Should We Nuke Mecca?
Representative Tom Tancredo (R CO) thinks so. He made his remark on Friday, during a radio interview in Florida. This from CNN;
Well, what is wrong with that? Seriously; we are dealing with a religiously based ideology, one that holds certain sites as central to the proper practice and maintenance of the faith. We are also facing an enemy that does not hold the lives of themselves or, apparently, anyone else to have any value; however, they do value their religious ideology and the components of that ideology. Doesn't it make some sense to keep open, as a retaliatory option, those sites that are critical to the enemy cause? In this case, those sites are not, as in other, more conventional wars, factories or oil refineries or government centers; they are a few religious sites. Why not let the enemy know that if they use the ultimate weapon against us, we will expunge their faith from the face of the Earth?
I found this through Michelle Malkin's site (go here for the posting). She had this to say;
She does not explain why she believes they are unwise. Although normally I agree with what Malkin writes, in this case she seems to be missing the point; we are facing an enemy that is, by our standards, irrational. Therefore, non-traditional methods of deterrence are needed. If that means having a SIOP that lists Mecca and Medina as primary targets for a nuclear barrage, then that's what we need to do. The enemy has shown their mettle; they created a rain of bodies in New York. Why should we falter in telling the Muslim world that we'll burn their holiest sites from the face of the Earth if they hit us with WMD?
UPDATE: After reflecting on this for a few minutes, I thought it would be useful to clarify that a strike against critical cultural targets would have to be part of a comprehensive retaliatory plan. So, if we got to the point that were taking out Mecca, we would also be neutralizing a range of targets across the Islamic world. At a minimum, we would also be hitting major military centers and governmental nodes. This would, of course, result in massive civilian casualties. After a WMD attack on America, however, I doubt I would shed a tear for dead Syrians, Saudis, or Iranians, any more than I would have shed a tear for dead Germans or Japanese in World War Two.
(Source: CNN)
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
Spokesman Will Adams said Sunday the four-term congressman doesn't support threatening holy Islamic sites but that Tancredo was grappling with the hypothetical situation of a terrorist strike deadlier than the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Well, what is wrong with that? Seriously; we are dealing with a religiously based ideology, one that holds certain sites as central to the proper practice and maintenance of the faith. We are also facing an enemy that does not hold the lives of themselves or, apparently, anyone else to have any value; however, they do value their religious ideology and the components of that ideology. Doesn't it make some sense to keep open, as a retaliatory option, those sites that are critical to the enemy cause? In this case, those sites are not, as in other, more conventional wars, factories or oil refineries or government centers; they are a few religious sites. Why not let the enemy know that if they use the ultimate weapon against us, we will expunge their faith from the face of the Earth?
I found this through Michelle Malkin's site (go here for the posting). She had this to say;
Rep. Tancredo's remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly...
She does not explain why she believes they are unwise. Although normally I agree with what Malkin writes, in this case she seems to be missing the point; we are facing an enemy that is, by our standards, irrational. Therefore, non-traditional methods of deterrence are needed. If that means having a SIOP that lists Mecca and Medina as primary targets for a nuclear barrage, then that's what we need to do. The enemy has shown their mettle; they created a rain of bodies in New York. Why should we falter in telling the Muslim world that we'll burn their holiest sites from the face of the Earth if they hit us with WMD?
UPDATE: After reflecting on this for a few minutes, I thought it would be useful to clarify that a strike against critical cultural targets would have to be part of a comprehensive retaliatory plan. So, if we got to the point that were taking out Mecca, we would also be neutralizing a range of targets across the Islamic world. At a minimum, we would also be hitting major military centers and governmental nodes. This would, of course, result in massive civilian casualties. After a WMD attack on America, however, I doubt I would shed a tear for dead Syrians, Saudis, or Iranians, any more than I would have shed a tear for dead Germans or Japanese in World War Two.
(Source: CNN)
posted by Jeff at 7/18/2005 09:29:00 PM
1 Comments:
Seems to me, if Islam is true, then there is an Allah. And, from my own study of Islam, Allah was able to say "be" and create the universe with all it's hundreds of stars. If he is so powerful, seems he could keep his house that Muslims bow down to five times a day, from turning into vapor from infidel nukes. Could actually turn cruise-missiles into something harmless that could entertain the pilgrims at a Hajj.
Post a Comment
<< Home