CNN: Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation

[Die Hard]

In the end, time and truth will erode Islamic extremism just as it eroded communism.

Yeah, Isreal is still holding out hope on that strategy

And I don't think the US will exhibit the same patience and threshold that the Isrealis have done (out of sheer necessity).

Seriously, a few more major attacks on US soil.... in the next 10-15 years. What do you think happens?

The Cold War (arms race) was a completely different beast. I don't think it's an appropriate analogy.

[mad4comp]

I really don't think America bombing Mecca is a good idea, although I wouldn't be opposed to Iran and the Saudis duking it out. I think thats one of the reasons America seems to be tacitly supporting the Iranian nuclear program. Let the Shiites and the Sunni's level each other, killing two birds with one stone.

And if that fails, the United States should just send a sidewinder heading in the direction of the Kaaba. And yes it will infuriate a lot of Muslims, but on the other hand, wouldn't it weaken their belief in Allah?

And don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating the destruction of a whole city or the death of innocent people. But if America wants to go the route of (or is forced to) send a message to the Extremists, getting rid of the Kaaba is the way to go. It would severely diminish the faith of many extremists and unfortunately Muslims in general.

[PeterMP]

Yeah, Isreal is still holding out hope on that strategy

And I don't think the US will exhibit the same patience and threshold that the Isrealis have done (out of sheer necessity).

Seriously, a few more major attacks on US soil.... in the next 10-15 years. What do you think happens?

The Cold War (arms race) was a completely different beast. I don't think it's an appropriate analogy.

1. A real push to move to energy independence (e.g. no more stupid talk by politicians of an corn based ethanol system; car/truck fuel effeciency standards w/ real teeth that will actually move us there, etc.).

2. Real controls on immigration, including tracking people that come into this country legally, but on a temporary basis (most of the planned terrorist attacks here have involved at least one person on an expired visa. I'm sure any future ones will too because I haven't seen/heard of the goverment taking a single serious step to tracking/removing these people).

3. A real change in our foreign policy w/ respect to our "allies".

Remember, a lot of Americans were killed in S. Korea because of the Chinese and in Vietnam because of the Soviets, in neither case did we broaden the conflict. Americans can/will accept a lot of death w/o resorting to war if they understand that the war is going to have EXTREME negative consequences, which a war w/ the whole Muslim world at once would have, until we have some sort of energy independence.

[PeterMP]

No, I'm pretty sure he'd see that as quite the opportunity.

Then why even bring it up or not even mention it in your post?

[Prosperity]

Seriously, a few more major attacks on US soil.... in the next 10-15 years. What do you think happens?

and you think this is inevitable?

Turn that frown upside down

we have made it 6 years with no major attacks

the enemy is smaller and less sophisticated than people think, though I don't think it's a problem to make them seem bigger than they are. But seriously if cities start getting annihilated over 10k- 100k terrorists. Then the joke is on everyone, what a bunch of buffoons we would be.

[Prosperity]

I really don't think America bombing Mecca is a good idea, although I wouldn't be opposed to Iran and the Saudis duking it out. I think thats one of the reasons America seems to be tacitly supporting the Iranian nuclear program. Let the Shiites and the Sunni's level each other, killing two birds with one stone.

And if that fails, the United States should just send a sidewinder heading in the direction of the Kaaba. And yes it will infuriate a lot of Muslims, but on the other hand, wouldn't it weaken their belief in Allah?

And don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating the destruction of a whole city or the death of innocent people. But if America wants to go the route of (or is forced to) send a message to the Extremists, getting rid of the Kaaba is the way to go. It would severely diminish the faith of many extremists and unfortunately Muslims in general.

where do you go to school?

[mad4comp]

where do you go to school?

You planning to stalk me?

[Prosperity]

You planning to stalk me?

no just making fun of your school for having retarded international affairs classes

is that cool with you bro?

[mad4comp]

no just making fun of your school for having retarded international affairs classes

is that cool with you bro?

What does, what school I goto have anything to do with my opinions, bro?

[Prosperity]

What does, what school I goto have anything to do with my opinions, bro?

Well I would rather make fun of your school, than you.

I'm just a nice guy that way.

