So you'd let them nuke the US once, and then threaten them 'if they do it again'? Why not a couple of times just in case they didn't get the message?

Frankly, we should be letting them know that for every one terrorists that commits an act, we will hunt down 20 family members, slaughter them, and sell it on DVD. I'm tired of playing nice with these assholes and the majority of their religious brothers who excuse their actions.

Religion of Peace my ass.

What's the point of having the big stick if you ain't gonna use it

And looking here you can see that's not what Tancredo said exactly.

We've been way to PC with these jokers. How come they can behead people and we have to understand them? Why do we have to fight with both arms tied behind our backs? Fuck that. These morons declared war on us, let's show 'em how we used to fight wars. With firebombs and Nukes.

We should tell Saudi Arabia that unless they boot all their whabbi friends, we're gonna hold them responsible with the appropriatley large and hot consequences.

Of course it'll never happen, but it'd be nice to dream.

Speaking of which, how come we haven't disposed of the more flagrantly hostile members of the ole Saudi Royal family, the ones who happily fork over money to Osama and friends? Dry up the cash flow.

Oh, so that's how it's gonna be. You link your little hot brainy chickee, and you blow me off-- even after I found the story you *originally* wrote on this subject.

I see how it is. That's the last time I ever include you on a story.

Except, of course, for this WaPo SCOTUS story. Be sure to read to the end, where the WaPo gets all sad over how the Supreme Court nomination will distract from the really important Rove non-scandal non-story.

Jerk.
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace, you must be tired. Did you really just say you'd spot them one nuked American city before we even said, "Okay, now we're really mad!"

It's all about deterrence. Believable deterrence. And believable deterrence at the foot soldier level. Is it good or bad for the terrorist to think that as he pushes the button to destroy New York City that he is also effectively destroying Mecca?

Just sayin'

I have been saying since 911 that we need to hold someone accountable and responsible for terrorism, especially nuclear terrorism. This cat-and-mouse-game of running around the world trying to catch terrorist has not, and will not work. The only way to prevent terrorism is to hold the governments and the people of countries we suspect were harboring the terrorists. If the residents of Islamabad believe that we will incinerate them all if we are struck by a nuke, they will be a lot more cooperative about catching him.

During the Korean war Eisenhower threatened the North Koreans and the Chinese with nuclear war and it worked. MAD worked when nothing else worked, and it will again. Nuke Mecca? I can't think of anything that would unite Islam against us as much as that would, and forever, I might add. Perhaps for good measure, but only after after incinerating Islamabad for harboring OBL.

I dunno, Ace, I think I like this post's approach better. Lots of good stuff, but here's the summation (boldface added courtesy of me):

"As Mr. Morrissey points out, Tancredo is not in the military chain of command. He is not making real strategy. But he is mentioning possibilities that could become very real on the day that 100,000 American mothers have to place flowers outside the contaminated square mile where the obliterated bodies of their children swirl in the radioactive breeze.

On that day it WILL be Mecca, and Medina, and every other spot on the globe where terrorists may be lurking or plotting new atrocities. I am not proposing such a strategy, I am predicting its inevitability. And I suggest that it does more good than harm if the muslim world gets a hint of this possibility -- even from a lowly congressman -- before their errors of judgment and faith lead them to a final catastrophe."

I suppose we could play it safe and just air drop pigs on Mecca.
Thousands of pigs going splat all over the "holy" land, spilling their blood over every square foot of Mecca. Get Les Nesman to do a Play-by-Play.

Where's "Black" Jack Pershing's ghost when you need it?

"If Al Qaeda gets a nuke and blows up a US city-- well, under those sort of circumstances, I don't think it will necessarily be verboten to suggest that the next nuclear detonation on US soil results in a detonation on the Arabian Peninsula. "

WHAAT?!! You crazy.

They nuke us, we nuke them. Repeatedly. War over. Civilization safe. "NONONO - Don't mess with America, Abdul! They crazy! Paper tiger my ass!"

