have an answer to. I suspect the answer is that some would retire in despair while others would be galvanized to action. If the second group outnumbered the first group, seems that bombing Mecca would be counterproductive.
I wasn't focusing on your comments in particular. In fact, you have a long history here of supporting of your positions with well-reasoned arguments.
As to your point, I'm fairly confident that an announcement that Mecca was to be destroyed would be met with a mass overnight hajj to Mecca. Would we actually pull the trigger if Mecca were packed with millions of Muslim women and children, including some Americans? I seriously doubt that we would. If we failed to make good on our threat, our bluff will have been called. We will have been exposed as the paper tiger bin Laden accuses us of being.
On the other hand, suppose we pulled the trigger and made good on our promise. There would be 1.3 billion Muslims in the world whose Big Holy Box had just been incinerated by the U.S. How would they react? Would they cower in fear or despair, or would they redouble their efforts to make the West pay a price?
The second question, I don't have an answer to. I suspect the answer is that some would retire in despair while others would be galvanized to action. If the second group outnumbered the first group, seems that bombing Mecca would be counterproductive.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 05:17 PM (/kcXh)
18
#12 - Good post Garduneh Mehr
I pray that something else can happen to avoid the death of many wonderful people in Iran. Sadly, I don't think it will be possible.
I pray that something else can happen to avoid the death of many wonderful people in Iran. Sadly, I don't think it will be possible.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 05:39 PM (38GUY)
19
"Put another way, if about 500,000 supporters of the regime are not killed soon; then there will be no choice but kill tens of millions of Iranian civilians most of whom have no love for the regime."
Good point.
Good point.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 25, 2006 07:17 PM (HSkSw)
20
The aftermath will be less muslims. Is that bad?
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 07:36 PM (VMUjK)
21
Ragnar,
I think you are missing a salient point here. That point being that it doesn't matter wether we strike them or not, the numbers of muslims committed to killing us will increase REGARDLESS of what we do, simply due to the fact that the entire religion is FOUNDED on the concept of Holy War and conquest. The way I see it, if we do not wipe them out, they will grow to a size where we won't be able to deal with them. At that point we will end up having to use nukes anyway, perhaps as a retaliatory strike after they have already hit one of our cities. These aren't people we can negotiate with. If negotiation is off the table, our only two choices with someone who wants us dead is to either roll over and die, or to begin killing them.
I chose to kill them rather than die. I'd rather have the innocent children of Muslims die than my children. Obviously, the best choice is for neither to die. But that choice is rapidly dwindling away. At some point we will have to choose, them or us. I choose us. If that means we have to nuke Mecca, Tehran, Damascus, and anywhere else we must to force the surrender of Islam to Western ideals, then so be it.
Personally I think a single, small yield nuke would be enough. Perferrably at one of thier smaller "holy" sites. We might even be able to get away with a conventional weapon, such as a MOAB. Once that site is struck, the President needs to go on Television and broadcast worldwide that every time an American interest is struck, we destroy another holy site. We then need to outlaw Islam in the United states as a Cult. (Cults do NOT get protection under the Constitution). We then need to advise all muslim nations that we will immediately break off all diplomatic ties with any nation which codifies Sharia law, and immediately expell all of thier citizens from our borders.
We need to take a "scorched earth" approach to this. Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists and the tinpot dictators of the world will fall in line. It's not a pretty way to approach it. It's dirty, ugly, foul and nasty. It's also the only effective way to stop Islamofacism. They must be made to fear us more than they hate us.
I think you are missing a salient point here. That point being that it doesn't matter wether we strike them or not, the numbers of muslims committed to killing us will increase REGARDLESS of what we do, simply due to the fact that the entire religion is FOUNDED on the concept of Holy War and conquest. The way I see it, if we do not wipe them out, they will grow to a size where we won't be able to deal with them. At that point we will end up having to use nukes anyway, perhaps as a retaliatory strike after they have already hit one of our cities. These aren't people we can negotiate with. If negotiation is off the table, our only two choices with someone who wants us dead is to either roll over and die, or to begin killing them.
I chose to kill them rather than die. I'd rather have the innocent children of Muslims die than my children. Obviously, the best choice is for neither to die. But that choice is rapidly dwindling away. At some point we will have to choose, them or us. I choose us. If that means we have to nuke Mecca, Tehran, Damascus, and anywhere else we must to force the surrender of Islam to Western ideals, then so be it.
Personally I think a single, small yield nuke would be enough. Perferrably at one of thier smaller "holy" sites. We might even be able to get away with a conventional weapon, such as a MOAB. Once that site is struck, the President needs to go on Television and broadcast worldwide that every time an American interest is struck, we destroy another holy site. We then need to outlaw Islam in the United states as a Cult. (Cults do NOT get protection under the Constitution). We then need to advise all muslim nations that we will immediately break off all diplomatic ties with any nation which codifies Sharia law, and immediately expell all of thier citizens from our borders.
We need to take a "scorched earth" approach to this. Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists and the tinpot dictators of the world will fall in line. It's not a pretty way to approach it. It's dirty, ugly, foul and nasty. It's also the only effective way to stop Islamofacism. They must be made to fear us more than they hate us.
Posted by: Wearyman at November 25, 2006 07:37 PM (4tfP8)
22
Wearyman -
I appreciate the passion, but have you really considered the full consequences of what you recommend? Are you truly prepared to accept (and impose) those consequences on the world--and particularly, on yourself?
I'm not saying you haven't considered them, or that they shouldn't be endured, but you didn't discuss them.
The fundamental point of my post was : if you want to seriously discuss the scorched earth policy, I believe you need to be ready to rationally discuss the consequences of the policy--all of them, good and bad.
That was (or at least was intended to be) the whole point of the post, and I haven't heard anyone address that point.
I appreciate the passion, but have you really considered the full consequences of what you recommend? Are you truly prepared to accept (and impose) those consequences on the world--and particularly, on yourself?
I'm not saying you haven't considered them, or that they shouldn't be endured, but you didn't discuss them.
The fundamental point of my post was : if you want to seriously discuss the scorched earth policy, I believe you need to be ready to rationally discuss the consequences of the policy--all of them, good and bad.
That was (or at least was intended to be) the whole point of the post, and I haven't heard anyone address that point.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 07:57 PM (wOWk7)
23
Wearyman -
You said this in your comment:
Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists . . . will fall in line.
What evidence do you have that this is true?
You said this in your comment:
Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists . . . will fall in line.
What evidence do you have that this is true?
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 07:59 PM (wOWk7)
24
The use of Nuclear weapons to stop radicals, who are already willing to die, is almost bordering on lunacy, and comparable to trying to put out a fire with a bucket of Gasoline.
The destruction of Mecca, or Medina would not go unanswered, and would be the rallying cry for attacks against the United States, even by people considered 'moderate' by Islamist standards.
I would hope that the West has a lot more ingenuity, and ability than needing to use a sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack.
The destruction of Mecca, or Medina would not go unanswered, and would be the rallying cry for attacks against the United States, even by people considered 'moderate' by Islamist standards.
I would hope that the West has a lot more ingenuity, and ability than needing to use a sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack.
Posted by: davec at November 25, 2006 08:27 PM (QkWqQ)
25
Ragnar there seems to be a strong following of the "nuke all the muslims". I think their positions are somewhat akin to those who advocated a first strike against the communists who nwere seen to be on the verge of taking over the whole world a short time ago.
