Question for Jonah re: Wonkette -- if he wasn't married, would he hit it?

Assuming she didn't hate him, I mean.

Question 2: Does all the Jesus talk over there bother him sometimes? Even a little?

Related: does K-Lo wear a habit to work?

3: If Spock and Mark Steyn battled to the death, who would win?

4. Is there a video on the Internet of Jonah doing a full-tilt boogie for freedom and justice? If so, does the video induce fatal brain seizures? If not, why not?

I also want to second all of Allah's questions, particularly the first one.

Inquiring minds want to know. And knowing is half the battle.

All right, serious questions. Ask him about Tancredo; I'm not sure he's weighed in on that yet. Ask him how serious he thinks the tough talk from China is, and whether we have any policy towards them besides crossing our fingers and hoping for democratic revolution. Ask him if he thinks Bush is going to pussy out when Rehnquist retires and nominate a moderate, on grounds that he already threw red meat to the base with Roberts.

Also: does he find the Derbyshire math posts as fuckin' annoying as the rest of us do?

One more. Isn't it a fact that Victor Davis Hanson has basically been re-writing the same column for three years now?

Phrase the question this way: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that VDH's next column will explain how the west will always prevail because of our open markets, freedom of expression, emphasis on science and technology, and robust military tradition?"

Follow-up: Does he find Derbyshire as annoying as the rest of us do?

Wrong link to Rightalk, Acey.

"does he find the Derbyshire math posts as fuckin' annoying as the rest of us do"

Does he find DERBYSHIRE as fucking annoying as the rest of us do.

Will they EVER stop calling each other by their fucking ridiculous pet names. It's made The Corner practically unreadable. I NEVER go there anymore because I refuse to read posts referring to "K-Lo" (which, if you've ever seen her, is an UTTERLY IDIOTIC nickname - and no, there are some things that irony simply cannot cover) and "Derb."

Actually, I'm concerned about Jonah. He clearly was suffering some severe gastrointestinal distress when he posed for his masthead photo. Reassure us that he's gotten that checked out and he's OK.

Does he read Instapundit? If so, do Glenn's occasional posts hinting at sex with "the InstaWife" creep him out as much as the rest of us?

"BLOGGING WILL BE LIGHT, as I'm in Chicago with the InstaWife for a conference on blogging and film and we'll be humping for the rest of the night.

Tom Maguire has more."

Speaking of Firing Line, Ace I will be tremendously disappointed if you don't spend the whole interview talking in that affected manner that served WFB so well over all these years.

Well, disappointed if I actually listened to internet interradio. Which I don't.

But others, like Jeff B, do. So I imagine word will eventually get out. Especially if one threatens to take his milk money away.

No question, but a request - could Jonah please tell Ponnuru, Podhoretz, York, may, and others whose entries on The Corner are, shall we say, "extended" to please KEEP IT SUCCINCT.

How the hell can I read the damn thing surreptitiously at my taxpayer-funded government job if they keep fuckin' writing "War and Peace" every time they want to povide their thoughts on crap like Gitmo, or lobster taxes, or whatever?

"Tom Maguire has more."

"Ann Althouse has further observations." :)

Inane pop culture. Gotta go heavy on that. Jonah's one of the few conservo-thinkers who actually knows his shit there. Not interested in deep thoughts.

Oh, and can Jonah please get Ponununururu to change his name? Please?

1. Is he a relative of the professional wrestler and, if so, can he score my cousin Earl some tickets?

2. I too would like to hear his thoughts on China, especially why we continue to trade with the human rights abusing, nuclear bomb threatening turds. I mean, aren't we just supplying them with money to continue to amass the weapons they want to use against us?

Question for Jonah re: Wonkette -- if he wasn't married, would he hit it?

Hit it? Or, hit on it? And just go ahead and ask: What about anal sex?

A man having sex with his wife? Oh, no! Unlike many male bloggers, ahem, instead of talking about it, he does it??

I mean sex not sex with glenn's wife.

How the hell can I read the damn thing surreptitiously at my taxpayer-funded government job if they keep fuckin' writing "War and Peace" every time they want to povide their thoughts on crap like Gitmo, or lobster taxes, or whatever?

Sympathetic though I undoubtedly am, this is unreasonable. Lobster taxes are the most pressing issue facing the Republic today, and it cannot be disposed of briefly. It's too subtle, too complicated, dare I say it, too nuanced for brevity.

Plus, I don't see what your complaint is. As occupiers of taxpayer-funded government jobs, we are immune to firing. Much like half-elves are immune to Sleep magic.

