Welcome to SomaliNet Forums, a friendly and gigantic Somali centric active community. Login to hide this block

You are currently viewing this page as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, ask questions, educate others, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many, many other features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join SomaliNet forums today! Please note that registered members with over 50 posts see no ads whatsoever! Are you new to SomaliNet? These forums with millions of posts are just one section of a much larger site. Just visit the front page and use the top links to explore deep into SomaliNet oasis, Somali singles, Somali business directory, Somali job bank and much more. Click here to login. If you need to reset your password, click here. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Daily chitchat.

Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators

Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE
Poetess
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 pm

The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Poetess » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:41 am

In a globalized world increasingly at loggerheads with fascism with a religious guise, and Europeans cowered into appeasement, and liberals shirking from what is set to be a cataclysmic showdown with the primal force of Islamism, enters the straight talking, no nonsense Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. In sharp contrast to Bush and other western leaders' whose immediate reaction subsequent to the 9/11 attacks on the nation, bizarrely, was to visit a mosque and proclaim Islam a religion of peace, this forthright congressman doesn't mince his words as to the swift response Islamists can expect should they attempt a repeat performance.

***
Should U.S. bomb Islamic holy sites
after nuke terror attack on America?

Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should bomb the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaeda.

The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.

"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams.

In an interview this morning with Pat Campbell of WFLA radio in Orlando, Tancredo discussed his request for a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaeda terrorists.

Campbell noted that just after the London bombings, former Israeli counterterrorism intelligence officer Juval Aviv predicted an attack in the U.S. within the next 90 days. Aviv believes the plan is to attack not one big city, like New York, but half-a-dozen smaller ones, including towns in the heartland.

The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"

The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."

"Well," Tancredo continued, "what if you said something like, 'If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.'"

Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"

Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."

The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is tighten up internally."

The comments heartened some readers of Free Republic, the conservative online news forum, including one who said, "Rep. Tancredo is taking off the gloves on the Islamofacists! Yee ha!"

Others, however, reflected the sentiment of another poster, who said, "Tancredo is racing to the edge of the lunatic fringe."

The Northeast Intelligence Network, which posted a soundbite from the congressman's interview on its website, praised the remarks, saying the group "applauds Representative Tancredo for all of his anti-terrorism efforts to keep our country safe. We also applaud Mr. Campbell for asking the tough but necessary questions – AND getting the answers."

But Adams insisted the comments were made in the context of an interview that led Tancredo down a hypothetical path and asked, "In the wake of a nuclear holocaust, what sort of things would be said?"

"In the past several weeks, we've had a lot of staff discussions triggered by [WND's] al-Qaeda nuclear weapons article," he said. "We are reserving judgment about the merits of it. But one of the questions that has bothered [Tancredo] is how do you prevent terrorist attacks short of searching everybody? Even then, you wouldn't get it right 100 percent of the time."

The difficulty for the U.S., Adams said, is, "How do you evolve from a cold war paradigm – mutually assured destruction – to one where al-Qaeda mingles in the public and emerges only as an attack is taking place?"

The Soviet Union's pressure point was the fear that one of their cities would be destroyed, Adams said, "But what are the pressure points of terrorists, of people who only look to the next world – short of a police state?"

Adams said the remarks also need to be heard in the context of Tancredo's style.

"One of his vices and virtues is he is a free thinker and is willing to speak his mind," the spokesman said. "Sometimes he says things in not the most artful way; but if you take him as, unfortunately, one of the few free thinkers on Capitol Hill, you'll get where he is coming from."

User avatar
Osman
webmaster
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed May 16, 2001 7:00 pm

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Osman » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:55 am

Its funny congressman Tom Tancredo would say those remarks, and attempt to revise it as a off-the-cuff response, Good luck winning any points for the 2008 presidential election.

Steeler [Crawler2]
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 12405
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Steeler [Crawler2] » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:55 am

Actually I think it is quite clear that there would be a nuclear response. Whether Mecca and Medina would be the target, or some other city, is hard to say.

Poetess
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Poetess » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:38 pm

Osman, congressman Tancredo isn't in the business of cozying up to Muslim lobbies like CAIR many of whose leading members have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That he was candid enough, if only for for 24 hours, to lay down the rules of engagement for those who threaten the homeland is encouraging. The message is clear: bomb America, Mecca faces maximum retaliaton (or to borrow Ahmedinejad, "wiped off the map"). His foreign policy outlook is good, nevertheless I don't particularly share his stance on embryonic stem cell research.

User avatar
Karbaash_killa
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3672
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:10 pm
Location: Wisil, Galmudug State of Somalia

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Karbaash_killa » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:10 pm

If mekka is Bommbed then its dooms-day!