Would the nuclear war against the muslims bring on the "End of Days" ? Is this the secret plan of the fundametal right wing, the so called base of the Republican party ?
Has their been a christian clerical ruling on whether a good buddihist will be taken away in the rapture or will the buddhists fall into the "Left Behind" group?
Would the nuclear war against the muslims bring on the "End of Days" ? Is this the secret plan of the fundametal right wing, the so called base of the Republican party ?
Has their been a christian clerical ruling on whether a good buddihist will be taken away in the rapture or will the buddhists fall into the "Left Behind" group?
Posted by: John Ryan at November 25, 2006 08:32 PM (TcoRJ)
26
FLLaw33870,
Sir, your nephew who's serving in Iraq and all coalition troops are in my prayers. I pray for their safety and their victory not only on the battlefield but also for their success in moral and spiritual matters as well.
Sir, your nephew who's serving in Iraq and all coalition troops are in my prayers. I pray for their safety and their victory not only on the battlefield but also for their success in moral and spiritual matters as well.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 09:37 PM (EdIIN)
27
Ragnar,
I must confess that sometimes anger gets the better of me and I do have what you correctly call "knee-jerk" reaction.
Best
/GM
I must confess that sometimes anger gets the better of me and I do have what you correctly call "knee-jerk" reaction.
Best
/GM
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 09:40 PM (EdIIN)
28
Ragnar,
Ahh.. I misunderstood what you were getting at.
As far as the consequences, yes I have thought of them. Here are some of the consequences of an extreme scorched earth policy in relation to Islamofacism:
- Thousands, if not millions of dead throughout the middle east and various other areas of the world.
- Severe economic depression worldwide as oil production slows to a crawl.
- Possible outbreak of other wars due to outrage from other countries. (This depends on the rate at which total war is conducted.)
- Potential environmental damage from oil fires that would be uncappable due to high radiation levels making it deadly for oil workers to enter the area.
That's just a few of the possible serious problems. Of course, these assume that we would have to annihilate most of the middle east in a full tactical nuclear strike. I seriously doubt that would ever be necessary. Frankly, I doubt Nukes would even be needed. All we would need are a few well placed MOABs, and some heavy duty air strikes on key locations. Once the Imams see that we are perfectly willing to leave them with nowhere to worship and nowhere to live, they will fall in line for fear of thier lives and livelihoods.
This ties into your second response to me. What evidence do I have that a scorched earth campaign would be effective? History. All of it. You see, while Liberals love to say silly things like "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" the truth is that one single thing has defined ruling nations from slaves. Military Force and the willingness to use it to it's brutal maximum. Yes, there have been revolts, and occasionally there have been situations where the little guy has come out on top (The American Revolution, for example.) But those instances are few and far between. In almost every case, the most effective way to deal with an enemy is to destroy him, or his will to fight, completely and utterly.
With the Islamofascists we are dealing with religous fanatics. Fortunately for us, much of thier religion is bound up in PHYSICAL things. Like Mecca, or the Dome of the Rock, or that damned Box-thing (I still don't know what that one's all about). The point is, if you take away the physical objects that represent thier religious power, you take away much of thier religious zeal. You crush their spirit by crushing the things they hold dear. Yes, the FIRST bomb will beget many screams and war crys. the Second and Third will beget whimpers and begging for mercy.
You also have to take the same approach on the home front. Frankly, Islam is NOT a religion. It is a cult. A big cult, granted. But still a cult. Cults aren't necissarily granted equal protection under the law with regards to religious freedom. (See Branch Davidian or The Moonies) Particularly if thier beliefs include a fundamental animosity towards America. Islam falls into this category. Islam needs to be outlawed in America. Tear down the mosques, Eject any Immams with dual citizenship or no citizenship, and give all muslims a choice: Renounce Islam or Leave. Those that refuse to do either can either be deported or jailed. Make America safe for all the real religions of the world by purging ourselves of the "Followers of the Pedophile". Yes, these methods are brutal, cruel, and maybe a bit inhumane. But what other choice do we have when faced with "Kill those who insult Islam" and "Death to America" coming from within our OWN SHORES?
I don't know. I hope that it never comes to this. I hope that GW's plan for democracy in the middle east will work exactly as he envisioned it, and cause a new renniasance of freedom and brotherhood to spread across all the middle east.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Ahh.. I misunderstood what you were getting at.
As far as the consequences, yes I have thought of them. Here are some of the consequences of an extreme scorched earth policy in relation to Islamofacism:
- Thousands, if not millions of dead throughout the middle east and various other areas of the world.
- Severe economic depression worldwide as oil production slows to a crawl.
- Possible outbreak of other wars due to outrage from other countries. (This depends on the rate at which total war is conducted.)
- Potential environmental damage from oil fires that would be uncappable due to high radiation levels making it deadly for oil workers to enter the area.
That's just a few of the possible serious problems. Of course, these assume that we would have to annihilate most of the middle east in a full tactical nuclear strike. I seriously doubt that would ever be necessary. Frankly, I doubt Nukes would even be needed. All we would need are a few well placed MOABs, and some heavy duty air strikes on key locations. Once the Imams see that we are perfectly willing to leave them with nowhere to worship and nowhere to live, they will fall in line for fear of thier lives and livelihoods.
This ties into your second response to me. What evidence do I have that a scorched earth campaign would be effective? History. All of it. You see, while Liberals love to say silly things like "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" the truth is that one single thing has defined ruling nations from slaves. Military Force and the willingness to use it to it's brutal maximum. Yes, there have been revolts, and occasionally there have been situations where the little guy has come out on top (The American Revolution, for example.) But those instances are few and far between. In almost every case, the most effective way to deal with an enemy is to destroy him, or his will to fight, completely and utterly.
With the Islamofascists we are dealing with religous fanatics. Fortunately for us, much of thier religion is bound up in PHYSICAL things. Like Mecca, or the Dome of the Rock, or that damned Box-thing (I still don't know what that one's all about). The point is, if you take away the physical objects that represent thier religious power, you take away much of thier religious zeal. You crush their spirit by crushing the things they hold dear. Yes, the FIRST bomb will beget many screams and war crys. the Second and Third will beget whimpers and begging for mercy.
You also have to take the same approach on the home front. Frankly, Islam is NOT a religion. It is a cult. A big cult, granted. But still a cult. Cults aren't necissarily granted equal protection under the law with regards to religious freedom. (See Branch Davidian or The Moonies) Particularly if thier beliefs include a fundamental animosity towards America. Islam falls into this category. Islam needs to be outlawed in America. Tear down the mosques, Eject any Immams with dual citizenship or no citizenship, and give all muslims a choice: Renounce Islam or Leave. Those that refuse to do either can either be deported or jailed. Make America safe for all the real religions of the world by purging ourselves of the "Followers of the Pedophile". Yes, these methods are brutal, cruel, and maybe a bit inhumane. But what other choice do we have when faced with "Kill those who insult Islam" and "Death to America" coming from within our OWN SHORES?
I don't know. I hope that it never comes to this. I hope that GW's plan for democracy in the middle east will work exactly as he envisioned it, and cause a new renniasance of freedom and brotherhood to spread across all the middle east.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Posted by: Wearyman at November 25, 2006 11:33 PM (4tfP8)
29
wearyman:
The Kaabah has been destroyed at least three times already, destroying would serve no purpose, they would just rebuild it again. It would however be the rallying call that got United States citizens home and abroad killed, for many years to come.