Ace, I seriously have to ask you to tell Jonah to banish the pet names from The Corner. Forever. It drives me crazy.

Hey Ace! Ask Jonah how he pronounces the name 'Barry'.

LOL

ask him about the fast vs. slow zombie thing

Unless, of course, those pet names are for Derbyshire. If others at NRO want to call him "Jackass," "Crank," "Moron" and other such sobriquets, they can feel free.

Insults, yes. But anyone who refers to him as "Derb" ever again must be severely beaten with ballpeen hammers.

Please ask Mr. Goldberg what he thinks might be a good deterent to suicide bombers. What could make the price to high for them to pay. Thank you.

Regarding his light G-File today, ask him if having an indirect link to Deadwood (aka Cocksucker Creek) is the proudest moment of his life?

PS. The use of "K-Lo" should be punished by immediate crucifixion.

IT'S NOT FUCKING FUNNY, YOU PAINFULLY SACCHARINE CRETINS. IT NEVER FUCKING WAS.

PPS. Kindly have him inform Nordlinger that I am NOT his goddamn "friend."

Is Hugh Hewitt right? Does Jesus really love Republicans more?

Yes.

Megan, please call into the show. I want to hear this

Oh hell Allah, even I can field that one. Of course He does.

If it turned out that Jesus was against the war in Iraq, would Hugh Hewitt have to re-think this whole Christianity thing?

Further evidence that the GOP is favored by Providence

I'll see your Megyn, Megan, and raise you Jane Skinner. Christ, what a piece of ass she is.

By the way, Jesus told me last night that he wants us to bomb Mecca. Alert Hugh Hewitt!

Ace: Don't make your fans look for the link to RightTalkRadio. Have it on top the day/time of the show. We're simply not so loyal were going to expend small amounts of energy looking for it.

"Megan, please call into the show. I want to hear this"

While I'd love to bitch at Jonah, I'm technically at work and I'm required to keep all outside lines clean and clear during the time Ace always has his show. :(

Anyone who shares my opinions should feel free to express them in my stead, of course. I could enjoy it vicariously even if I can't participate.

"I'll see your Megyn, Megan, and raise you Jane Skinner. Christ, what a piece of ass she is."

Oh yeah? Did you see her in that red dress at the Liberty Ball?

God loves everybody. Even atheists! Go figure.

"God loves everybody"

She doesn't really. That's just talk.

Hey - I like the math posts. But then, I like Red Dwarf. And someone has criticized me for that.

And ask him to come up with some more Anchorman-like expletives.

Zounds!

I missed the beginning. I thought Karol was playing hooky?

Did you see her in that red dress at the Liberty Ball?

No, why? Do you have pictures?

And if so, how much do you want for them?

"She doesn't really. That's just talk"

What's cool is that if I'm right I get to say "I told you so". If Allah's right, well, we'll never know!

I have screencaps. :( I missed the ball myself, but I'm told her nipples were in full-on glass-cutting mode.

Karol's more involved in the backchat today :)

Ace is droning a bit though.

The hell is wrong with "Kick their ass, take their gas?"

You guys are so dead today.

Alive and kicking! Too busy listening...

Multitasking is, apparently, a neglected skill.

Uninteresting and dreadfully obvious show so far. C'mon guys, get to something that's actually controversial or thought-provoking. Keep your core audience in mind - we know all this stuff already. We bitch about it every day, after all.

No good zingers yet.

Jonah comes close with, "The problem with liberalism is cosmopolitinism," but patriotism is a thorny subject.

I don't want to hear about Jonah's financial troubles.

Jesus Christ. Ace, for God's sake start mocking Andrew Sullivan.

At least Karol cut off Dave's rambling there. Thanks Karol.

"When you have a couple thousand readers sending you emails, you don't have to seach around for stuff." - Jonah

Color me green with envy.

Color me bored out of my mind.

I'm sorry, Megan. Maybe the next segment will be better. :-(

Only if there's more of you, and you slap Ace around for us.

"When liberals slam our culture, our laws they're basically taking a sledge hammer to the soapbox they're standing on" - Jonah

That's a zinger. More like that, please.

I missed it because everything before had made me zone out. Thanks for the recap, Kads. :)

I like Jonah's theory on humor. Show's pickin' up IMO.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP STOP STOP

My brain's trying to crawl out of my skull to escape!

"Jonah's theory" has ALL been said before. NOW the show is picking up with the D&D thing and the personal stuff.

