Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
Tom Tancredo on Bombing Mecca
Topic Started: Aug 5 2007, 09:20 AM (2,052 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Most lawyers *are* tools.

But that's a subject for another thread......... ;)
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Aug 7 2007, 06:20 PM
Quirt, every devout Muslim on the face of the planet bows down towards Mecca and prays five times a day. When we see people doing that to the New York Stock Exchange then maybe you have a valid point. Of course, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals they are precisely equivalent, hence the attack on the WTC.

Usually, simply substituting different words into arguments achieves nothing beyond rhetorical trickery.

My point, JB, is that your statement was wrong, it was dangerous, and you would have a heart attack if someone tried to say precisely the same thing in a different context.

I only gave a few examples, but you and I both know that I could come up with others. The Ganges River and India?

You're being intellectually inconsistent.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I do not understand your point. Are you trying to say that Mecca is not transnational even though all Muslims regard it as sacred? Are you trying to say that it is wrong to target it unless we are attacked specifically by Saudi Arabia? Part of every Muslims core beliefs is that a pilgrimage to Mecca is necessary at least once in their life. As I said, they pray in its direction 5 times a day. I fail to see how the Ganges River or even the New York Stock Exchange can be comparable. Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center precisely because they viewed it as a sort of Mecca for the entire Western world. Were they correct? Would we be correct in assigning such significance to the real Mecca? The question really answers itself.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Aug 8 2007, 07:16 AM
I do not understand your point. Are you trying to say that Mecca is not transnational even though all Muslims regard it as sacred? Are you trying to say that it is wrong to target it unless we are attacked specifically by Saudi Arabia? Part of every Muslims core beliefs is that a pilgrimage to Mecca is necessary at least once in their life. As I said, they pray in its direction 5 times a day. I fail to see how the Ganges River or even the New York Stock Exchange can be comparable. Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center precisely because they viewed it as a sort of Mecca for the entire Western world. Were they correct? Would we be correct in assigning such significance to the real Mecca? The question really answers itself.

As I said, and as you keep dodging, there are different symbols in different places that transcend national borders. I find it almost comical that, on the one hand, the conservatives here can criticize Obama for suggesting that we might bomb friendly countries to get at truly hostile targets, and then turn around in the almost the same breath suggest that it would be OK to bomb Mecca, which, in case you haven't noticed, is also located in a friendly country.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Symbols in other places that transcend national borders would be the same as Mecca. You just haven't managed to come up with any whose importance would be significant with a specific enemy. We are fighting radical Islam. All Muslims in the world regard Mecca as holy. Now, if you can come up with a similar relationship with regard to the River Ganges then by all means, let's bomb the crap out of it.

With regard to your point about Obama, my only objection to bombing targets in Pakistan is the same objection I have to bombing Mecca (under current circumstances). It would only make matters worse. In the case of Pakistan we would be potentially turning over a nuclear arsenal to our enemies as the government friendly to us is toppled. In the case of Mecca, we would only galvanize the entire Muslim world against us. All I have been saying here is that there may be circumstances, extraordinary as they might be, in which the latter may be acceptable.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Aug 8 2007, 07:50 AM
Symbols in other places that transcend national borders would be the same as Mecca. You just haven't managed to come up with any whose importance would be significant with a specific enemy. We are fighting radical Islam. All Muslims in the world regard Mecca as holy. Now, if you can come up with a similar relationship with regard to the River Ganges then by all means, let's bomb the crap out of it.

With regard to your point about Obama, my only objection to bombing targets in Pakistan is the same objection I have to bombing Mecca (under current circumstances). It would only make matters worse. In the case of Pakistan we would be potentially turning over a nuclear arsenal to our enemies as the government friendly to us is toppled. In the case of Mecca, we would only galvanize the entire Muslim world against us. All I have been saying here is that there may be circumstances, extraordinary as they might be, in which the latter may be acceptable.

I understand your point, JB, and you aren't one of those who has been voicing the opinion that it would be OK to bomb Mecca. Your views seem firmly grounded in principle. The principle happens to be realpolitik, and I don't agree, but at least they're consistent.