The Kaabah has been destroyed at least three times already, destroying would serve no purpose, they would just rebuild it again. It would however be the rallying call that got United States citizens home and abroad killed, for many years to come.
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 12:04 AM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: Vinnie at November 26, 2006 01:17 AM (/qy9A)
31
#31 FLLaw33870 :
The U.S told Israel not to retaliate against the Scud launches in the Gulf War, and Saddam tried hard to get Israel involved, it was because he knew once Israel got involved, the middle east would have been against the coalition. Same situation in the theoretical destruction of the Kaaba, it would amass huge support for Jihad throughout the whole of the Muslim world, which admittedly does not take much.
There is history to support it though:
Wikipedia: The Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979
In revolutionary Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini falsely claimed in a radio broadcast that the United States was behind the seizure. This rumor instantly swept through the Persian Gulf region. Hatred fueled by these rumors peaked within hours in Islamabad, Pakistan, and on November 21, 1979, the day following the takeover, the U.S. embassy in that city was overran by an angry mob, which then burned the embassy to the ground. A week later this hatred swept to the streets of Tripoli, Libya where an angry mob attacked and burned the U.S. embassy there on December 2, 1979.
Pakistan has Nuclear weapons, they would not sit by idly after an attack on Mecca.
Terrorism isn't something we should be using the military for, they are a blunt tool, anti-terrorism is a precision strike.
There isn't always going to be a state entity to hold responsible for terrorist attacks, but there will always be people, after the Black September attacks Governments realized the dangers, they activated some of the worlds most elite anti-terrorist teams around from the SAS to GSG 9. Launching "black operations" to assassinate the people that instigate and plan these operations would cause a lot of damage to organizations like Al-Qaeda, denying them propaganda at the same time.
We need to be able to infiltrate the organizations, recruit more -- there is a multi-million reward for Bin-Laden and you can imagine at least fifty people in the world know where he is, this is the problem, money or not they will not betray him.
I think we can agree in the folly of having the worlds most powerful military in one country, and your enemy in another, and not being able to cross the border to capture him, it's time to use something else.
The U.S told Israel not to retaliate against the Scud launches in the Gulf War, and Saddam tried hard to get Israel involved, it was because he knew once Israel got involved, the middle east would have been against the coalition. Same situation in the theoretical destruction of the Kaaba, it would amass huge support for Jihad throughout the whole of the Muslim world, which admittedly does not take much.
There is history to support it though:
Wikipedia: The Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979
In revolutionary Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini falsely claimed in a radio broadcast that the United States was behind the seizure. This rumor instantly swept through the Persian Gulf region. Hatred fueled by these rumors peaked within hours in Islamabad, Pakistan, and on November 21, 1979, the day following the takeover, the U.S. embassy in that city was overran by an angry mob, which then burned the embassy to the ground. A week later this hatred swept to the streets of Tripoli, Libya where an angry mob attacked and burned the U.S. embassy there on December 2, 1979.
Pakistan has Nuclear weapons, they would not sit by idly after an attack on Mecca.
Terrorism isn't something we should be using the military for, they are a blunt tool, anti-terrorism is a precision strike.
There isn't always going to be a state entity to hold responsible for terrorist attacks, but there will always be people, after the Black September attacks Governments realized the dangers, they activated some of the worlds most elite anti-terrorist teams around from the SAS to GSG 9. Launching "black operations" to assassinate the people that instigate and plan these operations would cause a lot of damage to organizations like Al-Qaeda, denying them propaganda at the same time.
We need to be able to infiltrate the organizations, recruit more -- there is a multi-million reward for Bin-Laden and you can imagine at least fifty people in the world know where he is, this is the problem, money or not they will not betray him.
I think we can agree in the folly of having the worlds most powerful military in one country, and your enemy in another, and not being able to cross the border to capture him, it's time to use something else.
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 02:13 AM (QkWqQ)
32
Wearyman -
I think you hit on several of the most serious consequences. I think davec is spot-on about the use of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in such an event.
The worldwide depression you mention would almost certainly occur, leading to widespread displacement, famine, disease and death around the world.
As to the rationale for such an attack, I'm not persuaded. If our enemy was Britain, Germany, Russia, China or some other generally secular enemy that sought material gain, it would make perfect sense to destroy his stuff in order to punish him and make the war cost him more than he could ever hope to gain through further military action.
If I don't misunderstand them, our enemies in this conflict don't seek material gain in this life. They don't even seek to survive.
Given these facts, I don't see how blowing up--or threatening to blow up--material things is supposed to dissuade them from doing their jihadi stuff.
On the other hand, I can see how blowing up their holy stuff will get the fence-riders off the fence real quick-like--and not in a good way.
I think you hit on several of the most serious consequences. I think davec is spot-on about the use of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in such an event.
The worldwide depression you mention would almost certainly occur, leading to widespread displacement, famine, disease and death around the world.
As to the rationale for such an attack, I'm not persuaded. If our enemy was Britain, Germany, Russia, China or some other generally secular enemy that sought material gain, it would make perfect sense to destroy his stuff in order to punish him and make the war cost him more than he could ever hope to gain through further military action.
If I don't misunderstand them, our enemies in this conflict don't seek material gain in this life. They don't even seek to survive.
Given these facts, I don't see how blowing up--or threatening to blow up--material things is supposed to dissuade them from doing their jihadi stuff.
On the other hand, I can see how blowing up their holy stuff will get the fence-riders off the fence real quick-like--and not in a good way.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 03:31 AM (btGZA)
33
FLLaw33870 sez:
As to some of the other posts, I think it is nonsense to say we will create terrorists if we get "mean" and strike back.
FLL, I think you need to come to grips with the idea that killing people and blowing shit up does not have a value unto itself. Killing people and blowing shit up has value to the extent--and ONLY to the extent--that the killing of people and blowing up of shit advances a worthwhile strategic goal.
Taking actions that have the effect of adding to the number of your enemy's allies without garnering any material benefit to your own strategic goals isn't "tough," "courageous" or "manly." It's just stupid.
Taking actions that undermine your enemy's plans while denying him additional reinforcements isn't being "squeamish." It's being smart.
Think about it this way: if we were at war with one Asian country (let's say North Korea), but the rest of the Asian countries in the area were staying neutral, would it be SMART or STUPID to start broadcasting propaganda messages that we think all Asians are cowards and don't know how to fight?
As to some of the other posts, I think it is nonsense to say we will create terrorists if we get "mean" and strike back.
FLL, I think you need to come to grips with the idea that killing people and blowing shit up does not have a value unto itself. Killing people and blowing shit up has value to the extent--and ONLY to the extent--that the killing of people and blowing up of shit advances a worthwhile strategic goal.
Taking actions that have the effect of adding to the number of your enemy's allies without garnering any material benefit to your own strategic goals isn't "tough," "courageous" or "manly." It's just stupid.
Taking actions that undermine your enemy's plans while denying him additional reinforcements isn't being "squeamish." It's being smart.
Think about it this way: if we were at war with one Asian country (let's say North Korea), but the rest of the Asian countries in the area were staying neutral, would it be SMART or STUPID to start broadcasting propaganda messages that we think all Asians are cowards and don't know how to fight?
