Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    If you had bothered to properly read my post you would have noticed that I said a threat would be sufficient enough. I'm not condoning an actual bombing.

    I understand what you mean by the whole Muslims should not pay for this but where do you draw the line? NYC gets bombed? NYC & LA get bombed? This would be disastrous as so many people would be killed even if only NYC was bombed.

    Yes bombing Mecca/Medina would turn Muslims against the US but surely not all. I thought Islam condemned violence? Surely the 'true' Muslims would not retaliate with violence.
    If the haramain was threatened, Muslims would fight with their wealth and their lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prokaryotic_crap)
    when I refer to "you" I am referring to your people, the west
    Ok then. Well answer my original question. Would you continue to believe Islam if Mecca/Medina was destroyed? No silly answers like it is impossible to destroy because of some angels or whatever. A straight answer in this hypothetical situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    Ok then. Well answer my original question. Would you continue to believe Islam if Mecca/Medina was destroyed? No silly answers like it is impossible to destroy because of some angels or whatever. A straight answer in this hypothetical situation.
    Inevitably, it will be destroyed, mankind wil perish, but it is already decreed that Islam will not ever be wiped out be a foreign force, it is immune, it will not be overcome.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    "terrorists" number in the tens of thousands, if you destroy the most holy sites for Muslims they will have nothing to lose it would radicalize a fifth of the planet's population and we would literally be in a war with every Muslim. Bin Laden and his folks will come out more emboldened with international support for his cause.

    I don't understand what it will achieve, they are buildings after all and can be rebuilt, what happens the day after?
    Very good point, Muslims would become radicalised and this would mean doom for civilisation as we know it. Hmmm so this is how the human race could end.

    Well even if the buildings were rebuilt they surely wouldn't be the same, especially the Ka'ba.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    Very good point, Muslims would become radicalised and this would mean doom for civilisation as we know it. Hmmm so this is how the human race could end.

    Well even if the buildings were rebuilt they surely wouldn't be the same, especially the Ka'ba.
    How many Muslims would believe they are still right after seeing their god allow the holiest place on earth to be destroyed. Also you would be unable to rebuild due to the radioactivity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    Very good point, Muslims would become radicalised and this would mean doom for civilisation as we know it. Hmmm so this is how the human race could end.

    Well even if the buildings were rebuilt they surely wouldn't be the same, especially the Ka'ba.
    As far as I know the Ka'ba was already destroyed by the Pagans thousands of years ago and was rebuilt. The only thing I don't understand about Tancredo's logic is what would it achieve? It may prevent Muslims from going to Hajj for several decades (until the nuclear contamination subsides) but how would it be an effective response to a Nuclear/chemical/biological attack by terrorists?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    Very good point, Muslims would become radicalised and this would mean doom for civilisation as we know it. Hmmm so this is how the human race could end.

    Well even if the buildings were rebuilt they surely wouldn't be the same, especially the Ka'ba.
    Why on earth would it mean doom?

    Islamic country's aren't the civilized ones anyway so them getting angry isn't going to change anything. It would just mean a lot of dead Muslims in the streets of Kosovo, Paris, Birmingham etc... and a radioactive crater in Saudi Arabia.

    I think a nuclear retaliation is fair if large terrorist attacks continue. I don't particularly see the Saudis as being "innocent" given they finance so much terror and radicalism against the west. Being attacked by men inspired by an ideology that the Saudis spread is in my eyes no different to being attacked by the Saudi armed forces. Just because they're not wearing uniforms doesn't change anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shrep)
    How many Muslims would believe they are still right after seeing their god allow the holiest place on earth to be destroyed. Also you would be unable to rebuild due to the radioactivity.
    That's not how it works.... Sin/Evil is committed by people and god has no interference in that, that's why there's a hell and a judgment day.

    That's why Jews didn't lose faith after the Holocaust
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The destruction of the Ka'bah will take place in the future, this has been prophesised, and it will not be rebuilt, it is a sign of the day of Judgement that it will be taken down, the Day Of Regret would be imminent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Hit the hajjis where it hurts!
    :rofl2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)
    Why on earth would it mean doom?

    Islamic country's aren't the civilized ones anyway so them getting angry isn't going to change anything. It would just mean a lot of dead Muslims in the streets of Kosovo, Paris, Birmingham etc... and a radioactive crater in Saudi Arabia.

    I think a nuclear retaliation is fair if large terrorist attacks continue. I don't particularly see the Saudis as being "innocent" given they finance so much terror and radicalism against the west. Being attacked by men inspired by an ideology that the Saudis spread is in my eyes no different to being attacked by the Saudi armed forces. Just because they're not wearing uniforms doesn't change anything.
    So surely America must be bombed in retaliation for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    So surely America must be bombed in retaliation for Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
    What?

    That doesn't make sense. I said that terrorism financed by Saudi Arabia should be considered no different to a conventional attack. Replace the mental image of planes going into the WTC with Saudi fighters for all I care. It is the same thing.