My comment about the laughable inconsistency was more directed at some other conservative who might say that bombing Mecca would be an appopriate response to a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, but at the same time is willing to roast Obama over the coals for suggesting that it might be appropriate to bomb Pakistan. Or perhaps Jolly (although I don't remember him saying much about Obama in this regard).
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Sermon on the Mount (exerpt):

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Aug 8 2007, 05:52 PM
Sermon on the Mount (exerpt):

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Though, if we bomb Mecca the Muslems just might bomb Jerusalem and with everybody dead over there--there just might be peace in the Middle East. :biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
QuirtEvans
Aug 8 2007, 09:07 AM
JBryan
Aug 8 2007, 07:50 AM
Symbols in other places that transcend national borders would be the same as Mecca. You just haven't managed to come up with any whose importance would be significant with a specific enemy. We are fighting radical Islam. All Muslims in the world regard Mecca as holy. Now, if you can come up with a similar relationship with regard to the River Ganges then by all means, let's bomb the crap out of it.

With regard to your point about Obama, my only objection to bombing targets in Pakistan is the same objection I have to bombing Mecca (under current circumstances). It would only make matters worse. In the case of Pakistan we would be potentially turning over a nuclear arsenal to our enemies as the government friendly to us is toppled. In the case of Mecca, we would only galvanize the entire Muslim world against us. All I have been saying here is that there may be circumstances, extraordinary as they might be, in which the latter may be acceptable.

I understand your point, JB, and you aren't one of those who has been voicing the opinion that it would be OK to bomb Mecca. Your views seem firmly grounded in principle. The principle happens to be realpolitik, and I don't agree, but at least they're consistent.

My comment about the laughable inconsistency was more directed at Mik, who has been very clear that he thinks bombing Mecca would be an appopriate response to a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, but at the same time is willing to roast Obama over the coals for suggesting that it might be appropriate to bomb Pakistan. Or perhaps Jolly (although I don't remember him saying much about Obama in this regard).

Wrong again, counselor. Dead wrong. Not even close.

And just to show I am a sport, here are all my posts from this thread. Would you care to show me where my 'laughable inconsistency' is?



Quote:
 
I understand the thinking behind it, but unfortunately we would be nuking Saudi Arabia - not a terribly great idea to be talking about at a time when they seem unable to carry out even minor attacks on the US over the last six years. (hint - does 'fighting the terrorists over there, not over here' ring a bell?)

But I do believe the terrorists are on notice that should we be attacked with WMDs that there will be major retaliation, probably aimed at crippling their economies as opposed to population centers.




Quote:
 
Quote:
 
(Pianolicious @ Aug 5 2007, 02:01 PM)
Tancredo doesn't understand that there is no money in ending a war.

We could have won in Vietnam and we could have won in Iraq, but there's just gobs of money to be made staying put. I don't expect Mecca to be bombed any time soon. 



So let me get this straight - you think we are spending the billions we are there in order to MAKE money?




Quote:
 
I think Jesus would kick some ass. As a matter of fact, I believe the second coming is supposed to include a great deal of that.

And if He can raise the dead, He can surely open up a BIG ol' can of whupass. I don't see the contradiction.




Quote:
 
If we ever do bomb those sites, it had better be because we have changed over to a Vietnam era sentiment for our strategy - 'Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out'.


Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
I would think that bombing Mecca would be a good example to Moslems that Allah isn't as all powerful as a B-52.

I could be wrong--again, it might just make them mad. But, it would show that there is nothing to their religion.

It's a gamble.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Aug 8 2007, 05:31 PM
QuirtEvans
Aug 8 2007, 09:07 AM
JBryan
Aug 8 2007, 07:50 AM
Symbols in other places that transcend national borders would be the same as Mecca. You just haven't managed to come up with any whose importance would be significant with a specific enemy. We are fighting radical Islam. All Muslims in the world regard Mecca as holy. Now, if you can come up with a similar relationship with regard to the River Ganges then by all means, let's bomb the crap out of it.

With regard to your point about Obama, my only objection to bombing targets in Pakistan is the same objection I have to bombing Mecca (under current circumstances). It would only make matters worse. In the case of Pakistan we would be potentially turning over a nuclear arsenal to our enemies as the government friendly to us is toppled. In the case of Mecca, we would only galvanize the entire Muslim world against us. All I have been saying here is that there may be circumstances, extraordinary as they might be, in which the latter may be acceptable.