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 03:50 AM (uudki)
34
I think we should do some lunar nuclear tests before we try threatening anyone with nuclear strikes.
Posted by: George guy at November 26, 2006 04:06 AM (eWkFC)
35
John Ryan, again, goes after the Christians. The problem is
Islamic fundamentalists and John Ryan thinks that "any" call for strong
action or retaliation has some Christian plot at its root or some crazy
Republican right wing. As if any such sentiment came out of thin
air. While he sits there in his lotus position spewing
dispassionate strawman arguments, the radical Mullahs, Imams and
Ahmadinejad himself are the ones who have spoken out loud about
bringing on the final battle and used not Christianity, but Islam, to
justify it. It's the Caliphate, stupid. Not the Rapture.
While I don't doubt for a second that there are Christians who believe
in the Rapture or believe that it may be near, it's the radical Muslims
who are not just talking about the end times or a "final solution", but openly trying to make it a reality.
Islamic fundamentalists and John Ryan thinks that "any" call for strong
action or retaliation has some Christian plot at its root or some crazy
Republican right wing. As if any such sentiment came out of thin
air. While he sits there in his lotus position spewing
dispassionate strawman arguments, the radical Mullahs, Imams and
Ahmadinejad himself are the ones who have spoken out loud about
bringing on the final battle and used not Christianity, but Islam, to
justify it. It's the Caliphate, stupid. Not the Rapture.
While I don't doubt for a second that there are Christians who believe
in the Rapture or believe that it may be near, it's the radical Muslims
who are not just talking about the end times or a "final solution", but openly trying to make it a reality.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2006 05:47 AM (YudAC)
36
I have a question.
I think most of those "nuke Mecca" comments are throwaway hyperbole, and I haven't actually seen very many of them.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:03 PM
===================
Are you the pot or the kettle?
I think most of those "nuke Mecca" comments are throwaway hyperbole, and I haven't actually seen very many of them.
What's more reprehensible is the recent surge in the number of mentally challenged trolls who get all of their news from Airhead America, and who are determined to drown out any opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:03 PM
===================
Are you the pot or the kettle?
Posted by: No Fear at November 26, 2006 05:53 AM (MPCBF)
37
That was a rhetorical question btw.
Posted by: No Fear at November 26, 2006 05:57 AM (MPCBF)
38
I love jawareport, i read it every day. i have posted a comment or 2 before about how we should kill off the muslims and then outlaw that religion. think of this...would it of been a good thing if germany and austria were nuked in 1939? 1938? 1940? so many could b saved, and so many innocent german s would die.. true, but its there country that produced them nazis, the innocents could leave before the nuke bombing of course.. and in 2006? we could bomb mecca, all of waziristan, parts of south thailand, all of palistine, parts of chechnya, parts of the southern philippines... parts of somalia...destroy the the mosques of the world, especially in jerusalem, parts of iraq, iran, syria, and saudi arabia. its time 2 persecute the muslims ppl. this world does not need a religion that loves death and loves to shed blood... they do love death... they want to be a martyr for jihad.... WAKE UP FREEDOM PEACE LOVING PPL there must be alot pain death and blood of muslims before we can have true PEACE... GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ITS FRIENDS
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 07:39 AM (pU0SG)
39
I will continue, this is in the aftermath of the nuclear holocaust we just inflicted on the muslim pigs..after the slaughter of milliojns of muslims, and all the mosques are burned to the ground, islam is outlawed. break the law 4 dat and u die. islam is the only religion to be outlawed. its the only religion that kills innocents, and drives people so crazy in their mind that they blow themselves up taking innocent people with them, what a gift for their god, but to their dismay... they meet my God the only true God, the God of the christians and jews, and they are punished beyond our reckoning. back to the aftermath..since such a religion is clearly EVIL, more so than satanism... more so than any other thing in the world. islam represents what is evil, of course some ppl canb easily interpret it into a peaceful religion, but it is not. it is evil disguised as a religion of peace. you all can see it. i know you can. thats the most fantastic way for the great satan to trick man. to set up a false religion with him as the god and satans son is the messenger, ( satan did the same thing God did when he died on the cross. he came down from heaven as a man. as Jesus. Satan came up from hell, as a man, and he was named mohammed. mohammed is clearly evil as u can see in history by the wars he waged, the men he kills, how he boasts about being a warrior, absolutly no humility whatsoever. and now u see how the true God did. his example... JESUS CHRIST. satans example..mohammed. can u see?)(satan is constantly competeing with God) and his religion is so great that if u leave this great religion you have to be put to death. its hardcore, punishing man by mutilating the bodies God gave them, have satans worshippers pray to him 5 times a day, and they must bow to him. im sure satan loves that. dominance over man. again, as i was saying... the aftermath of the all out war, slaughter of muslims(of ciourse they may see Gods power and become a christian, they may c the light)we burn there bodies, and destroy allkorans and islamic holy books... they all,l become a mere novelty, like a withcraft books, and new age books, book of spells..then...after a generation has passed... the horrible memories of the muslims attacking us, and us killing them off, will fade away. and they will become a story to tell the children before you put them into bed at night. that sir... is what needs to be done.. God bless the jawa report and all its readers... unless they are muslims, then they can burn in hell.. God Bless America Support OUR TrooPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:04 AM (pU0SG)
40
Hank, in saying this you're condoning doing the same thing you condemn others for doing. Is this what your God teaches?
As the world at large has moved on to recognizing that innocent people
must be spared if at all possible, Islamic fundamentalists have not
recognized this. And you have cast yourself into the same lot,
using your own God as justification.
As the world at large has moved on to recognizing that innocent people
must be spared if at all possible, Islamic fundamentalists have not
recognized this. And you have cast yourself into the same lot,
using your own God as justification.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2006 08:24 AM (YudAC)
41
yes, it has to happen once. then time will heal the wounds. i see... what needs to be done is outlaw islam. all the good muslims can go to a different religion of thier choosing. first close down all mosques around the world. nock them down. destory them, take them apart and use the peiecs for other things.. any violent uprisings will be met with violence. the world anounces that islam is now forbidden for men. cuz it has proved to be evil. budhism, and hindusim, and christiansd all have different Gods, but they live together in peace. islam is clearly not peaceful.
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:31 AM (pU0SG)
42
so to answer your question... spare the innocent people as much as possible. once islam is outlawed the hate in their hearts will be easy to see. we can try to convince them that islam is wrong. some may go to a different religion. some may have no religion, some may say ok and ppractice islam in secret... thats fine... it wont hurt anyone... but nwhen we try to convince the muslims that there religion is wrong. and banning islam is the best thing to do for man, toweards peace on earth.and they get violent... well. we shoot first. we meet them with 100 times the amount of violence... but the muslims have a choice... they can convert to something else, they can hide there love for islam, or they can go to war with us and die. if they would choose to hide there islam, and practice in secret, its ok, its better to have a few thousands of people practiceing in secret with fear that they can go to prison for life if discovered than how it is now. and as the years pass... 100s of years pass... islam will be long forgotten....
