Nuclear retaliation...

[Jin-Roh]

First, let me disclaim that it is really starting to feel like the 60's.

I read an article awhile back. Bush has given a "You gas us, we'll nuke you" message to our various friends in the middle east. Al Gore actually agreed with him on that assessment.

The question I propose is this. Lets say, God forbid, a Chemical attack did happen in major US city (think Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami etc) and it resulted in the deaths of an unprecendented amount of civilians, plus sickness and such, and we knew exactly where it came from and which country did it.... Would it be justification for a nuclear strike? Would you push the button?

Sorry, I hope nobody got depressed with that..

[Ishmael]

Yes.

The nuclear strike would send a message to all the other countries that harbor and train murderers. What message? "You gas us, your family and friends die."

[GrayPilgrim]

Yes!

God gave the sword to nations for that reason. In a war it is not only right but just to use whatever means necessary to shorten a conflict and minimize death. Just as in 1945 when Trueman ordered the use of hte Fatman and Littleboy to save the millions of lives that an invasion would have cost, so nuking an eneemy and thus killing an enemies will and ability to sustain a prolonged battle would in the end save innumerable lives.

[Ryokan]

I don't know. It depends on whether or not we thought, A. We couldn't catch those responsible, and B. the nuke would kill the responsible parties. Cause we want to deter Rogue State leadership, not kill innocents who there leaders don't care about.

[GrayPilgrim]

Ryokan:
I don't know. It depends on whether or not we thought, A. We couldn't catch those responsible, and B. the nuke would kill the responsible parties. Cause we want to deter Rogue State leadership, not kill innocents who there leaders don't care about.

I agree. What made Trueman's decision just was that it was a war against a known enemy, not just a blind retalitory strike against a supposed enemy.

[Alden]

GrayPilgrim:
Yes!

Just as in 1945 when Trueman ordered the use of hte Fatman and Littleboy to save the millions of lives that an invasion would have cost, so nuking an eneemy and thus killing an enemies will and ability to sustain a prolonged battle would in the end save innumerable lives.

I think that whatever is done needs to be done with very careful consideration, but I'm sure that's obvious to all of us. Just for the record, the second bomb at Nagasaki (I think it was fatman) probably wasn't needed. The Japanese government had known that something big had happened at Hiroshima, but they didn't quite know its full significance. They knew that communications were out, but I don't know if they knew much more than that. Their government hadn't had the time to process what had happened and determine a course of action.

As for Truman, I don't think that he had an absolute understanding of the bomb. Our government had spent approx $6 billion on the Manhattan Project, and there was some pressure to make good our investment, so to speak.


God gave the sword to nations for that reason. In a war it is not only right but just to use whatever means necessary to shorten a conflict and minimize death.


I don't know if I'd personally put God's name on something like the bomb. It did save American lives, but it ended around 200,000 Japanese lives. Mentioning God at this point does bring up something interesting though. The bomb at Nagasaki landed directly on Nagasaki's church where, at the time, Christians were praying. This is even more interesting in light of the fact that Nagasaki was an historical center of Christianity in Japan where many became martyrs.

I'm not a dove or anti-nuclear for that matter, this is all just for the sake of discussion. :)

[Hitch]

I reckon the whole muslim world would feel and show a great deal of respect to he 'infidels' if they woke up to find Mecca vaporized.

Hitch

[Ryokan]

I think the Nagasaki bomb was an accident of translation. When asks if he would surrender over Hiroshima the day before the Nagasaki bomb, Tojo used a archaic word that meant something like maybe or no. The US translated it as no, so they dropped a bomb, not realizing he was vacillating.
And bombing Mecca would be a disaster, not to mention unethical.

[Pilgrim]

Yes, I too don't like putting God's name on it. If we go to war and if we use nuclear weapon then it will be in the name of the USA, not in the name of God. That being said, of course it does not necessarily make it wrong.

Pilgrim

[Socrates]

Ryokan:
I think the Nagasaki bomb was an accident of translation. When asks if he would surrender over Hiroshima the day before the Nagasaki bomb, Tojo used a archaic word that meant something like maybe or no. The US translated it as no, so they dropped a bomb, not realizing he was vacillating.Yes, vacillating so much that his troops were still fighting furiously and killing allied soldiers, and his thugs running POW camps were treating the inmates with extreme brutality. POWs tended to appreciate the quick end to the war -- many would not have survived if the war dragged on with conventional weapons.