If Al Qaeda gets a nuke and blows up a US city-- well, under those sort of circumstances, I don't think it will necessarily be verboten to suggest that the next nuclear detonation on US soil results in a detonation on the Arabian Peninsula.

What the fucking fuck? Since when do nuclear terrorists get a free bite at the apple?

I read the post by Captain Ed that Michelle linked to. Is he living in fucking fantasyland? Does he really think Americans are going to watch New York or DC go up in smoke and be satisfied with a bombing run on Iran's nuclear reactor, or some limp-wrist strike on Syria's air force? What happened to all that "strong horse, weak horse" shit?

Let's all return to reality and accept a hard fact: If the mushroom sprouts over an American city, it's going to sprout over one or more Middle Eastern cities too. It had better. Because the survivors in this country will stand for nothing less. Anyone who thinks that they will would do well to sit down for a moment, think hard about what it would mean for an entire metropolis to disappear, and then ask him- or herself whether knocking out Bashar Assad would satisfy you. I dare you to tell me that it would.

Another thing. Tancredo's remarks were stupid, but I'm not surprised to see lots of people defending him. People are starved for straight talk about Islam from their political leaders, and because they can't get that from Bush or Blair -- who reflexively shit out platitudes about how Islam means peace, how extremists have corrupted the religion, etc., every time a fucking bomb goes off somewhere -- they rush to the aid of someone like Tancredo who goes so far in the opposite direction that he's off the deep end. Somewhere between "Islam means peace" and "nuke Mecca" is the truth, and we should be talking about it. Publicly, and at great length.

I look forward to Bush's address to the nation the day after L.A. is consumed in a fireball in which he promises that Hosni Mubarak's days are numbered. Whoopee-fucking-do.

Nuking Mecca would be counterproductive and wouldn't do anything to prevent further nuclear terrorism.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club had a post a few months ago about this very problem. He concluded that the Islamic's support for terrorism is suicidal, because eventually, the Islamic terrorists are going to get a nuke and use it.

When that happens (and it probably will) what can all the non-Islamic countries of the world do but to basically wipe Islam off the face of the Earth? If that isn't done, the nutcases will simply acquire more nukes and keep nuking cities, just as they've continued to suicide-bomb and behead their enemies all over the world with the complicit approval of the Islamic world.

They wont stop their nuclear terrorism with America, and they'll use the threat to cow any country in the dar al-harb to submit to Islam......or else. So how can we stop this from happening?

1. Hope that it doesn't happen or hope Muslims across the world will reject jihad and stop supporting it (fat chance).

2. Threaten to not just nuke Mecca and Medina, but basically nuke the entire Islamic world. We very easily could, with room to spare.

But the jihadists could call us bluffing and not believe we'd have the will to do it. And they'd probably be right. See how people react to a Koran in the toilet or panties on the head at Gitmo, they'd have every reason to believe we wouldn't carry through with a threat like that. At least America wouldn't.

I say that upon receiving the first credible whiff of intelligence that tells us that a nuke on U.S. soil is about to go off, we start nuking places like Mecca until our guys in the space station can look down and see their own reflection from orbit.

A further point. Ace, am I mistaken, or did you not once write on this site that you initially supported a nuclear response to 9/11?

If I'm mistaken, my bad. Apologies. If not, how is it that knocking down the Twin Towers puts you in a "nuke 'em" frame of mind but knocking down every building in Washington D.C., say, deserves nothing but a stern warning?

I can't believe that many on both sides of the aisle are telling Tancredo to shut it. We damn well should be able to debate the real "nuclear option" at the very least. When the hell was it decided that we couldn't talk about it? No one is saying that it should be policy (Iblis is right, Tancredo has been quoted out of context,) but if we can't even talk about it, then that's just way too much pandering.

What is, I think, important to remember is that the war on terror is very much a public relations war, in that the perceptions that people have of the threat they face is actually more imporatant than the real-world power of the threat. Thus, Tancredo's remarks take on a slightly different tone, and Ace is right to compare them to the Chinese general's statement; China would certainly lose a nuclear war with the United States, but the creation in the public's mind of the fearful concept of a Chinese nuclear strike is a PR victory for China, both here and around the world. It's a cheap way of advancing national prestige.