Lightning bolt!

Your welcome. You know where to send the royalties.

Did you just curse????

"Crap" isn't cursing. Jonah said "bastards" twice.

Um, I heard "shit" and "bullshit" several times on my internet.

Shocking! right here on the internet!

Slow starting show... The last five minutes were worth it, though.

The problem is that they were trying to make WAY too many general points. The whole show turned into a series of lectures. And we've heard all the lectures before, we know the reasoning and we agree with most of it, so why on earth are you telling us all of this all over again?!

Karol knows a lot about rap?! [cries] Just crush all my illusions, why don't you.

See, this "Nerdcore" thing should've taken up more than 5 seconds. grrr

Wikipedia entry? This is street cred for you now, after they spammed your site?

You're dead to me now, Ace. Dead. I have no son.

Good show.

"Good show."

No it wasn't. :(

Karol knows a lot about rap?! [cries] Just crush all my illusions, why don't you.

Karol knows a lot about rap?! [cries] Just crush all my illusions, why don't you.

Heyyyy, I grew up in the hood in Brooklyn, NY. I really went out of my way to know nothing about rap but it was impossible. Please still love me. :-)

The twenty minutes I caught were pretty good.

"The twenty minutes I caught were pretty good."

You shouldn't lie.

"Please still love me."

Well... oh, all right. :) If you do the next show in a Catholic schoolgirl costume, and when you mention that fact at the beginning, you say you're doing it for me.

Oh, go write a Wikipedia entry about it.

A Wikipedia entry about Karol in a Catholic schoolgirl's uniform? [some look] Any particular reason?

Well, write that one too. You just slipped that post in there.

The one you wanted is already written. :P

Ace asked for questions
which he ignored completely
And the show sucked ass

feel the love brother
it is still there for you Ace
they can't all be great

Muslims do not recognize the validity of the Ten Commandments as [coming from God]. from Wikipeida.

Especially that pesky number 6.

He should've gone off on The Corner. It used to be a good read once upon a time. Should've mocked Excitable Andy and had Jonah join in while Karol rebuked them but giggled (and made me swoon) in spite of herself. Should've put Jonah on the spot and made him explain the electoral consequences of yesterday's union split, since he says he didn't understand it himself. Taken him up on Tancredo like Allah suggested. And so on and so on and so on...

Well, like Mentis said, they can't all be good. I'll tune in again next week like the good, faithful little fan I am.

OK OK, I just like listening to Karol giggle.

The problem is that they were trying to make WAY too many general points. The whole show turned into a series of lectures. And we've heard all the lectures before, we know the reasoning and we agree with most of it, so why on earth are you telling us all of this all over again?!

True. Damnit, true.

But seriously, did anyone think we were going to rip on The Corner?

Be silly.

Sorry Ace, you know I love ya. Hated to say any of it, but it wouldn't help for me to blow smoke up your ass.

Well, I was hoping. [g]

Yeah, talk about something controversial such as why Hewitt can be such an asshole. Allah will love you forever. I'll just like you a bit more.

Yeah, talk about something controversial such as why Hewitt can be such an asshole. Allah will love you forever.

It's good to know that when Ace, Karol, and I are incinerated in a nuclear fireball over New York City, Hewitt will still be around to urge people not to bomb Mecca. It's a big load off my mind.

Ace, Karol-- thanks for taking my call.

Too bad I had a question for *you*, and not for Jonah, and they kept me around waiting for Jonah, and I had to make something up quickly or sound like a complete dumbass.

Obviously, I wasn't able to make anything up.

Oh, and my voice finally broke while on the phone. Congratulations, you can say you were there when I finally hit puberty.

Now, if only JeffB.'s balls would drop, you'd get a reputation for sparking "The Changes" in nerds and geeks everywhere.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Check your bandwidth donation email.

"Hewitt will still be around to urge people not to bomb Mecca"

Don't you understand that the entire point of the War on Terror is to avoid offending Moslems?!

Allah,

My favorite quote of yours about Hewitt was during your presidential debate coverage: "Hewitt gives Bush an A or A+ for 22 of his 26 responses. Allah's beginning to think we might get a more objective opinion from Michael Moore."

Don't you understand that the entire point of the War on Terror is to avoid offending Moslems?!

Alls I'm sayin' is, don't go crazy. New York might be reduced to ash, and five million people might be dead, and fallout might descend upon the east coast, and the economy might collapse, but hey -- that's no excuse to go starting a war of civilizations.

Keep things in perspective, people. That's all I ask.