[Hitch]

Ryokan:
I think the Nagasaki bomb was an accident of translation. When asks if he would surrender over Hiroshima the day before the Nagasaki bomb, Tojo used a archaic word that meant something like maybe or no. The US translated it as no, so they dropped a bomb, not realizing he was vacillating.
And bombing Mecca would be a disaster, not to mention unethical. Unethical? Nope . I think it would be going to the root of the problem. Not Isalm per-se but the phycial and finacial staging area for a large part of the problem.

I would have had the Saudi Ambassodor to the WhiteHouse on 9/12 and laid the cards on the table.

'Anything else happens you lose a city'.

'But we dont know....

'You have the connections and the money, you best find out, and you dont have all that many cities.

H

[Jin-Roh]

I reckon the whole muslim world would feel and show a great deal of respect to he 'infidels' if they woke up to find Mecca vaporized.

Nah,
They'd throw a huge fit and probably try to kill all of us.

Then we'd nuke em again right?

[Jin-Roh]

Oh yeah, I should second what has already been said about "war in Gods name". Our struggle is not against flesh and blood right? Christianity has no borders or ethnic body yes? There can't be any wars in God's name anymore, although the more evil side of me sometimes wishes it so.

[flipper]

I doubt very much that any state will claim responsibility if a nuclear weapon is detonated in a US city, although a number of terrorist organisations might. The only way a state would be willing to be implicated is through tracked missile launches.

No state would benefit from the massive retaliation that would surely follow.

However, if a bomb was set off in a US city, the origins of the fissile material used to make the bomb could be ascertained with reasonable ease. So, if the bomb came from South Africa, Pakistan, or Russia, it would be possible to ID it. However, that does not necessarily prove who was responsible.

Hitch's idea of blackmailing the Saudis (or worse, popping Mecca) is a terrible one. The Saudis are US allies, for one. Second, the Saudis still have an awful lot of oil, upon which our civilization depends. Third, by that logic Britain could have issued exactly the same ultimatum to the US in the 1990s when US-bought Barrett rifles were used to kill British troops, and money raised by pro-IRA sympathizers in the US was used to buy Cemtex.

[Alden]

flipper:

No state would benefit from the massive retaliation that would surely follow.

Hitch's idea of blackmailing the Saudis (or worse, popping Mecca) is a terrible one. The Saudis are US allies, for one. Second, the Saudis still have an awful lot of oil, upon which our civilization depends.

I think I'm with you on that one. I can't really see how anyone would benefit from taking the conflict nuclear.

Blackmailing the Saudis (at least in the manner described above) is a bad one. Although, there are some questions about the Saudi's possibly financing militants. Also, how many of the Hijackers came from SA? I know that it's not an indictment of the whole country, but sometimes I wonder exactly where they stand.

[Hitch]

Hitch's idea of blackmailing the Saudis (or worse, popping Mecca) is a terrible one. The Saudis are US allies, for one. Second, the Saudis still have an awful lot of oil, upon which our civilization depends. Third, by that logic Britain could have issued exactly the same ultimatum to the US in the 1990s when US-bought Barrett rifles were used to kill British troops, and money raised by pro-IRA sympathizers in the US was used to buy Cemtex.

1. Hmmmm wouldnt the oil still be there?

2, If this was 'all about oil' the US wouldnt be Israel's Lord Protector.

3. Your British connection is over strecthed.


4. The 'blackmail' idea isnt too far off. However as far as I 'm concerned it is only a matter of going to the heart of the problem. I was thousands of miles from NYC and DC on 9/11. Yet the effects are still with me. The idea behind turning Mecca to dust is in part to demonstrate, not tell, the enemy that we can and will strike at his heart, and work outward from there.

Hitch

[flipper]

1. Hmmmm wouldnt the oil still be there?


Yes, but I doubt that the US would be the preferred sales partner going forward. This will be a big problem outside of a decade. Unless, of course, you're proposing yet another invasion. I don't believe that having control of the country that houses Mecca would be in US interests anywhere.

Your British connection is over strecthed.

Why? I am aware of at least one US National who was also directly involved in terrorist attacks.

[Hitch]

flipper:


Yes, but I doubt that the US would be the preferred sales partner going forward. This will be a big problem outside of a decade. Unless, of course, you're proposing yet another invasion. I don't believe that having control of the country that houses Mecca would be in US interests anywhere. Oil flows at market rates because the US insures the process, that need not change.



Why? I am aware of at least one US National who was also directly involved in terrorist attacks. Point?


Hitch

[flipper]

Hitch:


Oil flows at market rates because the US insures the process, that need not change.

There are other non US insurers in the world, and oil is a finite commodity. I suppose you should explain what exactly what leverage you believe should have been exercised over the Saudis, as I am not sure how blackmailing individual members of OPEC could possibly benefit the US, or world trade. Perhaps I don't understand what you are proposing.

As to my point regarding the US national and his involvement in the IRA - it seems obvious.

You believe that our allies, the Saudis should have been held responsible for the terrorist acts of their nationals.

Therefore, when US citizens aid and abet terrorist acts for the provisional IRA on British soil, why then should Britain not hold its ally, the United States, responsible and issue similar ultimatums? Outline your reasoning of why one is okay, but not the other.

I agree, it is nonsensical. But it seems to me that that your original proposition was too.

[Hitch]

Well Flip do you hold the Saudi's and the Brits as even when it come to being 'allies' of the US?

[flipper]

Well Flip do you hold the Saudi's and the Brits as even when it come to being 'allies' of the US?

It is easier for the Brits to be allies of the US than it is for the Saudis. The Saudi royal family takes a much bigger risk by supporting the United States than Tony Blair. The worst that can happen to him (and it's pretty unlikely) is that unqualified support of the US will lead to his unelection.

Fahd is actually risking his life. His continued support of the US, a country that is seen to be diametrically opposed to the values that he and his countrymen share (individual rights, the existence of Israel, etc) means that he stands a reasonable chance of being deposed, assassinated, or at least embroiled in the suppression of a significant terrorist movement within his own country.

OBL is absolutely no friend of Saudi Arabia as it exists today. In fact, it is an affront to his brand of Islam. As an ally, Saudi is taking significant risks. I agree that this is not without some self-interest, as the US did provide a shield against Iraq, but that shield was also in American interests. Alliances are never purely altruistic.

So I don't know how valuable your question is. Aren't the Saudis actually risking more than the English? This war will not happen within striking distance of Britain unless a terrorist faction takes it to England.

It appears that you are suggesting we punish an ally of ours for failing to curb a group of people who have already declared war on the Saudi regime. How is that diplomatically savvy?

[Hitch]

I dont recall asking about risk,,,

How savvy?

Well since what there is to campare is BC's futile missle lobs I reckon its simple. In the least it would show the radicals that easier more manipulatible targets are closer to home. Zig Hile!! Oui oui?

And if all we hear about Saddam as an enemy is true I wonder why Iraq has not been attacked by Al- Qdah.

H

[spl_cadet]

I wouldn't press the button for a chemical attack, but I would certainly authorize chemical warfare against those responsible. Quid pro quo (or whatever the appropriate Latin phrase is). With a biological or nuclear attack, they get to play real-life Missile Command. If the attack is launched by Saudi's I don't care what kind of excuse their government comes up with, they are getting nailed. And if I'm nailing the Saudi's, and it's due to Islamic terrorists, no ones going to be going on a hajj for a very long time unless they want radiation poisoning.

[Alden]

I wouldn't press the button for a chemical attack, but I would certainly authorize chemical warfare against those responsible. Quid pro quo

no ones going to be going on a hajj for a very long time unless they want radiation poisoning.
:eek:

[Ryokan]

nuclear war isn't an answer, especially against Saudi Arabia. We are bigger than that.:hrm:

[Pilgrim]

Sure it's an answer...maybe not a good or even a moral one, but it is an answer.

[spl_cadet]

Alden:
:eek:

What's so surprising? An attack from Saudi Arabia requires a response and if it is launched by Islamic militants hurt them where it hurts most, Mecca. In addition, the destruction of their most holy relics would probably cause Islam to collapse leading to ripe evangelization fields (Islam is notoriously hard to evangelize to).

[flipper]

In addition, the destruction of their most holy relics would probably cause Islam to collapse leading to ripe evangelization fields (Islam is notoriously hard to evangelize to).

Yup. I bet that would just about be it for Islam. I bet it would fold up its tents and steal off into the night, never to be heard from again because we all know that Islam is not a warrior culture with a strong emphasis on eye-for-an-eye vengeance and divine empowerment through personal action.

There would certainly not be a terrorist war to end all terrorist wars, and huge tracts of the 3rd world that would be completely no-go territories for non-muslims. That's for sure. Everyone would be too busy welcoming in missionaries with open arms after the Christians incinerated their sacred site - after all, it would prove Christianity is the stronger religion!