Fundamentalist Islam is particularly vulnerable to this kind of war, and as a result, they're also very good at waging it, and our fifth-column leftists and the MSM are only too happy to help them do so, since it costs nothing and tends to yeild rich results (in the MSMedia's case, controversy / scare-tactic journalism sells papers and gets eyeballs for news shows). Tancredo's remarks might serve as a small counteroffensive in that war.

Please note that I have said nothing about actually bombing anybody.

As long as people are saying outrageous things that are kinda true; the non-Western world could benefit much from a good long draught of old fashioned colonialism.

Its like they're fucking begging for it.

And let's not forget, there is ample precedent in Western Civ for destroying hostile religions.

We should add Tehran and Riyad to the list after Mecca and Medina.

Islam doesn't mean "peace" it means "submission".

Forget nukes, drop bacon bits on Mecca. Then it would be both a religious shrine and tasty on salads.

Also, someone on NRO (might've been Jonah) advocated nuking Mecca a few years ago and caused a CAIR shitstorm. I suspect it's gonna keep coming up and causing a sensation until it's 1) it's actually done 2) Islam somehow fixes itself or 3) Islam is wiped off the face of the earth and declared even more illegal than L. Ron Hubbard.

ALLAH

If the mushroom sprouts over an American city, it's going to sprout over one or more Middle Eastern cities too. It had better.

You western wusses don't have the balls. THE VIRGINS laugh at your pathetic threats! 911, your Liberals, your MSM, Abu Graib and Gitomo have proven to us you don't have the balls to do it. Like Kruschev testing Kennedy and forcing him to back down and remove the missles from Turkey, like your cowardice in Vietnam even after ten years of bitter war and 58,000 casualties we have tested you and found you weak and divided.

After 911 the whole world held its breath and wondered what you would do. Your response? Send out the FBI to try to catch our Jihadis (which you'll never do because Islam supports them) and put some Korans in the toilet. Your Liberals have hamstrung you the way a Jihadi hamstrings a hostage with his knife, before beheading them. Your Liberals are by far our greatest weapon against you.

ALLAH'S 72 SERVANTS

It's you and Hewitt and Malkin who are the ones being irresponsible. Dangerously so.

The Islamic world should know what kind of world of shit they're going to get into if we get nuked.

They'll be lucky if it's just Mecca and not several -- or more -- major population centers.

People making PC clucking noises about this fact only encourage the would-be nukers (or, more directly, those inclined to support them) by feeding their ignorance about these consequences.

If the mushroom sprouts over an American city, it's going to sprout over one or more Middle Eastern cities too.

One can only hope so . . . .

If not, how is it that knocking down the Twin Towers puts you in a "nuke 'em" frame of mind but knocking down every building in Washington D.C., say, deserves nothing but a stern warning?

Because of almost four years of bullshit emanating from that city??

Tancredo’s statement was just stupid, and I wish he hadn’t said it. “Let’s nuke Mecca” plays to the left’s frothing-wingnut stereotype way too well for my tastes. OTOH, InstaPunk’s comment was pretty realistic, and gives Tancredo the option of a Durbinesque non-apology.

Look, I’ve got nothing against the use of overwhelming force, and if anyone carried out a nuclear attack on the US I would like our response to be so crushing that people 500 years later would still be reluctant to try it again. But there was a bazerko logic to MAD in the Cold War that just doesn’t apply here. A counterstrike by the US would have eliminated the Soviet Union as a functioning state, something contrary to every interest of the people in charge. Eventually those people eliminated the Soviet Union as a functioning state themselves, but that was never their intention.

Nuking Mecca would eliminate a site of enormous religious significance and kill a hell of a lot of people, but it would do absolutely nothing to eliminate or reduce the Islamofascist threat. Quite the contrary: it really would unite every Muslim in the world against us, just like the lefties claim (wrongly) the war in Iraq has done. If the terrorists actually could set off a bomb in Washington or New York, they could hurt the US very badly. Nuking the Vatican instead would be horrific, but also incredibly dumb. Notice, too, that when we nuked Japan we didn’t nuke the Imperial Palace. That was considered and rejected for excellent reasons.