Hubris -- I'd forgotten about that. Didn't Ace, or one of his callers, get Hewitt to admit a few weeks ago on the air that Kerry did in fact win the first debate?

If so, isn't it kind of a big deal that he lied to us on his blog at the time?

Maybe I have my facts wrong here. If so, never mind.

"that's no excuse to go starting a war of civilizations"

I agree. If we did start a war of civilizations the Moslems might hijack a few of our airplanes and fly them into our skyscrapers, murdering thousands of Americans, disrupting our transport systems, and severely damaging our economy.

Wait a minute...

No, Allah, actually the opposite. Hugh said that his position that Bush had won that first debate had been vindicated because 'global test' had backfired so badly on Kerry.

FWIW, I agreed with Hugh on the debate thing.

Karol -- Then my facts are indeed wrong. Apologies to Hewitt.

Megan -- After the bomb hits and New York disappears, I know you're going to be pretty angry and start thinking crazy fucking thoughts about bombing Mecca. But don't worry. I'm going to appear to you in a dream and tell you, "Megan -- don't avenge me. Whatever you do, don't avenge me."

Hey Allah?

You got to try screaming that in Harry Dean Stanton's voice, for the full effect.

I'm just thinking about the survivors, Dave. I don't want you guys flying off the handle over the fiery destruction of the country's financial and cultural center. A bombing run on Mecca would make enemies of a billion people, and you know what might happen then? Right: they might try to nuke New York. Except, of course, that New York will already be a charred moonscape.

Actually, why am I addressing this to you? You work in DC, don't you? You'll be dead too.

Allah -

And I'll hold out a finger and say, "Hey, ghost boy - sit and spin." ;)

To be perfectly honest, I think our FIRST response to 9/11 should have been to nuke something. Maybe not necessarily Mecca - but something. You don't win wars by going tit for tat, you nuke us, we nuke you. You win wars by escalating the enemy's losses to unbearable levels faster than they ever fucking imagined, until they beg you on their knees to stop. And then you keep going. You keep going until it'll take them decades to stop bleeding, let alone even begin to dream of recovering.

We shouldn't be waiting to use nukes. We should do it first. This isn't a fucking game.

NO COMMENT ON THIS????

Colorado mother pleads guilty to holding sex parties for teenage boys...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_re_us/mom_sex_parties_2

We're a little busy here, July.

I'll avenge you, allah. I'll bomb Mecca and Orange County. Seriously, you've been listening to his radio show, haven't you?

I'm with you, A-double-lizzle. The second New York becomes Nuke York, Mecca and Medina (and about 10 other bastions of 12th century civilization) should become glass factories.

Anything less will be a failure of will, and an unjust response.

"Actually, why am I addressing this to you? You work in DC, don't you? You'll be dead too."

Hey, no need to rub it in.

But seriously-- while I'm still somewhat ambivalent about the whole Tancredo thing, the larger issue is still one of utmost importance.

And I think everyone who thinks that a nuked American city will not change absolutely everything is on some damn good smack, and ought to chare.

I just hope it's NYC that goes first. Sorry Allah, nothing personal, I'm sure you'l hope to lose D.C. first.

We can fight it out in the afterlife, over a beer.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I'll lay aside the sarcasm for a moment and simply say that it galls me to no end to see how far people on our own side are willing to bend over to avoid angering Muslims. Steyn hit it dead on the other day:

Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles".

Precisely. We endure threat after threat, terror after terror, and never is the slightest bit of pressure placed upon moderate Muslims to make a fucking move against the radicals in their midst. No wonder 25% of them in Britain support the bombers; there's no cost whatsoever for doing so.

Finally, along comes Tancredo with a threat of his own, and what happens? Hewitt and company fall all over themselves knocking the guy. Incredible.

Still, the worst line in all this that I saw came not from Hugh but from Lileks, who actually compared a retaliatory bombing run on Mecca to ... bombing the Vatican over the pedophilia scandals. I about fell off the chair over that one.

The vicious bloodthirsty neocon Jack M. threatened innocent peaceful Moslems thus: "The second New York becomes Nuke York, Mecca and Medina (and about 10 other bastions of 12th century civilization) should become glass factories."