Do you work for the state department or something? You must be some kind of an Islamic scholar, at least!

[Hitch]

Well Flip we havent had much trouble from ol Mortimer ( Qadafi) since our last visit. And there really isnt anything we can do to make the Muslim radicals think less of us, excepting bending over for more, so in reality its not that far out.

H

[flipper]

Sample size of one?

Statistically significant!

[Pilgrim]

Lets be real, religions always flourish under oppresion. Take Christianity for example.

[spl_cadet]

flipper:


Yup. I bet that would just about be it for Islam. I bet it would fold up its tents and steal off into the night, never to be heard from again because we all know that Islam is not a warrior culture with a strong emphasis on eye-for-an-eye vengeance and divine empowerment through personal action.

There would certainly not be a terrorist war to end all terrorist wars, and huge tracts of the 3rd world that would be completely no-go territories for non-muslims. That's for sure. Everyone would be too busy welcoming in missionaries with open arms after the Christians incinerated their sacred site - after all, it would prove Christianity is the stronger religion!

Oh, I'm sure that they would keep attacking, and that there would be a temporary surge of attacks. At which point we keep killing the terrorists and start taking out places like the Dome of the Rock (with conventional weapons). Within probably 50 years though they would collapse. After all, one of the most important things to do in Islam is make the hajj. If there is no hajj anymore, Islam will crumble.

Now then, I'm taking a long world view of things. I figure a century at most and we'll have ripe time of evangelization. Short term will rather resemble hell on Earth but oh well.

Pilgrim
Lets be real, religions always flourish under oppresion. Take Christianity for example.

Which is why we don't oppress them, but merely retaliate. After destroying Mecca and the Dome of the Rock if need be (because of further attacks) there wouldn't be anything that would be directed against the religion.

[Pilgrim]

That's real good, destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now you've got the entire Jewish population ticked at us as well because you just destroyed the temple and the Holy of Holies.

[Lizard]

Pilgrim:
That's real good, destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now you've got the entire Jewish population ticked at us as well because you just destroyed the temple and the Holy of Holies.

Not only would the Jewish population be ticked, but all those DF who are waiting for yet another temple to be built there. :tongue:

[Pilgrim]

It just gets better and better doesn't it!

[Hitch]

Faramir:


Not only would the Jewish population be ticked, but all those DF who are waiting for yet another temple to be built there. :tongue: Wrongo frog breath. The DFs would see it as a great oppertunity .

H

[Lizard]

Hitch:
Wrongo frog breath. The DFs would see it as a great oppertunity .

H

Your probably right there.

[Hitch]

Did you see that little number in the upper right?

WOW 20K Great job DeeDee YXBoom and all the rest.

H

[flipper]

spl_Cadet:

Short term will rather resemble hell on Earth but oh well

The ends justify the means, eh?

[Ryokan]

So it is moral to butcher millions and start a third world war so you could have the HOPE of evangelization. That is utterly evil and reprihensible by any reasonable standard. I sincerely hope that you guys are all talk.

[Pilgrim]

You guys? Hey I'm not with him white man!

[Ryokan]

I was talking about hitch and the cadet, Pilgrim. It would be quite a change if you started advocating wholesale nuclear slaughter.

[Hitch]

I was talking about hitch and the cadet, Pilgrim. It would be quite a change if you started advocating wholesale nuclear slaughter.




My motovations are purely politcal and pragmatic. I never mentioned evangelism.

My thoughts reflect rather closely the Kennedy Doctrine stating that a nuclear strike emminating from Cuba directed anywhere in the western hemisphere would be treated as an attack on the US by the Soviet Union. Seems to have had positive effect. Thirty years later the USSR does not exist.

On the other hand a strong and descive action against Cuba may have had the same long term effect. But more likely the Soviets would have ranted and raved but considered Fidel an expenbable pawn.

H

[Ryokan]

it is neither moral or pragmatic hitch.

[Hitch]

Ryokan:
it is neither moral or pragmatic hitch. That is a purely subjective judgement. I have no doubt the Kennedy Doctrine saved millions of lives. And that is undoubtly moral and pragmatic.

H

[Pilgrim]

Hitch:
I was talking about hitch and the cadet, Pilgrim. It would be quite a change if you started advocating wholesale nuclear slaughter.




My motovations are purely politcal and pragmatic. I never mentioned evangelism.