I am guessing you aren't a poli sci or IA major (mostly a good thing). So it is probably not your schools fault that you are so completely ignorant on this subject. You just sounded so confident that I figured you would have some sort of reason for not assuming you were writing complete drivel.

[mad4comp]

Well I would rather make fun of your school, than you.

I'm just a nice guy that way.

Instead of trying to offer a rebuttal to my post, you'd rather make fun of my school? Makes sense...

[Prosperity]

Instead of trying to offer a rebuttal to my post, you'd rather make fun of my school? Makes sense...

Because it's not my job to educate you, but like I said I am a nice guy.

1. Why do you think bombing Mecca would diminish anyone's faith? You think it diminished Christians' faith when Christ was nailed to the cross? You think it diminished Hindu's faiths when their idols were smashed? Religious people will always take hardship and turn it into a test. Your idea shows a complete lack of historical context, and even common sense. I suppose next you will want me to teach you how to tie your shoes?

2. The US isn't tacitly supporting the Iranians nuclear program. You either don't know what the words "tacitly" or "support" mean or you haven't paid attention to the news. The US has made gigantic arms sales to Iran's neighbors, increased sanctions and other diplomatic pressures (including pressuring Russia into stopping the completion of the Bushehr plant). All of this is putting a big hurt on the Iran's ability to project it's power. I mean come on dude, get real, use your damn brain. There is a difference between supporting something and destroying it. Your inability to grasp this gray area makes me severely question your critical thinking and comprehension skills.

3. "let the sunnis and Shia level each other" Why so Exxon can make 200 billion a year profits instead of 30.

You don't understand what you are writing, or the consequences of the opinions you support should they become policy.

I suggest next time you want anyone to give two ****s about your opinion you make it a little more worthwhile.

[The Sisko]

Don't bother Liberty. I posited that it was the school's fault in another thread but I think it's just that he's incredibly stupid. If he knew anything at all about Islamic history he'd know that the Kaaba has been destroyed and reconstructed several times throughout it's history and somehow Muslims managed to (gasp!!) not lose their faith.

Destroying the Kaaba again would have exactly the opposite effect as he describes. It wouldn't diminsh anyone's faith and would only serve to swell the ranks of the extremists.

I would nominate his post as the dumbest of the year but it's only August and he and MSF are still posting.

[PeterMP]

I think we could overcome it, I just don't think we will. I don't believe humans are inherently good or evil--they are made of both. Human beings are generally contradictory in almost every sense. Whether there is some natural need for humans to construct systems I don't know, someone else may be able to speak to that.

Not to say we shouldn't strive for better, but, you know, I don't think we'll ever get past the striving part.

(Granted, it's the not the most popular position I've ever taken.)

I should've probably just said I don't think bombing Mecca will deter terrorists from murdering innocent people.

1. I'm not sure if we can ever tie this back into what is the best way to handel the "war on terror", but it would be interesting if we can, and yours was the most interesting statement in this thread so I am going to try and pursue it further.

2. I don't know if you saw my edit because it seems you replied before I finished, but I didn't mean to down play your whole piece. After posting my question, I realized I'd taken an intelligent, well thought out, and well written post down to one idea, and then asked a question from it, but not commented on the quality of the rest of it.

Okay, so I can read the above a couple of different ways. First, on the issue of inherent evil. I could read that as the species is a mix (i.e. some people are evil and others aren't) or that all individuals are a mix. Second, your idea that we should continue to strive, but don't think we will get beyond striving, do you believe no progress can be made.

So now, let me try and make some points. If the above part means that some people are inherently evil, then it only stands to reason we should be able to figure out why they are evil. In fact, I would argue that we see this w/ respect to our increasing knowledge of mental illnesses and even things like addiction. If you believe all people are made of a mix and good and evil, then I'd argue you in fact do believe all people are inherently evil (i.e. they all contain some evil).

In addition, I believe that in striving to improve ourselves we in fact can make progress. I think you can see that in the way European goverments interact as compared to say 100 years ago.

Lastly, I agree that threatening to drop a bomb on isn't likely to act as a deterent, and I'm not sure what will, but I do believe that "non-crazy" people are involved (at least implicitly) in allowing terrorism to occur, and there should be something that can be used as a deterent that will at discourage their involvment.

[PeterMP]

I really don't think America bombing Mecca is a good idea, although I wouldn't be opposed to Iran and the Saudis duking it out. I think thats one of the reasons America seems to be tacitly supporting the Iranian nuclear program. Let the Shiites and the Sunni's level each other, killing two birds with one stone.

And if that fails, the United States should just send a sidewinder heading in the direction of the Kaaba. And yes it will infuriate a lot of Muslims, but on the other hand, wouldn't it weaken their belief in Allah?

And don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating the destruction of a whole city or the death of innocent people. But if America wants to go the route of (or is forced to) send a message to the Extremists, getting rid of the Kaaba is the way to go. It would severely diminish the faith of many extremists and unfortunately Muslims in general.

Do you really believe that the Iran would use a nuke on the Saudi's at least right away vs. Israel or us? Maybe they would get there eventually, but there would be a lot of other destruction first.

[mad4comp]

Do you really believe that the Iran would use a nuke on the Saudi's at least right away vs. Israel or us? Maybe they would get there eventually, but there would be a lot of other destruction first.

Well your right. They'd have a tough decision to make...Go after the Joo's who are the root of all the problems in the world ( ), or their arch nemesis, the Sunnis.

I'm guessing it goes in this order:

Saudis

Jews

America

And especially since the US just gave the Saudis about 20 billion or so in an arms deal, I think they'd have more incentive to go after the Saudis first.

[mad4comp]

Because it's not my job to educate you, but like I said I am a nice guy.

Looks like you need to be educated in the religion of Islam. Here lemme help you out, since I'm a nice guy and all..

1. Why do you think bombing Mecca would diminish anyone's faith? You think it diminished Christians' faith when Christ was nailed to the cross? You think it diminished Hindu's faiths when their idols were smashed? Religious people will always take hardship and turn it into a test. Your idea shows a complete lack of historical context, and even common sense. I suppose next you will want me to teach you how to tie your shoes?

Think about it for a second before making the common sense excuse. Muslims pray five times a day to Mecca, the core of their religion, basically the heart of Islam. Secondly take a look at this excerpt from the Quran.

Quran 3:125

Pickthall: "Nay, but if ye persevere, and keep from evil, and (the enemy) attack you suddenly, your Lord will help you with five thousand angels sweeping on."

Ali: "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught."

So what happens when those 5000 angels fail to show up to prevent the destruction of the Kaaba? What are they planning to pray to then? And if the Kaaba does get destroyed, I'm pretty sure some people will start to question their faith in Allah and ultimately in Islam. And yes I do agree with you that it will not weaken some Muslim peoples faith, but then again, there will be others who also start questioning their faith as well.

2. The US isn't tacitly supporting the Iranians nuclear program. You either don't know what the words "tacitly" or "support" mean or you haven't paid attention to the news. The US has made gigantic arms sales to Iran's neighbors, increased sanctions and other diplomatic pressures (including pressuring Russia into stopping the completion of the Bushehr plant). All of this is putting a big hurt on the Iran's ability to project it's power. I mean come on dude, get real, use your damn brain. There is a difference between supporting something and destroying it. Your inability to grasp this gray area makes me severely question your critical thinking and comprehension skills.

3. "let the sunnis and Shia level each other" Why so Exxon can make 200 billion a year profits instead of 30.

Actually the reason I used the word tacitly is because of the way the US is handling the situation. They are basically trying to incite a Shiite vs Sunni war. Case in point, as a response to Iran obtaining some SC-30 fighter jets from Russia, they decided that they'd then go and support the Sunnis by giving the Saudis/Egypt around 20 billion dollars in arms deals. So don't you think that America is kind of pushing for the Shiite vs Sunni war? So instead of trying to prevent the sale of the fighter jets, they are actually trying to play a "lets try to beat Iran in an arms race by giving inordinate amounts of money/support to their enemies." And lastly, with all the sanctions crap, do you think Iran gives a ****? Looks like the US is trying to play both sides of the game..

You don't understand what you are writing, or the consequences of the opinions you support should they become policy.

I suggest next time you want anyone to give two ****s about your opinion you make it a little more worthwhile.

I actually understand the consequences of what I am writing. They are my opinions and frankly I could give 2 less ****s about what you think about my posts. If you don't like it, don't read it and please don't respond.

[The Sisko]

Interesting lack of logic Mad4comp. Where in the two Surahs you posted does it say anything about destruction of the Kaabah?

Once again if you knew anything at all about Islam you'd know that any true Muslim prays only to Allah. Mecca and the Kaabah merely establishes the direction in which to pray. The final nail in your coffin....Muslims originally prayed facing Jerusalem. Again, try doing a bit of research before you show up spouting :pooh: that has no basis in fact. Or, was this another of your "jokes" :doh:

[mad4comp]

Don't bother Liberty. I posited that it was the school's fault in another thread but I think it's just that he's incredibly stupid. If he knew anything at all about Islamic history he'd know that the Kaaba has been destroyed and reconstructed several times throughout it's history and somehow Muslims managed to (gasp!!) not lose their faith.

Destroying the Kaaba again would have exactly the opposite effect as he describes. It wouldn't diminsh anyone's faith and would only serve to swell the ranks of the extremists.

I would nominate his post as the dumbest of the year but it's only August and he and MSF are still posting.

Destroyed and reconstructed many times? Says who? I know the Kaaba was partially destroyed and subsequently re-built which is different than having it fully obliterated and then re-built. At least when it was partially damaged, it could be repaired, but when it's totally demolished, what exactly are Muslims going to be praying to? It would pretty much lose all it stands for, wouldn't it?

Next time you bother responding, how about providing some facts to support your claims instead of pulling crap out of your ***.

[The Sisko]

Ah you again, don't you have some riots to go attend or some embassies to burn down?

Uhhh, yeaaahhh. Now there's a response.

Destroyed and reconstructed many times? Says who? I know the Kaaba was partially destroyed and subsequently re-built which is different than having it fully obliterated and then re-built. At least when it was partially damaged, it could be repaired, but when it's totally demolished, what exactly are Muslims going to be praying to? It would pretty much lose all it stands for, wouldn't it?

Next time you bother responding, how about providing some facts to support your claims instead of pulling crap out of your ***.

Like taking candy from a baby....

Islamic histories also mention a reconstruction of the Kaaba around 600 AD. A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the Black Stone cornerstone in place. His solution was to have all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak, and then Muhammad set the stone into its final place with his own hands.[19][17][20] Ibn Ishaq says that the timber for the reconstruction of the Kaaba came from a Greek ship that had been wrecked on the Red Sea coast at Shu'ayba.[citation needed]

It is also claimed by the Shi'a that the Kaaba is the birth place of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth caliph and the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[18]

Since Muhammad's time

The Kaaba has been repaired and reconstructed many times since Muhammad's day. (Emphasis added here and in subsequent bolded red text)

Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr, an early Muslim who ruled Mecca for many years between the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the consolidation of Ummayad power, is said to have demolished the old Kaaba and rebuilt it to include the hatīm, a semi-circular wall now outside the Kaaba. He did so on the basis of a tradition (found in several hadith collections[21]) that the hatīm was a remnant of the foundations of the Abrahamic Kaaba, and that Muhammad himself had wished to rebuild so as to include it.

This structure was destroyed (or partially destroyed) in 683, during the war between al-Zubayr and Umayyad forces commanded by Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef. Al-Hajjaj used stone-throwing catapults against the Meccans. This episode has been depicted by many Muslim chroniclers as a black mark against the Ummayad caliph Yazid I, who ordered the campaign against Mecca. Yazid died in 683, the year his forces attacked the Hijaz.

The Ummayads under Abdul Malik bin Marwan finally reunited all the former Islamic possessions and ended the long civil war (see First Islamic civil war). In 693 he had the remnants of al-Zubayr's Kaaba razed, and rebuilt on the foundations set by the Quraysh.[22] The Kaaba returned to the cube shape it had taken during Muhammad's lifetime.

Apart from repair work, the basic shape and structure of the Kaaba have not changed since then.[23]

As for who Muslims would be praying to were the Kaabah to be destroyed, just as I said in my prior post any true Muslim prays only to Allah. The Kaabah and Mecca serve only as focal points.

[mad4comp]

Interesting lack of logic Mad4comp. Where in the two Surahs you posted does it say anything about destruction of the Kaabah?

Once again if you knew anything at all about Islam you'd know that any true Muslim prays only to Allah. Mecca and the Kaabah merely establishes the direction in which to pray. The final nail in your coffin....Muslims originally prayed facing Jerusalem. Again, try doing a bit of research before you show up spouting :pooh: that has no basis in fact. Or, was this another of your "jokes" :doh:

Nice try on the logic part. But that quote from the Surahs represents a fight against the "infidels" in general. Wouldn't you consider a sidewinder missile heading towards the Kaaba a "fight against the infidels?"

And nice try with the direction bs, I've heard that dumb statement time and time again. If praying towards the Kaaba is the only reason its there, then why exactly would you need the Kaaba there anyways? You can just pray towards the direction and forgo the whole Kaaba stuff is it not? Secondly, if the only important thing is the direction, then how come Muslims must make a mandatory trip to Mecca (Hajj)? And on top of that kiss the black stone and circle it seven times (which is actually stolen from the Hindu faith)?

I guess its the direction thats important huh?

Also about Muhammad originally praying towards jerusalem. The reason he did it was to try to convert Joos and when that failed () he ended up telling his adherents to pray towards mecca, because it was what Allah wanted. So did Allah have a change of heart?

[mad4comp]

Uhhh, yeaaahhh. Now there's a response.

Like taking candy from a baby....

As for who Muslims would be praying to were the Kaabah to be destroyed, just as I said in my prior post any true Muslim prays only to Allah. The Kaabah and Mecca serve only as focal points.

During the battle against the meccans it was SAID TO HAVE been reconstructed.... Unless you can prove it for a fact, I still rest my case. Eveything thing else was a partial damage due to natural causes or fires. Still waiting for where it said it was fully demolished.... "_"

And lastly, in all those instances you've mentioned, the Black stone has survived, therefore allowing Muslims to rebuild the Kaaba putting the stone back into place. But what are they going to build the Kaaba for when a sidewinder missile destroys the Kaaba and subsequently obliterates the Black stone?

[The Sisko]

Please look up the terms "demolished" and "razed". Neither of these implies partial destruction. Furthermore, in the last paragraph it says the Kaabah was re-built on the Qureshi foundation which also implies a complete rebuild.

Once again, Muslims do not pray to the Kaabah no matter how much you might want to believe so. They pray to Allah only. Therefore, destroying the Kaabah will only serve to radicalize large numbers of Muslims. Obviously that does us no good.

[mad4comp]

Please look up the terms "demolished" and "razed". Neither of these implies partial destruction. Furthermore, in the last paragraph it says the Kaabah was re-built on the Qureshi foundation which also implies a complete rebuild.

Two questions:

A.) Was it the enemy who destroyed the Kaaba?

B.) Was the black stone obliterated?

Once again, Muslims do not pray to the Kaabah no matter how much you might want to believe so. They pray to Allah only. Therefore, destroying the Kaabah will only serve to radicalize large numbers of Muslims. Obviously that does us no good.

Reiterating something over and over doesn't make it true.

[PeterMP]

Well your right. They'd have a tough decision to make...Go after the Joo's who are the root of all the problems in the world ( ), or their arch nemesis, the Sunnis.

I'm guessing it goes in this order:

Saudis

Jews

America

And especially since the US just gave the Saudis about 20 billion or so in an arms deal, I think they'd have more incentive to go after the Saudis first.

You want to provide one quote that even suggest that the Iranians have any interest in pursuing a war w/ the Saudis. By what basis are you even calling them their arch nemesis? I mean there's never been a Saudi/Iran war w/ the current Iranain/Saudi goverments. There was a big Iran/Iraq war. I can give you evidence that right now that Iranians are funding groups that are taking actions against the Israeli's and have repeatedly said things like 'Israel will be wiped from the face of the Earth.'. You claim Yusef says stuff w/o support. You've just made the Saudi's the Iranians "arch rival". Do you have any evidence to support that?

Beyond that, what benefit do they get for launching a nuclear weapon at the Saudi's?