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:41 AM (pU0SG)
43
Nuke Mecca?
that would vaporize the rock and make the whole area radioactive. Every Hadj visit would kill millions every year (these folks won't let Radiation poison stop the Hadj) The Hajji will declare that the rock got miracled up to heaven/paradise by Allah his self and every Hadji that dies there post strike automatically gets launched to paradise also. In other words Nuke Mecca and the Moslem world would declare VICTORY over the INFIDEL.
The Moslem's would unite and fight a real open war and then we would be forced to destroy whole populations just to end the war.
Oil prices? please we would have to take that oil under fire just to keep the war going.
The Hadji would burn that oil efore we got anymore of it.
Nuke Mecca and the whole world would change over night. We would have to kill every Moslem in the world. Literally!
The only way to even threaten Mecca would be a high air burst that lights up Mo's holy place but does no actual damage and yes, even then Hadji will declare Victory.
I hate these creeps as much as anybody does but I am not prepared for a Moslem Holocaust to haunt us the way the Jewish Holocaust haunts the Germans, And Bubba that's what it would take mass produced death for them.
That would destroy our culture.
Now to promise to nuke them if they nuke us and to actually do it that might be the route to go. though no Democlown or republiclown will even consider that.
Face it, Nuclear weapons use by the United States is off the table even if we get nuked first.
that would vaporize the rock and make the whole area radioactive. Every Hadj visit would kill millions every year (these folks won't let Radiation poison stop the Hadj) The Hajji will declare that the rock got miracled up to heaven/paradise by Allah his self and every Hadji that dies there post strike automatically gets launched to paradise also. In other words Nuke Mecca and the Moslem world would declare VICTORY over the INFIDEL.
The Moslem's would unite and fight a real open war and then we would be forced to destroy whole populations just to end the war.
Oil prices? please we would have to take that oil under fire just to keep the war going.
The Hadji would burn that oil efore we got anymore of it.
Nuke Mecca and the whole world would change over night. We would have to kill every Moslem in the world. Literally!
The only way to even threaten Mecca would be a high air burst that lights up Mo's holy place but does no actual damage and yes, even then Hadji will declare Victory.
I hate these creeps as much as anybody does but I am not prepared for a Moslem Holocaust to haunt us the way the Jewish Holocaust haunts the Germans, And Bubba that's what it would take mass produced death for them.
That would destroy our culture.
Now to promise to nuke them if they nuke us and to actually do it that might be the route to go. though no Democlown or republiclown will even consider that.
Face it, Nuclear weapons use by the United States is off the table even if we get nuked first.
Posted by: Barry 0351 at November 26, 2006 09:24 AM (XXEg4)
44
How do you fight a religious war when your very Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion?
That means you cannot outlaw an established religion. you cannot declare it a cult. you cannot deport it back where it came from.
This Moslem up rising is going to last a thousand years and at this stage nobody knows where it will lead.
While The United States may not nuke Mecca there is no hard fast rule that says some other aggrieved party will not. Christian terrorist may suicide attack with nukes, Russia might to avenge a nuked Russian city, a nuclear attacked China would not hesitate.
The odds of Mecca surviving this thousand year war is really quite slim.
That means you cannot outlaw an established religion. you cannot declare it a cult. you cannot deport it back where it came from.
This Moslem up rising is going to last a thousand years and at this stage nobody knows where it will lead.
While The United States may not nuke Mecca there is no hard fast rule that says some other aggrieved party will not. Christian terrorist may suicide attack with nukes, Russia might to avenge a nuked Russian city, a nuclear attacked China would not hesitate.
The odds of Mecca surviving this thousand year war is really quite slim.
Posted by: Barry 0351 at November 26, 2006 09:59 AM (XXEg4)
45
I don't know if Ive ever uttered those words (nuke the M.E.) however, I would opt for a neutron bomb. It would (from what I understand) disintigrate living bodies, but save the buildings and prevent mass destruction... just removes the population.
But again, I don't recall endorsing such an extreme stance.
I would prefer that muslims change religions.. to something, anything, less barbaric and pagan.
I don't see that happening either.
To paraphrase a Soggy Bottom Boy, we are in a tight spot.
But again, I don't recall endorsing such an extreme stance.
I would prefer that muslims change religions.. to something, anything, less barbaric and pagan.
I don't see that happening either.
To paraphrase a Soggy Bottom Boy, we are in a tight spot.
Posted by: JeepThang at November 26, 2006 10:16 AM (yZQoS)
46
2 million hits !!
john ryan,
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
john ryan,
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2006 12:52 PM (8e/V4)
47
john ryan,
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
I don't know...I kinda had the feeling he has never hit it.
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
I don't know...I kinda had the feeling he has never hit it.
Posted by: Randman at November 26, 2006 05:52 PM (Sal3J)
48
Nuke Mecca?
Heavens no... so wasteful in time and resources. I would much prefer doing something else... take out Syria and re-balance the Middle East a bit...
And then at the next al Qaeda bombing, announce that any Islamic force that wishes to help run the Holy Cities in Saudi Arabia will get the full and utter protection of the US air forces, of which we have a few aircraft, if I remember correctly. Just let them all know that *any* Islamic National Army can take part, yes even Iran... their Army, not Guards or Basij, but the regular armed forces... and that the Holy Cities are open to all of Islam thereafter and all of Islam must run them. We have shown that you don't need big Armies to win such battles, like in Afghanistan. After that all of Islam is to send representatives... say at 5,000 followers... maybe 30,000... some nice proportion to give them a large and unwieldy body for deliberation. Wonder how long the sewers will run, the water work, and all the other daily necessities continue onwards under such a thing? Once they learn how to govern a couple of measly Holy Cities, then they should be ready to tackle governing themselves. And we could wish them luck! From the sidelines.
That is what is known as 'pulling the rug out from under the enemy' and 'leaving them holding the bag'. They can either prove to each other that they do, indeed, have a 'religion of peace'. Or not. Because this is their fight, so let them fight it out. In their Holy Cities. Against each other. Come one, come all! See how Islam treats their Holy Cities.
Never said anything about genocide by doing nothing now... but such blood will be on their hands entirely.
Heavens no... so wasteful in time and resources. I would much prefer doing something else... take out Syria and re-balance the Middle East a bit...
And then at the next al Qaeda bombing, announce that any Islamic force that wishes to help run the Holy Cities in Saudi Arabia will get the full and utter protection of the US air forces, of which we have a few aircraft, if I remember correctly. Just let them all know that *any* Islamic National Army can take part, yes even Iran... their Army, not Guards or Basij, but the regular armed forces... and that the Holy Cities are open to all of Islam thereafter and all of Islam must run them. We have shown that you don't need big Armies to win such battles, like in Afghanistan. After that all of Islam is to send representatives... say at 5,000 followers... maybe 30,000... some nice proportion to give them a large and unwieldy body for deliberation. Wonder how long the sewers will run, the water work, and all the other daily necessities continue onwards under such a thing? Once they learn how to govern a couple of measly Holy Cities, then they should be ready to tackle governing themselves. And we could wish them luck! From the sidelines.
That is what is known as 'pulling the rug out from under the enemy' and 'leaving them holding the bag'. They can either prove to each other that they do, indeed, have a 'religion of peace'. Or not. Because this is their fight, so let them fight it out. In their Holy Cities. Against each other. Come one, come all! See how Islam treats their Holy Cities.
Never said anything about genocide by doing nothing now... but such blood will be on their hands entirely.
Posted by: ajacksonian at November 26, 2006 06:34 PM (oy1lQ)
49
If nukes were used against the islamopithecines, they would be very angry with us, and the "international community" of Western Eurabia would claim that America is more of a threat to imagined "world stability" than the jihadis are. Both groups would hate us.
The victims of islam in places like Africa and Asia would not be angry, and they would like us.
Killing a large number of muslims could be considered genocide. I'd be interested to hear why this would be any wronger than nuking Imperial Japan to prevent far more innocent deaths was.
Islam will not go away politely or voluntarily. It will continue to plague civilization until it is confronted. Taking out Mecca and Medina would be a huge blow to the koranimals, who believe "allah" is protecting them as "holy" cities for all eternity.
Dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear campaign would be difficult, but dealing with the aftermath of a conventional bombing campaign would be dificult. Hell, the kind and gentle precision bombing carried out against Hussein's regime in Iraq has been ferociously dificult to deal with thanks to mindless opposition from America-last vermin, and may end in a feckless retreat forced by the left.
Civilization has the means to kill islamic zealots, wipe out their power centers, appropriate their wealth, convert the less psychopathic muslims to peaceful religions, and criminalize islam, but it doesn't have the will.
A limited nuclear strike against certain islamic targets will not seem so unthinkable if jihadis detonate any nukes on U.S. soil, which most experts foresee happening.
The victims of islam in places like Africa and Asia would not be angry, and they would like us.
Killing a large number of muslims could be considered genocide. I'd be interested to hear why this would be any wronger than nuking Imperial Japan to prevent far more innocent deaths was.
Islam will not go away politely or voluntarily. It will continue to plague civilization until it is confronted. Taking out Mecca and Medina would be a huge blow to the koranimals, who believe "allah" is protecting them as "holy" cities for all eternity.
Dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear campaign would be difficult, but dealing with the aftermath of a conventional bombing campaign would be dificult. Hell, the kind and gentle precision bombing carried out against Hussein's regime in Iraq has been ferociously dificult to deal with thanks to mindless opposition from America-last vermin, and may end in a feckless retreat forced by the left.
Civilization has the means to kill islamic zealots, wipe out their power centers, appropriate their wealth, convert the less psychopathic muslims to peaceful religions, and criminalize islam, but it doesn't have the will.
A limited nuclear strike against certain islamic targets will not seem so unthinkable if jihadis detonate any nukes on U.S. soil, which most experts foresee happening.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 06:55 PM (bLPT+)
50
Let me clarify my position so all the sheep can understand; all muslims
are the enemy, whether they bear weapons or not, and their only goal is
our extermination. Anyone who thinks we can live in peace alongside
muslims is an idiot, and will get no pity from me when the muslims
whose asses they kiss come to enslave or kill them. Moreso, all
lefturds are with the enemy, and will gladly help them in their
campaign of rape and murder, but I'm probably just wasting my breath,
because although sheep can apparently read, they obviously can't
comprehend. But don't let the truth bother you, just see what's on the
Disney Channel and go back to chewing your cud.
are the enemy, whether they bear weapons or not, and their only goal is
our extermination. Anyone who thinks we can live in peace alongside
muslims is an idiot, and will get no pity from me when the muslims
whose asses they kiss come to enslave or kill them. Moreso, all
lefturds are with the enemy, and will gladly help them in their
campaign of rape and murder, but I'm probably just wasting my breath,
because although sheep can apparently read, they obviously can't
comprehend. But don't let the truth bother you, just see what's on the
Disney Channel and go back to chewing your cud.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2006 07:52 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (jmS3p)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:39 PM (jmS3p)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:40 PM (XbK6+)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:41 PM (XbK6+)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:43 PM (osb1B)
56
I think that most people who write "nuke [fill in the blank]" are not truly thinking of the consequences.
However, I am afraid that if the world allows militant Islam to continue to expand and experience perceived successes, we may find outselves in a seemingly never ending struggle with a decentralized, violent, uncompromising enemy. The non-militants Muslims will either be frightened into silence, or maybe quietly and waiting on the sidelines hoping for their more violent brethren to succeed.
During the Second World War, the major powers were not afraid to wage "total war" on each other. Civilian targets were legitimate because the destruction of the civilian infrastructure was seen as a means of destroying the enemy's ability to resupply their war machine and continue fighting. However, it also served the purpose of making the populations of the defeated powers (which had been deluded by the NAZI fascists and the Japanese military government) realize that their visions of glory were wrong. The German and Japanese civilian populations of the 1940s probably would not have reassessed their values and become the progressive, representative and (essentially peaceful) countries that they are today without the devastating losses they suffered in the 1940s.
So, what are we to make of the Middle East and the global hot spots? We no longer allow wars to be fought to the bitter end. When one side starts to lose badly, the UN (or some other entity) steps in and negotiates an end to hostilities. The result? The losing government (and the subject people) don't bear the full weight of their defeat...they can rationalize away their loss (just as the Germans did after their loss in the First World War).
There is an old episode of classic STAR TREK named "A Taste of Armaggedon." In that episode, Kirk and the Enterprise find two planets at war. The battles are fought by computer, but the casualties are real (if the computer indicates that you are a fatality, you have to report to a termination center). Kirk destroys this system and explains that it was immoral. If you sanitize war....if you make it less painful and less dreadful, then you make it more likely that you will HAVE war.
Thus, our modern age of limited war allows aggressive regimes like Iraq, Iran, and the others (think of all those warlike states in Africa) to consider war as a viable option. If it goes bad...well...the UN will step in before they are totally conquered. Hence, we get more war and more suffering.
Thus, it may be necessary for the US and the western world to end this era of limited war. If someone wants to make war on us, we will fight with every weapon at our disposal and we will not stop fighting until the enemy is totally destroyed. The opposition population must suffer horribly as a lesson so that other countries won't want to repeat that mistake.
War must be horrible. War must be the ultimate nightmare. Countries must realize that they cannot be hostile and aggressive without facing their own destruction.
However, I am afraid that if the world allows militant Islam to continue to expand and experience perceived successes, we may find outselves in a seemingly never ending struggle with a decentralized, violent, uncompromising enemy. The non-militants Muslims will either be frightened into silence, or maybe quietly and waiting on the sidelines hoping for their more violent brethren to succeed.
During the Second World War, the major powers were not afraid to wage "total war" on each other. Civilian targets were legitimate because the destruction of the civilian infrastructure was seen as a means of destroying the enemy's ability to resupply their war machine and continue fighting. However, it also served the purpose of making the populations of the defeated powers (which had been deluded by the NAZI fascists and the Japanese military government) realize that their visions of glory were wrong. The German and Japanese civilian populations of the 1940s probably would not have reassessed their values and become the progressive, representative and (essentially peaceful) countries that they are today without the devastating losses they suffered in the 1940s.
So, what are we to make of the Middle East and the global hot spots? We no longer allow wars to be fought to the bitter end. When one side starts to lose badly, the UN (or some other entity) steps in and negotiates an end to hostilities. The result? The losing government (and the subject people) don't bear the full weight of their defeat...they can rationalize away their loss (just as the Germans did after their loss in the First World War).
There is an old episode of classic STAR TREK named "A Taste of Armaggedon." In that episode, Kirk and the Enterprise find two planets at war. The battles are fought by computer, but the casualties are real (if the computer indicates that you are a fatality, you have to report to a termination center). Kirk destroys this system and explains that it was immoral. If you sanitize war....if you make it less painful and less dreadful, then you make it more likely that you will HAVE war.