My thoughts reflect rather closely the Kennedy Doctrine stating that a nuclear strike emminating from Cuba directed anywhere in the western hemisphere would be treated as an attack on the US by the Soviet Union. Seems to have had positive effect. Thirty years later the USSR does not exist.

On the other hand a strong and descive action against Cuba may have had the same long term effect. But more likely the Soviets would have ranted and raved but considered Fidel an expenbable pawn.

H

Are you saying that Kennedy's policy toward Cuba was the event that ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?

The analogy is a bit of a stretch at any rate as Cuba was and is a soveriegn nation state with formal ties to the USSR. That 's a bit different than a rogue terrorist group hiding out in a given country.

[Hitch]

Pilgrim:


Are you saying that Kennedy's policy toward Cuba was the event that ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?Certainly an important early step in that direction

The analogy is a bit of a stretch at any rate as Cuba was and is a soveriegn nation state with formal ties to the USSR. That 's a bit different than a rogue terrorist group hiding out in a given country. I think the old term Client State is more realistic. The point is the USSR was behind the Cuban missle capability and had a great deal more to lose and was the real source of the problem.

I suspected Saudi involvment in 9/11 from the first day.Since then everything I ve seen has served to confirm and expand the Saudi role. And 'official' and unoffical lines are always blurred but especially so in the current matter.


Hitch

[GrayPilgrim]

Ryokan:
I think the Nagasaki bomb was an accident of translation. When asks if he would surrender over Hiroshima the day before the Nagasaki bomb, Tojo used a archaic word that meant something like maybe or no. The US translated it as no, so they dropped a bomb, not realizing he was vacillating.
And bombing Mecca would be a disaster, not to mention unethical.

Clarification--Tojo was kicked out after the fall of Saipan in July of 1944 and replaced by General Kuniaki Koiso and the Imperial Council.

[Ryokan]

I think your right.

[GrayPilgrim]

Ryokan:
I think your right.

While I have long studied WWII I have more focused on the European Theater of Operations, so I was unaware of this comunique you speak of. My guess is it was the work of Koiso at the behest of Hirohito. I was reading something yesterday when I went to post this that said Hirohito attempted to surrender after Hiroshima but Koiso and the War Council objected, so perhaps it was an intentional sabatoge on thier part (?).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think bombing Mecca would be the acme of stupidity and would be an immoral act. One again Hiroshima and Nagasaki were moral because they were part of a declared war agaisnt a Nation-State. The bombings were part of larger operations to end the war as quickly as possible with the goal of saving the millions of lives that would have been lost if the Allies had invaded the Home Islands.

Consequentialist arguments are always doomed to failure because they have NO real moral justification, and so far that has been the sum total of the justification of bombing Mecca. Besides it would alienate the moderate Muslims as well as infuriate the radicals whom you thought wold be dishartened. When in fact you would be playing into their hands. Their complaint now is that we have defiled the sacred sites of Medina and Mecca, don't you think make those cities glow for a million years might just prove them right??? Besides attacking sacred sites are a no-no in warfare, this policy reminds me of Hitler in Eastern Europe. The Germans entered Eastern Europe hailed as liberators, and then Hitelr sent in the Einsatzgruppen and killed any good will they had for the Germans and doomed his chances of a 1000 year Reich. Praise God for his stupidity! But really people think, the US has made many mistakes over the years, being the butcher of Mecca would not be a good mark on the list.

GP

[Ryokan]

gray pilgrim summed it up nicely, but how do you think, hitch, bombing mecca would be pragmatic?

And I think the Kennedy Doctrine did little but help get rid of Kruschev. And really, it was our decision to put nukes in Turkey that inspired the Russians to put nukes in unstable Cuba. They didn't put nukes in other "client states". Increasing connections to the outside world, lack of incentives for the laborer in the USSR and their discontent with the poor consumer products made by these laborers, and the erosion of their empire led to the collapse. Reagan helped them along a little, at the price of todays debt, but that is about the extent of the US presidency's effect on the end of the cold war. Blue Jeans, not bombs, won the cold war.

[Alden]

Well said Ryokan, well said.

[spl_cadet]

flipper:
The ends justify the means, eh?

No. Simply that that will be what life is like for a shortwhile. World War II rather resembled Hell on Earth but the world turned out for the better.

Ryokan
So it is moral to butcher millions and start a third world war so you could have the HOPE of evangelization. That is utterly evil and reprihensible by any reasonable standard. I sincerely hope that you guys are all talk.