    What this has to do with the American actions in a previous war I'm not sure. The atomic bombings were part of the conflict with Japan which has closed. My point is that Saudi inspired attacks by irregular forces should be considered the start of a war.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)
    Why on earth would it mean doom?

    Islamic country's aren't the civilized ones anyway so them getting angry isn't going to change anything. It would just mean a lot of dead Muslims in the streets of Kosovo, Paris, Birmingham etc... and a radioactive crater in Saudi Arabia.

    I think a nuclear retaliation is fair if large terrorist attacks continue. I don't particularly see the Saudis as being "innocent" given they finance so much terror and radicalism against the west. Being attacked by men inspired by an ideology that the Saudis spread is in my eyes no different to being attacked by the Saudi armed forces. Just because they're not wearing uniforms doesn't change anything.
    It would mean doom because it would spark Muslims worldwide to attack the West and if 19 Muslims can destroy the twin towers and over 3000 people then what can millions of Muslims do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    That's not how it works.... Sin/Evil is committed by people and god has no interference in that, that's why there's a hell and a judgment day.

    That's why Jews didn't lose faith after the Holocaust
    If god is powerless then why worship him?

    Also a bit of copypasta from http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/200...cca-today.html

    In many ways the city of Mecca is central to Islam in just the same way that the Temple of Solomon was central to ancient Judaism. It is this similarity which is so striking, and why the destruction of Mecca might do to Islam what the final destruction of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem did to Judaism. While the bloody events surrounding Rome's sacking of Jerusalem are indeed disgusting and tragic, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with God. More importantly, that event forced Jews to rethink their relationship with their fellowman.

    Without wishing to reduce all of Jewish history or life to one paragraph, and thus leaving out the many facets of ancient Hebrew worship, let me go ahead an do that anyway (with many apologies up front--and welcoming any corrections or differing opinions). Ancient Judaism had a legal structure which was similar to Islamic sharia in that they both unify the religious codes thought to be handed down by God with secular authority. In fact, the Old Testament laws seem just as draconian as any I would find in sharia. There is just something about stoning adulteresses that I kind find of harsh, that's all. I know such applications of Mosaic law were probably rare, but Muslims would argue the same thing about the strict application of sharia law in the ideal Islamic state.

    Ancient Judaism also had another commonality with Islam: worship was centered on a holy place of ritualistic practice. After the destruction of the Temple, though, Jews had to ask new questions about the meaning of being holy. Stateless, they found that strict religious codes of conduct could not be enforced in the same way as before. While the Jewish Diaspora had already begun the process of transforming Judaism, the final destruction of Temple centered worship forced this transformation on a broader scale.

    Jews found that God no longer had a place to reside in. Jews found that they could no longer perform the rituals required by God to be purified. Jews found that they could no longer enforce God's law. Jews found that their specialness was different than they had previously supposed. Worship changed. Everything changed.

    TL;DR Romans did it to the Jews, Jews calmed down and never caused any problems ever again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    if they attack mecca....the world is officially over, i wonder what will happen if the Vatican was attacked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    It would mean doom because it would spark Muslims worldwide to attack the West and if 19 Muslims can destroy the twin towers and over 3000 people then what can millions of Muslims do?


    Point taken

    Clearly Tancredo is a dangerous man as these Muslims will destroy the West in a war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)


    Point taken

    Clearly Tancredo is a dangerous man as these Muslims will destroy the West in a war.
    If it escalated into a full war I'm sure that we would have enough people willing to shoot a child suicide bomber. They sorta stand out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)
    What?

    That doesn't make sense. I said that terrorism financed by Saudi Arabia should be considered no different to a conventional attack. Replace the mental image of planes going into the WTC with Saudi fighters for all I care. It is the same thing.

    What this has to do with the American actions in a previous war I'm not sure. The atomic bombings were part of the conflict with Japan which has closed. My point is that Saudi inspired attacks by irregular forces should be considered the start of a war.
    You assertion is basically an eye for an eye correct?
    if that is your point then prepare the slaughter of this many westerners for the Muslim that have been killed

    Iraq in the 1990s
    Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).

    Another Million for the unjustified 2003 war

    Afghanistan

    3,700 and probably closer to 5,000 civilians were killed by the end of 2002 as a result of U.S. bombing and still being bombed. And all of this because of 9/11.

    If Saudis really financed terrorism as you put it with the Billions of dollars they generate a Nuclear attack would've happened a long time ago. Why do you think Bin Laden hates America.. he hates America because he sees the Saudi Royal Family as puppets of America and they allowed them to have a Military base on a Muslim holy land.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)


    Point taken

    Clearly Tancredo is a dangerous man as these Muslims will destroy the West in a war.
    That poor child!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)


    Point taken

    Clearly Tancredo is a dangerous man as these Muslims will destroy the West in a war.


    what's your point?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 28, 2009
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.