• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's bomb Mecca

Orwell said:
It worked with the Soviets and it worked with the US (you were as afraid of them as they were of you).

But it probably won't work with Muslim extremists. They want to radicalise the conflict, I think that one of their main objectives is to provoke the west into butchering innocent Muslims in response to a terrorist attack, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology. It is quite probable that, from their point of view and in spite of their alleged religious convictions, the US bombing Mecca would be the best possible scenario...
Click to expand...

This is a definite possibility. The whole point of the threat is to make it less likely to get to the point where you actually need to do anything.

As you say, the problem comes when the enemy WANTS you to do something. They'll provoke you until you bite.

One problem with not biting is of course that it will just make the next provocation more provocative.

I do not know how the nut-cases think, but for the recruiting, it may be difficult to recruit more people to support a cause that will lead to the destruction of what they hold dear.

With a little (more than usual) luck, the average muslim (whoever that is) may decide that it is more in the interest of Islam to get rid of the nut-cases than to join them. If enough muslims get that idea, recruiting will be much more difficult.

How much damage can the nut-cases do before the destruction of Islam becomes a (the?) major vote-collector in the West? Are "muslims" aware of this possibility? Do they know just WHY there is no really heavy hands from the West? (And I don't think of Afghanistan and Iraq as "heavy hand") Do they really want to push the West into real war? Not just the play-stuff done so far...

Europeans do not have much experience with this "peace over generations"-stuff. Easily provoked into war, a growing uneasiness about a rapidly growing and demanding muslim population... If setting off WWIII is a goal of islamists, Europe may be a better target than USA. And the result may be very, very bad.


Mosquito - Rambling way outside what I know much about (=business as usual)
;)
 
And to think that when I suggested the concept of nuclear retaliation in response to terrorism just a week or so ago, everybody - including me - was quick to say such a thing could never happen. Seems just a touch more likely now...

IMO the terrorists want to make this a war on islam. They want to push the US into doing stupid things like invading Iraq, because then they get to convince more moderates to join them. If they can push the US far enough they think they'll get most or all muslims on their side, and then they have the numbers they need.

If so, this is shortsighted thinking on their part for exactly this reason. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a billion muslims rise up against the US, because the US has the firepower to kill them all. Sure the West's conventional military couldn't handle another two or three Iraqs, but if forced to it the President could just wipe two or three Iraqs off the map in the space of an hour or so.

They know this, and this is why I don't think the terrorists will ever use nukes on the US. Even if they gain the ability, they just won't do it because it would put the whole conflict onto a basis that they just couldn't win.
 
Anti_Hypeman said:
Godwins law, he lost
Click to expand...

"The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over", and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses, because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh. I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a post is unnecessary."

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html
 
Mosquito said:
This is a definite possibility. The whole point of the threat is to make it less likely to get to the point where you actually need to do anything.

As you say, the problem comes when the enemy WANTS you to do something. They'll provoke you until you bite.

One problem with not biting is of course that it will just make the next provocation more provocative.

I do not know how the nut-cases think, but for the recruiting, it may be difficult to recruit more people to support a cause that will lead to the destruction of what they hold dear.

With a little (more than usual) luck, the average muslim (whoever that is) may decide that it is more in the interest of Islam to get rid of the nut-cases than to join them. If enough muslims get that idea, recruiting will be much more difficult.

How much damage can the nut-cases do before the destruction of Islam becomes a (the?) major vote-collector in the West? Are "muslims" aware of this possibility? Do they know just WHY there is no really heavy hands from the West? (And I don't think of Afghanistan and Iraq as "heavy hand") Do they really want to push the West into real war? Not just the play-stuff done so far...

Europeans do not have much experience with this "peace over generations"-stuff. Easily provoked into war, a growing uneasiness about a rapidly growing and demanding muslim population... If setting off WWIII is a goal of islamists, Europe may be a better target than USA. And the result may be very, very bad.


Mosquito - Rambling way outside what I know much about (=business as usual)
;)
Click to expand...

I think the European angle is more probable. It might be easier for them to set a nuke off somewhere in Europe and there are enough Islamic nut jobs to even set one off in Istanbul.

If one were set off in the US, I am doubtful we would respond in kind for reasons mentioned by other posters. It would be far more likely there would be a broad coalition effort to wipe out all involved through conventional means and basically disallow all Muslim immigration to the west while deporting significant populations.

A little off topic but the comments were inappropriate but not bizarre in American politics. We (and I include myself) periodically bluster in casual conversation about turning enemies into cinder and there land's too glass. In the end, the damage it might cause in the Western-Muslim relations is minimal.
 
Anti_Hypeman said:
Godwins law, he lost
Click to expand...

A: Who the heck is that Hewitt guy?

B: What does anything he said have to do with Godwin's?

Comparing Tancredo to Durbin in an article?
Or writing an article comparing Tancredo's comments about
tactics to the failure of Germany to defeat Russia?


"One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in".
Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. "

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
 
We should really bomb Jerusalem. thats city has been the focal point for mid east stryfe. Wipe it out and the Pali/Isreal conflict will be easily fixed,
 
One day in 1939 the Nazi government of Germany declared that the Poles had attacked Germany, and unleashed an invasion. Poland denied the accusation, which was incredible, and appealed for help. Britain and France decared war on Germany but were unable to intervene immediately, the US stayed aloof, and the Soviets ... well we all know about that. Pity poor Poland. The Irish have the Brits, the Mexicans have the Yanquis, the Poles have Germans and Russians.

It would have have been cute if the Poles were able to say "You want a war? Well have some of this" and have it matter. Sadly they were not in that position.

Which brings me to people who claim that the West has attacked Islam and are themselves engaged in a pretty pathetic response. If they want a war on Islam, why not give them one? Why not show them just what it would entail? I want the CruiseCam film of the Great Mosque's last ten seconds as a screen-saver. A War on Islam would last a few weeks. We could start now and fit in Phase II - Catholicism - before Thanksgiving.

Let's bomb Mecca, but sack the Vatican with due regard for its artistic and cultural inheritance. Only when that's at a safe distance should we do the CruiseCam update. Ideally on November 5th. Turkey won't be looking foward to Thanksgiving after that.
 
Rob Lister said:
As to a chinese embassy? We do that for fun, remember?
Click to expand...
It amused the hell out of me. You're referring to Belgrade, I assume? The Chinese called it an Act of War. That conjured up the image of a US Marine fighting his way off the landing-fields through the streets of Shanghai thinking "At least the three journalists we took out in Belgrade aren't here!"

When the US launches an Act of War against China, it won't be nuclear and it won't be targeted at journalists. I watched "Shock and Awe" as live as CNN can provide, and Belgrade got off far too lightly to my mind. China is far more target-rich than a pig-pen like Serbia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom