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

[Prosperity]

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..

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.

I have read the Quran front to back, as I have read the Bible. The texts are vague and ambiguous like any good religious texts.

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.

Muslims will think that they have been unfaithful to God and redouble their efforts.

or do you think that every possible contradiction that is found in religious texts means people stop believing... god damn you are naive. There would be no organized religions if that was the case.

I mean seriously I can easily imagine Muslims saying this was a test and that we will persevere through God's help. Everything else will be seen as a metaphor.

Why am I even seriously arguing this with you? You obviously have not been around religious muslims or even fanatical ones before.

I mean come on guy, by your ass backwards logic Muslims would have been pacified when Israel took over Jerusalem...

Actually the reason I used the word tacitly is because of the way the US is handling the situation.

"tacitly supporting" do you know what the word support means? None of Americas actions have supported Iran's nuclear program. Stop being so damn ignorant. Admit you are wrong and go away.

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..

aww did I hurt your feelings? It kind of looks like I did if you have to resort to hasty google searches. Why did the US pressure Russia into reneging on the Bushehr deal. You realize also that their is a difference between trying to incite Sunni vs. Shia violence which will destroy America's new base in the Middle East (Iraq... duh) and balance of power politics which generally want to prevent regional wars which would destroy our ability to run our petro economy.

Your ignorance is shining through here, guy. Go read some history for context and quit trying to pretend you know more than you do.

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.

boo hoo hoo you obviously care if you responded.

I am trying to help you guy, god knows how badly you may embarrass yourself in public.

[The Sisko]

Two questions:

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

B.) Was the black stone obliterated?

Your contention was that the destruction of the Kaabah would cause Muslims to lose faith. Now you want to add conditions. :doh:

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

It's not the repetition that makes it true, but rather the fact that that's the case. Just for poops and giggles, please look up the shahadah and tell us all what it says. If you have any proof from the Quran that Muslims worship the Kaabah, the black stone or anything else please, please do produce it.

I won't hold my breath though since I'm still waiting on you to produce proof of any of the other stuff you've said.

[techboy]

And nice try with the direction bs, I've heard that dumb statement time and time again.

Heard from whom? Muslims? That's who I've heard this from.

Given that this is what Muslims actually believe, what makes you think that they would suddenly switch gears if the U.S. bombed the Kaabah?

The only case you've made is that if you were a Muslim, with your interpretation of the Qu'ran, that you would lose your faith should the Kaabah be destroyed.

Given that you are quite obviously not a Muslim, I don't know how much good it would do to make you lose your faith in it.

[headexplode]

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.

I wanted to get back with you on this post. I wasn't able to read it until today.

You have me on one point. I said that I didn't think humans are inherently evil, but that they are both good and evil. You are right to say that would mean then that I do feel humans are inherently evil. Which is true. I also believe, though, that they are inherently good. I believe each of us is capable of commiting constructive and/or destructive acts (somtimes even concurrently). I should throw in a disclaimer: I don't believe in absolute good and evil. I don't believe is absolute right and wrong. I think these are concepts that have evolved over time and will continue to evolve and change.

I use the word evolve very purposefully, in that I do feel we have made progress over the years and have become more compassionate and empathetic to our fellow humans. I feel there is more progress that can be made. However, I believe we can only get so far as long as we exalt religious, economic and political systems (or Fictions) over the members of our global community. Furthermore, I think many of unnecessary wars and deaths and torture that has occured over the course of human history has almost a direct correlation with the exaltation of these systems. (I must point out, though, that the opposite extreme, a world without systems whatsoever, could be just as disastrous. There must be a balance somewhere.)

Finally, I want to discuss why I didn't focus, in my original post, on the specific question at hand. For starters, I don't know what the right answer is. Do we bomb these people back to the stone age? Do we try more diplomatic solutions? There are no easy answers. Too often, we focus on these really narrow questions and it hinders us in the larger perspective. Terrorism, as a strategy, as a device, has existed for thousands of years. I think it's naive to think that we can defeat terrorism in any real sense. We concern ourselves more with the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. Not many are willing to ask the question, what conditions lead people to insane and desparate ideaologies? This is not, as many conservatives have said, tantamount to wanting to put terrorists in therapy. This is trying to understand our enemy beyond jingoistic comments like "they hate our freedom." It goes far beyond that. In order to better defeat our enemies, we must first understand them. The current crop of chest-beaters in congress and in the white house would rather shoot first and ask questions later. That is a strategy that will ultimately kick us in the ass.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

[PeterMP]

I wanted to get back with you on this post. I wasn't able to read it until today.

You have me on one point. I said that I didn't think humans are inherently evil, but that they are both good and evil. You are right to say that would mean then that I do feel humans are inherently evil. Which is true. I also believe, though, that they are inherently good. I believe each of us is capable of commiting constructive and/or destructive acts (somtimes even concurrently). I should throw in a disclaimer: I don't believe in absolute good and evil. I don't believe is absolute right and wrong. I think these are concepts that have evolved over time and will continue to evolve and change.

I think your opinion might actually closely mirror my own. I believe humans are inherently w/o morals, and therefore evil or good.

I use the word evolve very purposefully, in that I do feel we have made progress over the years and have become more compassionate and empathetic to our fellow humans. I feel there is more progress that can be made. However, I believe we can only get so far as long as we exalt religious, economic and political systems (or Fictions) over the members of our global community. Furthermore, I think many of unnecessary wars and deaths and torture that has occured over the course of human history has almost a direct correlation with the exaltation of these systems. (I must point out, though, that the opposite extreme, a world without systems whatsoever, could be just as disastrous. There must be a balance somewhere.)

I'm not sure if a balance is the solution. I think it might be finding the best/right systems. I guess another way to look at it is that some systems don't allow for a balance, but in general, I do agree that we are progressing.

Finally, I want to discuss why I didn't focus, in my original post, on the specific question at hand. For starters, I don't know what the right answer is. Do we bomb these people back to the stone age? Do we try more diplomatic solutions? There are no easy answers. Too often, we focus on these really narrow questions and it hinders us in the larger perspective. Terrorism, as a strategy, as a device, has existed for thousands of years. I think it's naive to think that we can defeat terrorism in any real sense.

I agree. It was sloppy wording on my part. Terrorism is a startegy. The use of the War on Terror unnecessarily unites groups against us that would unlikely otherwise be united, and generally, shows a lack of precision and clarity, which allows somebody like Putin to claim he is aiding in the "war on terror" when he is fact fighting what historically would be considered a nationalistic conflict against freedom fighters.

More appropriately:

I believe that there are "relatively normal" people helping Islamic fundamentalist that hope to affect our foreign policy and have us abondon traditional allies in the ME by using violence. While the fundamentalist themselves are unlikey to be affected by any deterent actions/threats, there are others that are at least implicitly involved that could. It would be beneficial to discuss and determine what actions might act as such a deterent.

We concern ourselves more with the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. Not many are willing to ask the question, what conditions lead people to insane and desparate ideaologies? This is not, as many conservatives have said, tantamount to wanting to put terrorists in therapy. This is trying to understand our enemy beyond jingoistic comments like "they hate our freedom." It goes far beyond that. In order to better defeat our enemies, we must first understand them. The current crop of chest-beaters in congress and in the white house would rather shoot first and ask questions later. That is a strategy that will ultimately kick us in the ass.

Sorry it took so long to respond.

I do understand what you are saying, but in understanding a group, there is a tendancy to rationalize their actions, and the people doing the studying are almost always affected and become somewhat empathetic to the group they are studying. It seems to be a natural human trait. That is a dangerous direction to move in. It might be unavoidable, but it should be approached w/ care.