Evangelization is a secondary thing. Primary is forcefully teaching people not to butcher millions of our citizens. Best way of doing that is by whacking them over the head and doing it harder than they did to us.

Pilgrim
That's real good, destroy the Dome of the Rock. Now you've got the entire Jewish population ticked at us as well because you just destroyed the temple and the Holy of Holies.

As I recall the temple and the Holy of Holies don't exactly exist at the moment, they'd have to be built. A small diameter bomb (no more than 250lbs) should easily take out the Dome of the Rock without hurtin the surrounding area.

Oh and yes, this is all talk. As I seriously doubt that I'll be president and that I'll obviously use a different strategy if I ever were, this is one of my more insane ramblings.

[Hitch]

Ryokan:
gray pilgrim summed it up nicely, but how do you think, hitch, bombing mecca would be pragmatic?

And I think the Kennedy Doctrine did little but help get rid of Kruschev. And really, it was our decision to put nukes in Turkey that inspired the Russians to put nukes in unstable Cuba. They didn't put nukes in other "client states". Increasing connections to the outside world, lack of incentives for the laborer in the USSR and their discontent with the poor consumer products made by these laborers, and the erosion of their empire led to the collapse. Reagan helped them along a little, at the price of todays debt, but that is about the extent of the US presidency's effect on the end of the cold war. Blue Jeans, not bombs, won the cold war. LMAO

[Pilgrim]

:huh:

[Hitch]

Blue Jeans, not bombs, won the cold war

This is vomit.

In fact its like lining up all the GIs and families who were stationed in Germay(and the world over) from 1945 to this day and vomiting on them.
Shameful.

HITCH

[Pilgrim]

Really? How so? The langauge you use seems a bit overstates when the reality is that capitolism and greed did play a huge part in it.

[Ryokan]

I have the greatest amount of respect for our soldiers who defended us during the cold war. America would not being standing without them. But while the held the enemy at the gates, it was Western institutions, greed, and desire for personal freedom that caused the collapse of the Soviet empire, not our soldiers. They fell because the public stopped believing, and wanted what we have. Our way of life defeated them. And liberated the communist world. (Although you could argue that Russia the Ukraine, Belarus are actually worse off, and Yugoslavia certainly is, but Eastern Europe and the Baltic states have definitely faired much better.)

[Hitch]

02-21-2003 @ 01:58 PM
Pilgrim:

Really? How so? The langauge you use seems a bit overstates when the reality is that capitolism and greed did play a huge part in it. How so? Beacause there is no comparision of 'blue jeans' and spilt blood, demolished lives, and the efforts of decades of viligence. All on behalf of the vast majority who would walk entirely free of the costs and scoff at the monumental efforts required. Reduced to 'blue jeans'


Disgusting

H

[Pilgrim]

Very passionate response but it still does not address the facts which Ryokan so aptly described.

[brother vinny]

:bump:

[Ryokan]

For once I agree with my old self.

[Ben Franklin]

I have no doubt the Kennedy Doctrine saved millions of lives. You imagine it saved millions of lives, right...? If yes, then it's not accidental, and there's no causal relationship. If you can demonstrate that Kruschev specifically targeted city X of Y million population for date Z, then you'd be correct. Do you have documentation...?

[Ben Franklin]

The 'blackmail' idea isnt too far off. However as far as I 'm concerned it is only a matter of going to the heart of the problem. I was thousands of miles from NYC and DC on 9/11. Yet the effects are still with me. The idea behind turning Mecca to dust is in part to demonstrate, not tell, the enemy that we can and will strike at his heart, and work outward from there.

Hitch

Nah, that'll just make the Muslims that don't hate the West to go right-wing.

Destroying architecture never solved anything, Hitch. To get what you need, nothing short of genocide will do. Erase the race, erase the historical enmity.

The tribes of Israel have slaughtered wholesale races according to Scripture, so it's nothing new that the other Semites wouldn't understand or accept...

I don't accept it because it makes the human race weaker in whole. Just what the Martians want, letting us wipe each other out, so that they can take over after the slaughter. Or the Chinese. Whoever. Some vulture will take advantage of those who weaken themselves, once the fight's over...

It's too stupid that some religions (Christianity, Mohammedhism) think their way is the only way, so that their believer's have got to fight about it.:no:

Adam knew less than God, and we know even less than both: it's pathetic how so many fight (and die) for hearsay "evidence" and apologetic "facts".