If the terrorists actually could set off a bomb in Washington or New York, they could hurt the US very badly. Nuking the Vatican instead would be horrific, but also incredibly dumb.

That doesn't mean they won't try it. One could've said that about the WTC. It certainly is true that if we are nuked that someone else needs to be nuked. Anything short invites more of the kind.

Give me a fucking break. What was wrong with his statement? I think it's one of the smartest things I've heard a US lawmaker say in a long, long time.

During the Cold War didn't we not have standing threats against the Soviet Union? What makes Muslim terrorism so special?

Utron, you're locked into... what one might call the nuclear version of the 9/10 mindset.

The day a nuclear weapon goes off in a US city is the day our "plan A" for the Middle East (democracy, being nice, and all that) goes out the window. Completely. It's the day our Jacksonian elements will take over with a vengeance, and the entire Muslim world will be united... in being scared shitless, or dead.

It'll be the day a certain idea of the US ends. And it's the day you and the other PC voices are bringing closer, by feeding this escalated version of the Islamonuts' "paper tiger" thinking.

What makes his statement stupid is his suggestion to nuke Mecca. If we're attacked with a nuclear weapon, we should respond in kind, but against the country that sponsored the terror, not just against a general Muslim symbol.

See? Was that so hard?

You're a peach, Ace. A real peach.

Who knows? One day I might even get out of work early enough to call into your show.

Be forewarned.

Thanks,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ask Charles Martel how he stopped the Muslims that wanted him and his people dead. Islam has always been a "convert by the sword" religion. And it doesn't seem to have changed much. Tancredo just said what people have been thinking since 9/11.

So Tancredo said this, huh? That's too bad.

GW Bush should have said it. And there is a credible precedent for him doing so.

Remember the Cuban missile crisis?

John Kennedy?

'If we get hit with missles from Cuba, the Soviet Union gets missles from us'?

Just substitute Terrorists for Cuba. Then replace Soviet Union with Arabville.

There was very little about Kennedy that I liked, but he earned my respect with that statement.

Slublog: How the hell are we going to know who sponsored it?

Obviously we should nuke Riyadh and Tehran on general principle -- and probably considerable portions of Pakistan as well -- but this isn't a fucking detective story.

Slublog: How the hell are we going to know who sponsored it?

No, it's not a detective story, but I don't think it's too much to ask that we actually try to figure out who it was before just lashing out against Muslims who just happen to live near Mecca.

What is you only nuked it after, say, giving them 72 hours to evacuate?

Seiously, though, if a US city does go up in a cloud, the ONLY safe city in the Arab world will be Baghdad. Of course, I'll likely be dead so whatever.

Actually, 72, I think the comparison with bombing the WTC is a good one; I didn't want to bring that up because it comes dangerously close to moral equivalence. In this case it would be an equivalence of stupidity, not an area where I'm interested in competing with these guys.

Allah (the real one, no the object of Muslim worship) is probably right: if we get nuked, then someone is going to end up with a lot of glow-in-the-dark real estate. But who, and where, is another question. Pre-selecting the only target that actually would be perceived as a direct attack by every Muslim on the planet doesn't sound like a good strategy.

I believe people need to listen to the actual interview to get the facts straight and hear it in context. You can hear the interview at

http://baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/

Some of you are missing his point: Tancredo wasn't talking about the proper RESPONSE to a large-scale terrorist attack; he was talking about a good advance threat that might PREVENT a terrorist attack. A subtle difference, but important. (Also, he didn't say "nuke" but rather "bomb," and actually he didn't even say that much -- the interviewer suggested it, and Tancredo simply didn't disagree.)