User avatar
FAH1223
webmaster
Posts: 33829
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: THE MOST POWERFUL CITY IN THE WORLD
Contact:

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby FAH1223 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:34 pm

THey probably will do it if a republican is elected president

User avatar
Seoma [Crawler2]
SomaliNetizen
SomaliNetizen
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Undecided

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Seoma [Crawler2] » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:41 pm

[quote="Karbaash_killa"]If mekka is Bommbed then its dooms-day![/quote]

lol

User avatar
Grant
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 5845
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:43 pm
Location: Wherever you go, there you are.

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Grant » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:01 pm

That threat was indiscriminate, stupid, reckless, and irrresponsible.

I do so hope we have learned something from recent experience.

Pitsaleh
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:57 am

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Pitsaleh » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:13 pm

Hoyooy! please don't bomb Mecca Crying or Very sad

Pitsaleh
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:57 am

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Pitsaleh » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:32 pm

In the hypothetical scenario walaaloyal, there's a major atrocity on the American heartland, and the American gaalo carpet bomb Mecca and the holy sites (Masjid al-Haram included), which direction for prayer would Muslims turn to? One prays America isn't so crazy as to execute congresman Tancredo's threat but supposing it does.

Would we:

a) revert to al-Quds

b) continue praying toward the space formerly occupied by the Ka'ba

c) stop praying altogether?

Hoyooy!

Poetess
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Poetess » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:17 pm

"If mekka is Bommbed then its dooms-day!"

We heard the same irksome trite on the bombing of Afghanistan, and on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I've yet to see the resulting apocalypse. Timeworn platitudes of "we love death more than the Infidel loves life" get tiresome after a while. Incidentally exactly what do you think third world Muslim states can inflict on the world's only superpower?

"That threat was indiscriminate, stupid, reckless, and irrresponsible. I do so hope we have learned something from recent experience."

Grant dearest, difficult as it is for a liberal to understand, nothing's stupid to a conservative about defending the homefront. If Muslim extremists set off a nuclear or dirty bomb in American cities, a swift surgical strike on Mecca will be the only fitting response.

Liberals - as much as they like to think otherwise- are the most racialist folk I've ever encountered. If Iran or Arab states want so desperately a nuclear bomb, I think we ought to let 'em have it and give it to them! To deny them their "inalienable" right is nothing short of racism.

User avatar
FAH1223
webmaster
Posts: 33829
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: THE MOST POWERFUL CITY IN THE WORLD
Contact:

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby FAH1223 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:32 pm

[quote="Poetess"]"If mekka is Bommbed then its dooms-day!"

We heard the same irksome trite on the bombing of Afghanistan, and on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I've yet to see the resulting apocalypse. Timeworn platitudes of "we love death more than the Infidel loves life" get tiresome after a while. Incidentally exactly what do you think third world Muslim states can inflict on the world's only superpower?

"That threat was indiscriminate, stupid, reckless, and irrresponsible. I do so hope we have learned something from recent experience."

Grant dearest, difficult as it is for a liberal to understand, nothing's stupid to a conservative about defending the homefront. If Muslim extremists set off a nuclear or dirty bomb in American cities, a swift surgical strike on Mecca will be the only fitting response.

Liberals - as much as they like to think otherwise- are the most racialist folk I've ever encountered. If Iran or Arab states want so desperately a nuclear bomb, I think we ought to let 'em have it and give it to them! To deny them their "inalienable" right is nothing short of racism.[/quote]

Afghanistan doesn't equal Mecca

and why would you bomb a place just because some Muslims did it? A place millions go everywhere, and a place holy to 1 and half billion people

The fock outta here

[quote="Pitsaleh"]In the hypothetical scenario walaaloyal, there's a major atrocity on the American heartland, and the American gaalo carpet bomb Mecca and the holy sites (Masjid al-Haram included), which direction for prayer would Muslims turn to? One prays America isn't so crazy as to execute congresman Tancredo's threat but supposing it does.

Would we:

a) revert to al-Quds

b) continue praying toward the space formerly occupied by the Ka'ba

c) stop praying altogether?

Hoyooy![/quote]

b, obviously

Padishah
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Ozzieland.

Keep creating your terrorists, Sen. Tancredo!

Postby Padishah » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:33 am

I love the hubris of Americans, who have unilaterally invaded two Muslim countries since 2001, and reduced them to smouldering hellholes without a shred of believeable evidence, to go threatening Muslims with a nuclear attack on their holy sites. Add this to the fact that the Americans have been the only people to have utilised nukes on people, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

But let me add to the theory that the Americans blunder around and create the animosity Mad Mac claims is unwarranted. I've outlined the duplitious history of American involvement in Middle Eastern politics and the Muslim world in another thread. Senator Tancredo, Poetess and Mad Mac's response have given me gold here. You see, as of this moment, you Americans fight an assortion of nutjob Jihadists; some who are on various Intelligence Organisations payroll (like Abu Nidal for Mossad, Bin Laden - CIA, before he died), some who've been duped by the selective interpretation of verses and hadith, and some who just love killing and mayhem, and love the idea of going to heaven and getting 72 (non-existent) Virgins.