I understand your point, JB, and you aren't one of those who has been voicing the opinion that it would be OK to bomb Mecca. Your views seem firmly grounded in principle. The principle happens to be realpolitik, and I don't agree, but at least they're consistent.

My comment about the laughable inconsistency was more directed at Mik, who has been very clear that he thinks bombing Mecca would be an appopriate response to a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, but at the same time is willing to roast Obama over the coals for suggesting that it might be appropriate to bomb Pakistan. Or perhaps Jolly (although I don't remember him saying much about Obama in this regard).

Wrong again, counselor. Dead wrong. Not even close.

And just to show I am a sport, here are all my posts from this thread. Would you care to show me where my 'laughable inconsistency' is?



Quote:
 
I understand the thinking behind it, but unfortunately we would be nuking Saudi Arabia - not a terribly great idea to be talking about at a time when they seem unable to carry out even minor attacks on the US over the last six years. (hint - does 'fighting the terrorists over there, not over here' ring a bell?)

But I do believe the terrorists are on notice that should we be attacked with WMDs that there will be major retaliation, probably aimed at crippling their economies as opposed to population centers.




Quote:
 
Quote:
 
(Pianolicious @ Aug 5 2007, 02:01 PM)
Tancredo doesn't understand that there is no money in ending a war.

We could have won in Vietnam and we could have won in Iraq, but there's just gobs of money to be made staying put. I don't expect Mecca to be bombed any time soon. 



So let me get this straight - you think we are spending the billions we are there in order to MAKE money?




Quote:
 
I think Jesus would kick some ass. As a matter of fact, I believe the second coming is supposed to include a great deal of that.

And if He can raise the dead, He can surely open up a BIG ol' can of whupass. I don't see the contradiction.




Quote:
 
If we ever do bomb those sites, it had better be because we have changed over to a Vietnam era sentiment for our strategy - 'Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out'.

That last one sounds a lot like it.

But, if you're telling me that you don't support a bombing of Mecca in the event of a nuclear attack on the U.S., I will accept your word for that, and withdraw the accusation of inconsistency ... as it pertains to you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
It doesn't sound anything like it. It is clearly a warning.

So please go edit your incorrect post.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Aug 8 2007, 04:36 PM
I would think that bombing Mecca would be a good example to Moslems that Allah isn't as all powerful as a B-52.

I could be wrong--again, it might just make them mad.  But, it would show that there is nothing to their religion.


I don't think you're wrong, but just last week someone here was beating around the bush that there is something to their religion.

But yes, it would probably make them hotter than hornets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Aug 8 2007, 05:47 PM
It doesn't sound anything like it. It is clearly a warning.

So please go edit your incorrect post.

Well, since you said please ....
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
"some other conservative "?!?!

THAT was creative.... 'and a conservative to be named later...' :lol:

Posted Image
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Aug 8 2007, 06:54 PM
TomK
Aug 8 2007, 04:36 PM
I would think that bombing Mecca would be a good example to Moslems that Allah isn't as all powerful as a B-52.

I could be wrong--again, it might just make them mad.  But, it would show that there is nothing to their religion.


I don't think you're wrong, but just last week someone here was beating around the bush that there is something to their religion.

But yes, it would probably make them hotter than hornets.

It's a great religion/philosophy of life--if you are a starving nomad wandering through the desert and has to make life and death decisions every day. It's all about camels and sheep and killing the enemy and taking their goats.


Those days are gone and Islam is a terribly failed way of existance for a billion people in the modern world. Makes Stalinism look pretty nice.









Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Mikhailoh
Aug 8 2007, 04:08 PM
"some other conservative "?!?!

THAT was creative.... 'and a conservative to be named later...' :lol:

Posted Image

Mik: I wouldn't be surprised if he meant me he who must not be mentioned, but of course he would be wrong about that as well. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Aug 8 2007, 05:13 PM
It's a great religion/philosophy of life--if you are a starving nomad wandering through the desert and has to make life and death decisions every day. ....Those days are gone and Islam is a terribly failed way of existance for a billion people in the modern world. Makes Stalinism look pretty nice.

Both are all about submission. The former is submission to that which only exists in the fearful imagination, the other is submission to the all too real consequences of a fearful imagination.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7