I think everyone here is way too hung up on the Mecca thing. There are tests to determine where fissile material from nuclear explosions comes from. Our intelligence services presumably have a pretty good idea who's who in the terror finance business. Put those two pieces of info together and you've got your target list.
But I think that the more pertinent issue is that of MUSLIM law enforcement. As we are seeing here, the real and credible threat of nuclear destruction tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully. I think that the various heads of state should be put on notice- if we find out you are planning a nuke attack, we immediately destroy your war making capability. If a nuke attack happens, we will start throwing nukes around, and NOBODY gets the benefit of the doubt. And let them know that we will not be hitting targets just to be hitting them. These will be political and economic decapitation attacks. No head of state who is involved, no sympathetic head of state, no piece of infrastructure worthy of the name will be spared. I think that this threat might just result in some or all of these guys seeing that "with us or against us" really means something.

If we get nuked, we should ask them to nuke more of our cities. After all, we should all cut of our own heads because of Western imperialismcolonialismslaveryoppressioncorporaterulewhiteguysbeingmean etc

Rick

I agree, but I'm afraid that we very well may have to carry out our threats someday because no one believes us, due to our Liberals and our history. And after Bush's confused and tepid response to 911 Bill Clinton's cowardice (OBL hit us five times and Bill's response was to lob over the last of our expensive cruise missles into some empty buildings, I'd even bet the First Felon leaked it beforehand) who came blame them?

Just like dealing with the Russians but only more so, they are not impressed by idle threats. The reason that MAD worked is that we really meant it and they knew it, we really were prepared to carry out the annihilation of the Soviet Union if attacked - no matter what!

Mecca isn't a magical city that floats above the clouds. A threat to nuke Mecca is a threat to nuke Saudi Arabia. If such a threat encourages Saudi Arabia to exert itself to prevent nuclear terrorism, good.

Iblis, Dman and quiggs are all correct in pointing to Baldilocks' observation that Tancredo's remarks are not nearly as definitive and inflammatory as they have been portrayed. We should be working to quench the controversy, not adding gasoline.

Y'know, it wasn't yer bit about takin' bombing Mecca off the table Ace ...it was the part about saying that it gave you pause when the effin' Chinese effin' general effin' said they'd nuke LA (or somesuch) if we fulfilled treaty obligations to defend OUR EFFIN' ALLIES IN TAI-EFFIN'-WAN in the event that the mainland decide to forcibly annex the island.

Screw that!

What I thought was "Well f*ck you a**hole, and you wanna play that card than we'll turn effin' Peking into effin' glass ...along with the rest of your effin' rice paddy, turd-bait. China will be finished, a**wipe. But you won't care, because you will be radioactive dust."

Why? - A. Because all the pr*ck did was piss me off by mouthing off, and B. because turning China into a radioactive desert is is the ONLY proper strategic response to a nuke strike.

Because the world will have gone mad.

So ...yes. I would NOT be frickin' rational - and would be ENTIRELY opposed to anyone who advocated "rationality" - to any kind of "measured response" to the thoroughly unrational debut of radioactive clouds in downtown LA (and - full disclosure - I loathe LA as the scab on the shore of California it surely is ...but it's our scab).

And come to that ...somebody starts advocating slammin' frickin' nukes as tactics, and civilization as we know it is pretty much fine anyways: so I could give a rats patootie as to whether 1 billion of anyone anywhere - Islamic, communist, whatever - is going to "hate us".

I don't worry what dead people think about us. And dead they will be.

You kill us? We will kill - far, far - more of you.

And that is a truly rational "measured response" of anyone who cherishes freedom.

Hell, I know it's never going to happen, but I'd like to see statements like the one by Tancredo coming from higher up. The only thing these psychopaths value and hold dear is their death cult religion and the holy sites associated with it. If the Islamo-fascists new ahead of time, with certainty, that if a nuke went off in the states we would retaliate by nuking Mecca and other muslim holy sites successively, whatever terrorist leader made the decision to pull the trigger on Washington would have to live with the knowledge that he wiped out his entire religion and all its history in the process. I don't think OBL or anyone of them has got the stones to pull the plug on their beloved "RoP".

