SomaliNet Forums

[quote="Grant"]Tancredo is not talking about a preemptive strike. He is talking about a quid-pro-quo, a deterrent threat: if America is again attacked, America will do X. His conclusion is clearly simplistic and unacceptable, but he does raise a necessary question.

The conventional wisdom and the rules of war do not apply to non-state players, a fact that does not yet seem to have reached Tancredo. Bombing Mecca and Medina is indiscriminate and absurd, probably misdirected, and could well be the desired result of those making the attack on the States in the first place.

A good many of you are American citizens with good backgrounds. Give the Dude the benefit of your thinking, maybe in addition to a piece of your mind.

.Let us say that it is immediately after 9/11 and the Bush Administration has not yet muddied the waters. What would have been an appropriate American response?

Alternatively, let us say that another attack of similar source and magnitude occurs. Beyond holding those responsible criminally and civilly liable, what SHOULD the American response be?[/quote]


Grant, I think your contradicting yourself there, you think its absurd, but wouldn’t rule it out as an option?

Mecca and Media have nothing to do with this so called ‘war against terrorism’. Even suggesting something like this shows how moral sick America is.
How on earth can be this be a prevention?, its not even rational, and I know that’s not strong in America but com’on!
America started this, it has no legs to stand on and no right to threat anyone.

‘Let us say that it is immediately after 9/11 and the Bush Administration has not yet muddied the waters. What would have been an appropriate American response?’

The response should be anything but attacking the innocent, that’s plain enough answer.
Bush administration whatever name it takes has done far more than ‘muddied waters’ for centuries now, it should look closer home for once.

I swear these Zionists are on the path to destroying America.

They tried the propane as an alternative source of energy in order to break the backbone of the Arab World's black diamond. It didn't work.

They tried to Ethanol, as well, it couldn't work.

They even lobbied so hard to convince the Congress to subsidize Companies that lessen their dependence of the middle eastern oil. Couldn't work as well.

Chilli,

I think Mecca and Medina are safe until the thin shanked Abyssinian destroys the Ka'aba. In the first place, the Wahaabis have already destroyed everything of historical significance except the Prophet's mosque. In the second place, the sites of the Haj would not be destroyed in an attack and any structures could easily be replaced. Calmer minds will prevail.

Gladiator,

Actually, there seems to be a move afoot into alternative energy. In coal alone, America has three times the energy equivalent of the Saudi reserves.
We also have a highly subsidized agricultural system with vast reserves of unused farmland that can expand rapidly into biodiesel. We have adequate coastline for tidal sources, in addition to sun, wind and conventional hydro generation. Petrol just has to get a little more expensive.

At some point in the not too distant future, all of the petrol is going to be gone anyway. Who do you think is most likely to make the transition to non-petroleum sources first, and what is the likely effect of the end of oil dollars in the Middle East ?

[He is talking about a quid-pro-quo, a deterrent threat: if America is again attacked, America will do X.]

9-11 was an inside job; most everyone knows that. Controlled demolition and a missile were part of the inside job. Therefore, America wasn't attacked by Muslims; it was Americans who did it.

[quote="Grant"]Tancredo is not talking about a preemptive strike. He is talking about a quid-pro-quo, a deterrent threat: if America is again attacked, America will do X. His conclusion is clearly simplistic and unacceptable, but he does raise a necessary question.[/quote]


You see how the zionist and its sympathizers the way they rationalize things rather than criticize the dude who made the idiotic comment! But imagine if a Muslim made such a statement as that the whole western world would have moan and groaning about it.

Hypocracy at its best!

If Mecca and Medina were destroyed, wouldn't this force Muslims to give up Islam, as it would demonstrate that Mohammed was wrong.

It would only demonstrate the Hadith saying Mecca and Medina will not be destroyed were fabricated.

[If Mecca and Medina were destroyed, wouldn't this force Muslims to give up Islam, as it would demonstrate that Mohammed was wrong.]

Obviously, you understand or comprehend very little about Islam. Your understanding that, the faith of Muslims in Islam hinges on the indestructibility of Mecca and Medina-- has no foundation among Muslims. That understanding or comprehension mirrors a non-Muslim (i.e. Christian, ex-Christian) mindset.

The dogmatic unity of the Ummah and the common understanding of Islamic belief and practice among Muslims is truly astounding.

[quote="Grant"]The dogmatic unity of the Ummah and the common understanding of Islamic belief and practice among Muslims is truly astounding. [/quote]

i hope youre not bieng sarcastic

[quote="Padishah"]It would only demonstrate the Hadith saying Mecca and Medina will not be destroyed were fabricated.[/quote]

Who gave you the authority to question the integrity of Sahih Hadiths by legendary Muslim scholars (Bukhari,Muslim etc.) with multiple chains of narrarations by the companions of the Prophet (saw)?


MECCA AND MADINA ARE PROTECTED BY ALLAH. CASE CLOSED!!

Keep wasting your time like idiots, questioning the promise of Allah and his prophet (Saw).

Luq-Ganane

Padishah was thinking hypotheticaly

if mecca and medina are destroyed

then


etc etc etc

Whoa, you guys have lost me. Is it an authentic hadith or not? And if Mecca and Medina were destoryed, would it call into question the rest of what Mohammed said or not???? These are simple yes or no questions.

[These are simple yes or no questions.]

The answer lies in the track record of +1400 years. One has to wonder why no one tried it during all those years. Ghengis Khan wasn't far from Mecca and Medina when he was destroying Baghdad. The MAD MACs who lived during all those centuries have speculated about the possibility of destroying Mecca and Medina. There will be other MAD MACs in the future. Nothing new. Life will go on, and Allah will protect Mecca and Medina. Allahu Akbar.

Well, at least that's a straight answer. Thank you.