Thus, our modern age of limited war allows aggressive regimes like Iraq, Iran, and the others (think of all those warlike states in Africa) to consider war as a viable option. If it goes bad...well...the UN will step in before they are totally conquered. Hence, we get more war and more suffering.
Thus, it may be necessary for the US and the western world to end this era of limited war. If someone wants to make war on us, we will fight with every weapon at our disposal and we will not stop fighting until the enemy is totally destroyed. The opposition population must suffer horribly as a lesson so that other countries won't want to repeat that mistake.
War must be horrible. War must be the ultimate nightmare. Countries must realize that they cannot be hostile and aggressive without facing their own destruction.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2006 07:42 PM (E0kgP)
57
Hugh:
Isn't your "scorched Earth" policy suggestion at odds with the "divide and conquer" suggestions you espouse elsewhere?
I agree with your present suggestion, but that just makes your past suggestions bizarre and obsolete (by your own reckoning.)
What the fuck?
Isn't your "scorched Earth" policy suggestion at odds with the "divide and conquer" suggestions you espouse elsewhere?
I agree with your present suggestion, but that just makes your past suggestions bizarre and obsolete (by your own reckoning.)
What the fuck?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 10:39 PM (bLPT+)
58
Great post Hugh....
You stated: "I think that most people who write "nuke [fill in the blank]" are not truly thinking of the consequences."
Sadly, I think most who make that statement HAVE thought out the consequences and with that considered still must make said statement.
In the blank, I place Syria and Iran, along with threatening Saudia Arabia to stop its export of militant Islam or else.
"Militant Islam"....so redundant.
If you have not reached the same conclusion, you will for the post you wrote contains a lot of wisdom concerning the need for a nation to feel the FULL WEIGHT of defeat.
You stated: "I think that most people who write "nuke [fill in the blank]" are not truly thinking of the consequences."
Sadly, I think most who make that statement HAVE thought out the consequences and with that considered still must make said statement.
In the blank, I place Syria and Iran, along with threatening Saudia Arabia to stop its export of militant Islam or else.
"Militant Islam"....so redundant.
If you have not reached the same conclusion, you will for the post you wrote contains a lot of wisdom concerning the need for a nation to feel the FULL WEIGHT of defeat.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 28, 2006 02:23 AM (38GUY)
59
Yes, there are contradictions in my post. That is why this whole situation is so troubling and difficult. My mind recoils at the idea of the violence I am defending.
And let's not forget that every situation is unique.
Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2006 06:36 AM (E0kgP)
60
Hugh:
Most of us recoil at the thought of that level of violence. That's why the islamopithecines are able to continue their jihad.
I've personally come to the conclusion that killing a huge number of muslims is necessary to make the world a much, much, better place. I don't like the idea of killing brainwashed peasants who could be made to see reason, but as long as they live under islam, they won't be allowed to see reason, and I'm willing to acrifice every one of them for the safety of my own people. The way I see it, any population that allows violent muslims to run hog wild earn what they're eventually going to get from the West, or even China. Even if they are oppressed, they're still part of the problem.
Most of us recoil at the thought of that level of violence. That's why the islamopithecines are able to continue their jihad.
I've personally come to the conclusion that killing a huge number of muslims is necessary to make the world a much, much, better place. I don't like the idea of killing brainwashed peasants who could be made to see reason, but as long as they live under islam, they won't be allowed to see reason, and I'm willing to acrifice every one of them for the safety of my own people. The way I see it, any population that allows violent muslims to run hog wild earn what they're eventually going to get from the West, or even China. Even if they are oppressed, they're still part of the problem.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 11:18 PM (bLPT+)
61
Ugly, but this might work.
In the event of a military crises (Iranian nuke for example) select a target site.
Declare your target. In the media. You know that AlJazeera will share with the Arab speaking/ Islamic world.
State loudly, and publically, in all media forms, that if it is the will of Allah that America should submit to Islam, then the target will not be struck by our attack.
However, if the target is smashed (Mecca, whatever) then Allah surely does not favor those who attack America.
Challenge God/Allah to a fight. Demand that he protect the muslim target. Declare that in the absence of divine intervention, the target will be destroyed.
Then after 3 days, nuke it hard. Then say, "Where was Allah? Why didn't he come?"
Say, "Why did anyone ever believe Mohammed? Look how his own words, suppossedly given to him by Allah, have been disproven. Where are all the Angels that Mohammed promised would come to your aid? See what blind submission to Mohammed has brought you."
You will seperate the wheat from the chaff for sure. Some will still want to fight, but they will lack state sponsors, I'm fairly sure.
Peace would be nice.
In nature peace only comes to those creatures which are to dangerous to be attacked.
Still busy, but I figured I'd see whats up. Be excellent to each other!
USA all the way!
In the event of a military crises (Iranian nuke for example) select a target site.
Declare your target. In the media. You know that AlJazeera will share with the Arab speaking/ Islamic world.
State loudly, and publically, in all media forms, that if it is the will of Allah that America should submit to Islam, then the target will not be struck by our attack.
However, if the target is smashed (Mecca, whatever) then Allah surely does not favor those who attack America.
Challenge God/Allah to a fight. Demand that he protect the muslim target. Declare that in the absence of divine intervention, the target will be destroyed.
Then after 3 days, nuke it hard. Then say, "Where was Allah? Why didn't he come?"
Say, "Why did anyone ever believe Mohammed? Look how his own words, suppossedly given to him by Allah, have been disproven. Where are all the Angels that Mohammed promised would come to your aid? See what blind submission to Mohammed has brought you."
You will seperate the wheat from the chaff for sure. Some will still want to fight, but they will lack state sponsors, I'm fairly sure.
Peace would be nice.
In nature peace only comes to those creatures which are to dangerous to be attacked.
Still busy, but I figured I'd see whats up. Be excellent to each other!
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 12:55 AM (2OHpj)
62
Dear Michael Weaver:
I like the way you think! You think like Elijah. Who? Elijah an Old Testament Prophet not to be confused with Elijah Wood who played the role of hobbit Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings Series.
Here are the verses in I Kings about Elijah that your post reminds me of which are as follows:
1KI 18:16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 And it came about, when Ahab saw Elijah that Ahab said to him, "Is this you, you troubler of Israel?" 18 And he said, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and you have followed the Baals. 19 "Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
1KI 18:20 So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel, and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel. 21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. 23 "Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox, and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. 24 "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people answered and said, "That is a good idea."
1KI 18:25 So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26 Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made. 27 And it came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened." 28 So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And it came about when midday was past, that they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.
1KI 18:30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD which had been torn down. 31 And Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name." 32 So with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he made a trench around the altar, large enough to hold two measures of seed. 33 Then he arranged the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, "Fill four pitchers with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood." 34 And he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time. And he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time. 35 And the water flowed around the altar, and he also filled the trench with water. 36 Then it came about at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. 37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that Thou, O LORD, art God, and that Thou hast turned their heart back again." 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, "The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God." 40 Then Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape." So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
Like your post Elijah set up the Prophets of Baal to prove their god was false and powerless.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:27 AM (38GUY)
63
Well I see Satan has arrived...