I see nothing wrong with threatening what they hold dear after they've threatened what we hold dear. The deterrent effect seems obvious. The Cold War Communists weren't suicidal, they valued their lives and threatening nuclear retaliation was an effective deterrent. There would have been millions of innocents killed had we been struck and retaliated, but no one was concerned about "uniting" the Russian people against us, or the wisdom of making such a deterrent threat. Why is it any different here?

The threat of violence by terrorists must have some meaningful consequence to them, or they will make good on their threats. It's as simple as that. And quite simply I could give a shit if the Muslim world is united against us. The vast majority are at the very least complicit with the terrorists for not speaking out against them when they behead people and murder children. Having the Muslim world united against us would make this an easier war to fight. The terrorists would have lost their favorite tactic - hiding in a crowd of innocents - and we could commence removing them from the face of the planet, instead of worrying about who we're offending.

I cannot believe that anyone would expect us to be rational in our response to a nuclear terror attack. The proper response is an overwhelming counterstrike that kills millions and destroys nations; specifically, Arab and Persian nations, if you follow me. After that, peripheral Islamic nations like Somalia and Indonesia and Bangladesh should then be asked if they have any further questions on how to proceed. The rest of the world should then be told that we have plenty more where that came from.

This policy ought to be shouted from the rooftops and with ... "we're not fucking kidding!" added at the end.

This is known as deterrence. It worked for about 45 years.

You know what we should do if the muslims Nuke us:

Give the Temple Mount back to the Jews. They'd go bonkers.

Actually we should say we'll do that if they ever attack in any way, western interests again.

Utron: Nuking Mecca would eliminate a site of enormous religious significance and kill a hell of a lot of people, but it would do absolutely nothing to eliminate or reduce the Islamofascist threat. Quite the contrary: it really would unite every Muslim in the world against us, just like the lefties claim (wrongly) the war in Iraq has done.

If all the Muslims know that Mecca and every other chunk of Camel Land is a potential Ground Zero, I posit they will be a Whole Lot Less Willing to look the other way at the Islamofascists they let live along side them and secretly, even openly cheer.

If we were ready and willing to kill little baby Sovietskis and cute Ukranian puppy dogs if they ever nuked us, I see nothing different with how we would treat Islamoids - or, are they better than the Russians?? After all, it's not a question of "innocence" - a Soviet attack on us would have come at the direction of the Politburo with 99.999% of Soviets having nothing to do with it.

I imagine Islamoids would be as boiling mad at us if we nuked a major Islamic country PLUS Mecca or Medina as the Japs were when we firebombed Tokyo.

Tough titties.

If that then meant that every Egyptian city resounded with "Death to America" and "Eternal Jihad" - well, tough titties on that too, 1 Trident missile and they have 10 100-300KT hydrogen bombs on them in 15 minutes. Aswan dam, 3 for the Cairo metroplitan area, 2 for Alexandria, 1 for Memphis, 1 for Suez, 2 for the major air bases.

Check on what other Muslim countries are still crying "Death to America" and reapply nukes as necessary until the vermin are expunged. We have over 3,000 operational, 3,000 in reserve. Plenty & Plenty of the Nukes!!

Along with our conventional missions to collect all the Pak nukes, and carry out selective death list actions on extremist Mullahs.

But the goal is not to do all that frying, but avoid it. And to avoid it, you have to convince the Islamoids that we would be dead fucking serious about killing millions of innocents and destroying Islam if that's what it took. That is strategic deterrence. It worked against the global movement of Communism, and it can work with the global movement of ISlamofascism. We were dead serious about what we would do to the Soviets, and they knew we were dead serious. Unfortunately, too many Islamoids think that if they nuked us the Left would intervene and stop any retaliation.

They better be disabused of that, fast! Tancredo said what Bush and the Democratic leadership should have said years ago.

Hey folks, am I the only one who remembers that this isn't supposed to be a war on Islam? This is supposed to be a war on the terrorists. If you take out an Islamic holy site, you're going to be cheesing off a lot of people who are currently not our enemies, including fellow Americans/US Islamic soldiers.