But let us entertain a hypothetical attack on Mecca and Medina, in response to an dirty bomb attack on an American City. In the minds of the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon who've so far, suffered more in the aftermath 9/11 than any other group, is it the 'War on Terror' or 'War on Islam'? What will the residents of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, all who've lost their most their most important City, do? Will the Chinese Muslims, Thai Muslims, Indian Muslims, the mases of Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia do when this irrevocable act is carried out?

Simple. You'll have confirmed the deepest fears of every Muslim. What need would they have for moderation or any other such nonsense being spewed by Americans while they simultaneously encouraging as much extremism possible with its policies? What recourse is there, but the purifying fundamentalist nutjob Jihadist theology of those who you were fighting to eliminate? You'd make all those theologians who'd dedicated themselves to preaching against extremism into idiots, dupes, collaborators, and a ripe target. You'd effectively eliminate any moderating influence, and turn the majority of Muslims into unstable extremists, who are then easier to manipulate, as the Islamists in Algeria will attest to.

You'll create more terrorists, and havoc as you have done in Iraq, but across the Muslim World. And all while trying to fight said terrorists. Who would benefit most from a hypothetical chain of events such as this? Not the Americans, because they have to go put out the fire they unwittingly (or wittingly) created. Thousands of American lives will be lost, and the nukes will be brought out again in a bid 'to end the war and save servicemen's lives' schtick! Its certainly not Muslims, including those duped into the Jihadist mentality, because they will die in droves! Its certainly a boon for the Islamists who have a different master, and those Islamists who just like the killing. Israel will finally have an excuse to get rid of the the troublesome Palestinians they've brutalised for 60 years. It'll also have an excuse to get rid of the Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians, and incorporate their lands into the Eretz Yisrael concept they've been gunning for since Independence.

Judging from the USS Liberty incident, where the Israeli's were quite prepared to kill 34 American servicemen, any dirty bomb would be more likely to come from Mossad than any terrorist lurking in an Afghani cave, Iraqi cellar or any of these bogus and discredited sleeper cells, paraded in the media as legitimatw and quitely dropped when its found to be trollop.

Remember the Miami cell, who believed in training their minds and bodies using the Bible. Laughing

Oops, this Al Qaeda terrorist cell isn't even Muslim!

Steeler [Crawler2]
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 12405
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 7:00 pm

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby Steeler [Crawler2] » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:10 am

Padishah
The "dirty bomb" scenerio is highly over-rated. A dirty bomb would not command a nuclear response. They are not that destructive. And the contamination can be cleaned up, contrary to popular claptrap.

No, it is the explosion of a nuclear device in a major city, THAT would be crossing the rubicon.

Of course in one sense, you might be right. A nuclear response destroying Mecca would be the final straq (or should I say grenade) that broke the camels back. It would ignite a war between Islam and the West that has no precedent. There would be no quarter given either side. A billion would die. Global economy would be hammered. All very bad. That is why a nuclear response on only Mecca and Medina would make no sense. Might as well destroy every major city in the Middle East and Persia. Either do it, or don't do it, but half-way doing it......bad idea.

On the other hand, there is the POSSIBILITY (I consider remote) that Muslims would have to admit that Islam is not the truth, since the Prophet said the city could never be destroyed or lost to the Muslims. So if it was, it would give lie to this statement. That puts all statements into question and suddenly his veracity as a Prophet is no longer a certainty in Islamic minds. I have had several Muslims tell me Mecca can never be destroyed because God protects it, and Mohammed has said so. And they told me they would abandon Islam if it were destroyed.....of course they said that to reaffirm their belief that it can't be destroyed.

I tend to side with your view on this, that the destruction of Mecca would cause the Ummah for ever to despise America and the West in general - or if not forever, certainly a few millenium, and therefore either you slaughter them all, or don't slaughter any.

User avatar
gurey25
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 19342
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:00 pm
Location: you dont wana know, trust me.
Contact:

Re: The Man Who Would Bomb Mecca

Postby gurey25 » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:10 am

The Kaaba has been damaged several times, during tribal wars.
and once the kharijite sect even ran off with the black stone and kept it in thier temple they built in their Bahraini base.

Mecca is however protected from Kaafir Occupation.


OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE

Hello, Has your question been answered on this page? We hope yes. If not, you can start a new thread and post your question(s). It is free to join. You can also search our over a million pages (just scroll up and use our site-wide search box) or browse the forums.

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General - General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nnjrewzas112 and 13 guests