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 06:37 PM (38GUY)
64
Cut and paste idiots.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 29, 2006 07:59 PM (0TutP)
65
I'm confused:
This post followed mine,
"Dear Michael Weaver:
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:27 AM "
Then there was SPAM!
Then ther was this post,
"Well I see Satan has arrived...
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 06:37 PM "
My question is ... which Satan are you refering to? The guy who keeps advertising sex toys in these threads? Me, for suggesting we could, maybe, nuke Mecca as a gross, and brutal way of stripping Allah from the Jihadist ranks? Or was it something else?
If it was me, that is OK. I've been called 'satanic' before. In the context of declaring war on Allah, it is a fair comparison I guess. I was just trying to understand your posts, and they way they came about.
USA all the way!
This post followed mine,
"Dear Michael Weaver:
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:27 AM "
Then there was SPAM!
Then ther was this post,
"Well I see Satan has arrived...
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 06:37 PM "
My question is ... which Satan are you refering to? The guy who keeps advertising sex toys in these threads? Me, for suggesting we could, maybe, nuke Mecca as a gross, and brutal way of stripping Allah from the Jihadist ranks? Or was it something else?
If it was me, that is OK. I've been called 'satanic' before. In the context of declaring war on Allah, it is a fair comparison I guess. I was just trying to understand your posts, and they way they came about.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 10:58 PM (2OHpj)
66
No...No....No....NOT YOU Michael Weaver. My post #63 applauds your post. I say AMEN to your wisdom and your post reminds me of the story of the prophet Elijah dealing with the false prophets of Baal.
I was calling posts 64 and 65 Satanic...saying I see Satan has arrived with the porn spam. I did NOT post posts 64 & 65, some sicko spammer did.
No I wish I had written your excellent post. I agree with you and your post simply reminded me of the story, which I recounted here, of Elijah who was/is a great man and prophet of God NOT a spokesman for Satan.
I did sent an email to Mr. Rusty Shackleford about these porn spam posts. He sent a nice kind response. Here is his response:
From: rusty shackleford
Subject: Re: Request Ban of Porn Spam poster
Literally, hundreds of similar messages are hitting our servers as we speak. I'm going to shut down comments alltogether within the next 24 hrs until we get this thing under control.
Thanks and sorry,"
Back to you Michael Weaver...I was NOT accusing YOU of being Satan. I apologize for any confusion that one line sentence in my post #66 may have caused.
I was calling posts 64 and 65 Satanic...saying I see Satan has arrived with the porn spam. I did NOT post posts 64 & 65, some sicko spammer did.
No I wish I had written your excellent post. I agree with you and your post simply reminded me of the story, which I recounted here, of Elijah who was/is a great man and prophet of God NOT a spokesman for Satan.
I did sent an email to Mr. Rusty Shackleford about these porn spam posts. He sent a nice kind response. Here is his response:
From: rusty shackleford
Subject: Re: Request Ban of Porn Spam poster
"Unfortunately, we're getting slammed by spammers right now.
Literally, hundreds of similar messages are hitting our servers as we speak. I'm going to shut down comments alltogether within the next 24 hrs until we get this thing under control.
Thanks and sorry,"
Back to you Michael Weaver...I was NOT accusing YOU of being Satan. I apologize for any confusion that one line sentence in my post #66 may have caused.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 30, 2006 11:00 AM (38GUY)
67
By the way, USA all the way too!!!
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 30, 2006 11:00 AM (38GUY)
68
273b313cac558b29047383c96431cf37 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. e1c77cc030a7259f186177a086fb8a83
Posted by: Joseluis at May 15, 2007 09:40 PM (H6duJ)
69
243dbb664ed3dbbf9f0acd338e91e907 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. c5b410f967c066628d7832ce0ac5b28e
Posted by: Clifford at May 16, 2007 12:24 PM (kr4qv)
70
4ea7949fbe268fc7fdcf489787a6e062 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. af5e5529e610c2f14667e2377e4b1e8c
Posted by: Rodrigo at May 17, 2007 10:01 PM (IEJ1/)
71
1a36599219a6562634d34f0016ed23b6 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. b242eb585f2503f10c8eb79a53604d31
Posted by: Darwin at May 20, 2007 06:05 PM (CPx3g)
72
20dfd04309ded157f0637b0394700ab4 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 417a8203d1b04948a6eb96aa4fb99866
Posted by: Koby at May 21, 2007 11:25 AM (e29D8)
73
Very good work!
Posted by: xanax at May 21, 2007 02:08 PM (EiWnq)
74
b6a3e06fe53a9197df7950f11ea4b6ed Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. e7000c4d06986984b665ec9d15ae719a
Posted by: Samuel at May 23, 2007 06:18 AM (ifhuX)
75
703e3d62d416466a15498a8336584460 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 7798902e03c54f1db3af807b5937ee1b
Posted by: Kwame at May 23, 2007 10:51 PM (zkH+y)
76
2eaf6337a0ddeff302d6d989057ab698 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 46517f671cf87061af6ace763c7eda9d
Posted by: Rashaad at May 24, 2007 02:52 PM (IrxPs)
77
ec0cee104300dacb92113388651c8489 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. f4e92eaca3a0992e5377af9d5fb45ea4
Posted by: Cael at May 25, 2007 11:10 AM (98UgX)
78
3691cd5af81d145a6b3e28d0e755b159 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 3c6c60ce2277246c0f4063c97808fccb
Posted by: Anderson at May 26, 2007 03:13 AM (LtwN/)
79
f0a3c4474fb01ac98e3a1b990659ac0a Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 899833c87d41a40d77c99858b4681e10
Posted by: Jessy at May 26, 2007 05:10 PM (XH+37)
80
20ddb68cd67731e2afbd330541fe9bd3 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 6d9dd05b81c19c63ae8e87cbbcfe2050
Posted by: Chandler at May 27, 2007 09:19 AM (CJslR)
81
58ed4f1699ec9ef4b55e057f3b180cd6 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 921da3b25f91ff5411abb8e73f72697f
Posted by: Zion at May 28, 2007 12:59 AM (NCYkN)
82
ce87aa060d0ee4f2a26d545e969cb408 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. ea84313ff4cf4b8bb8ec851c693c83a5
Posted by: Aron at May 28, 2007 04:57 PM (l1lx3)
83
581b4bb2073b97676744ea4636cf7fd3 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. a91f06099d8916d08fc86aebeef191c8
Posted by: Rodney at May 29, 2007 06:11 PM (d7O8I)
84
dfb402db3d26dcae98f1c7100bba9895 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 5447788e0ee79eeca3d64876f41eb1cf
Posted by: Terrell at June 01, 2007 02:14 AM (2jvwk)
85
c3fe8620f5d5fd1bf2f1d22b818e22c4 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 63aa5c5d6850cbd0ab7a0b3644130d9e
Posted by: Caleb at June 01, 2007 08:19 PM (6xZIY)
86
fd305448346cd4ec08706f5057bd7354 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attention to your web project. We are very proud to communicate and colaborate with such partner. Don't be surprised of being noticed. 691e5261e7f26fe9bfca38d324fb1940
Posted by: Ryne at June 02, 2007 04:36 PM (RcUGX)
114kb generated in CPU 0.0256, elapsed 0.0891 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.07 seconds, 241 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.07 seconds, 241 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