I'd be more than happy to deliver a very nice "F*** You" nuke to any given terrorist stronghold/s myself. But it makes Zero sense to turn this into a religious attack and start bombing holy sites; in fact, that will prove the liberals right and make this war look very much like a Christian crusade. And I for one don't care to make the liberals look right, like, ever.

And on a side note: why do people assume New York or DC or LA are the possible prime targets? I think Dallas and Houston are under a much greater threat, because the terrorists have more political allies on the coasts than in the heartland (esp. Bush's home state). And you KNOW that if Janeane Garafalo's favorite deli is taken out by a nuclear blast, even she might change her mind about a few things...but if the terrorists nuked Dallas she wouldn't be able to say "They deserved it" fast enough.

And yeah, I know they alreday targeted NY a coiuple of times, but bin Laden miscalculated our political response for 9/11 and I think they'd pick their next target more carefully. I hope I never find out if I'm right or wrong, though.

Later,
bbeck

We're getting tired and frustrated, waiting for the ordinary muslims to end their cozy complicity with the terrorists bbeck.

Maybe they have to be more afraid of us than they are of them?

bbeck Hey folks, am I the only one who remembers that this isn't supposed to be a war on Islam? This is supposed to be a war on the terrorists.

Oh, that's riiiiight!

I forgot The Supreme Wartime Leader exonerated Islam right after 9/11 (and Bali, and Beslan, and the Intafada), calling it the Religion of Peace, and declared the problem was just "smoking a few evildoers" out of their caves.

So, how is the war against the Tamil Tigers, Earth First, and Shining Path terroristsgoing, bbeck?

Um-m-m...what's the Vatican's take on this? It IS a religious war!

Texas AC

Cedarford, I know you think your Nazi schtick is endearing and that someday you might earn the respect you crave like a sustaining nectar, but get it through your head...

I...
Don't...
Read...
Your...
Crap.

Got...
It...
Wanker?

When I saw the "bbeck" at the beginning of your drool string, I knew to ignore the rest.

Now, feel free to rock yourself to sleep while you count dead Jews, you racist pig. And PLEASE use a real rock.

Later,
bbeck

VDH had a column on this a year ago and many said it was his weakest column ever. But his point was if something like a dirty bomb was detonated in the US, the only thing that would prevent (or at least make them give a second thought about doing it again) was to do what we would say we would do if something like this happened. Is it to bomb Mecca? Or say, destroy Medina with Mecca next?

His point was the M.A.D. policy that helped prevent nuclear war from happening for half a century. BUT, you have to be willing to back it up. So what do we threaten?

My suggestion would be to say if a bomb goes off in the U.S., Syria fuck you. You're Iraq Pt 2. Iran, Iraq Pt 3. And guess what House of Saud, you're finally going to have to live off the billions you've squirreled away in Switzerland.

Don't like the U.S. being in the Islam holy lands now? Another bomb goes off? OK, I'm willing to escalate at this point. Medina... write it off. Get the point? Want to try us again? Guess whats next? We've told what we're going to do if something happens. Try us.

And I think I speak for millions of Americans when I say we've been fairly tolerant so far. But don't push me any fucking further.

The cold war analogy is apt. We should make travel to and from Islamic countries very difficult, deport proponents of jihad, and invoke mutual assured destruction. See Center Wrong

This city must go first.It is the source of all wars and fights in global arena.It is the Jews vs muslim craze for this city for last 50 years that has created the present day terrorism leading to the point of Nuke terrorism...I say if we Nuke this city just now (after evacuation of its residents) majority of issues would come to an end....After all 'Murder of One human being is murder of All Mankind'

Why not anticipate in matters of life and death? If we expect eventually to be nuked by muslims, then by all means, let's kill them or enslave them first. Does this require a complicated defense?

I can't think of a more moronic policy than a retaliatory nuking of Mecca. If this became official policy, Al Quaida would undoubtedly redouble their efforts to bring it about.