The problem with this approach, however, is the fact that over 10 million Americans will already be dead. So we'll kill a few more Moslems - it won't bring anyone back. But if we nuke something first, there's an object lesson there. It's been far too long since we've shown our enemies just how terrifying the magnitude of our power really is, just how long our reach can be. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Our military is the clenched right hand of God Almighty, and our enemies - all our enemies - must learn that lesson anew. I'd like to be able to point at something and say:

"See that over there? Fuck with us. Just. One. Fucking. Time, Abdul. That blackened, irradiated glass is you. Your family. Every one of your holy sites. Your entire fucking people. Go ahead, Abdul. You go right on ahead and call our fucking bluff."

Oderint, dum metuant. Y'all say you want to save lives? Well whoop-de-doo, so do I.

And history has proven that my way works.

Hewitt has had a hard-on about Tancredo for a while now -- at least since last fall. It has nothing to do with Tancredo's recent comments.

The WSJ had an opinion piece calling Tancredo a racist and saying open borders was good for America.

No, good for business which is not always good for America. Bush was floating the work program and Hewitt being the republican whore he was, pushed obnoxiously hard for it. He has since had to back off. Or, the administration backed off, so Hugh the Whore did, too.

Calling Tancredo a racist was a pretty shitty thing to do, too. I guess that would make me a racist, since I'm against open borders. Ace and laura already called me a racist when I mentioned nuking mecca. How come they are not calling you a racist? Bitchs!

And I think everyone who thinks that a nuked American city will not change absolutely everything is on some damn good smack, and ought to chare.

Exactly, Dave. I was e-mailing with Baldilocks the other day, and she made the same point. People are treating a nuclear strike like it's something we'll be able to recover from. Wrong. Once the cloud goes up, we're in an endgame situation.

FYI, if it has to happen, I hope NYC goes first too. I hope I'm right next to the bomb when it goes off. The real victims of that attack will be the survivors who have to deal with the fallout, literal and figurative, afterwards.

Bend Over for Allah, aka: The Hugh Hewitt Show. Boy it's fun bashing him!

Allah, I guess I'm a little bit more optimistic than you. After all, America *will* go on, although it won't look much like America after that.

Let's just take NYC and DC, shall we?

Beyond the people killed and wounded, literally *trillions* of decades (centuries, even) of investment gone in a flash. Every industry that's based in NYC is gone. Every government agency in DC is gone. Most of your financial, business, media, and political leaders-- and the bureaucracies that work for them-- are gone.

The nation is being run out of a bunker, without a government beyond those who managed not to be in DC that morning.

Oh, and there is no proof who did it, no rental truck application to follow up on. And every city will feel like they're the next target.

To compare our reaction to 9/11-- politically, militarily, and culturally-- to the aftermath of a nuclear attack on a modern American city, and thus extrapolate on a linear scale, is a ridiculous exercise. Nothing in American history-- not the Civil War, not the Great Depression, not World War II-- would offer us a lesson worth learning in such a scenario.

And here we are wondering how people would feel like the day after all that when it comes to angering Muslims. While I buy into Lileks and Hewitt's fundamental point, but I'd literally be shocked if after all that there'd be any Muslims left to anger.

Anyway, I'm one of the few people who, while deploring the tragedy of 9/11, is actually a little grateful that it happened the way it did. It could have been *far* worse, and it can be again in the future. Americans were served that rarest of opportunities-- a wake-up call, a chance to learn what needed learning, and take action to avoid something far worse.

We are all failing that test, Democrats and Republicans, as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I meant "*trillions* of dollars in investment, over decades (and centuries)" above.

Loose shit.

Ace, can you have mu.nu put the person's IP address in the comment if they don't put something in the Name textbox? For people who have the common courtesy to comment under a name/pseudonym this will have no effect. To the others, well, tough titty said the kitty.

I agree with all of that, Dave, except the last line. Yes, America will go on. But it will be something qualitatively different. I can't even imagine the kind of economic damage it would do to lose one or two major cities. I have to assume the result would be a global depression. I also have to assume that, for a good long while at least, our infrastructure would be crippled. Imagine power outages as a way of life.

I'd like to read a serious study of the effects of a nuclear attack on a U.S. city. I wonder how many cities they'd have to take out to reduce us to a de facto Third World nation. Fewer than we assume, I'd bet.

If they managed to set of a nuclear bomb in a major city, how big can it be? We all know that dirty bombs are extremely ineffective. Anything larger would have to have a delivery system. Another plane crash? They can't fly over NYC or DC. It's still very difficult to manufacture a bomb. And aren't they fairly detectable? But, even a small nuclear incident is going to send this country reeling. Maybe few deaths but still great upheavel.

Oh yeah, the guy who has made countless posts about fucking someone's mother is going to lecture on common courtesy. Yawn.

Allah-- what, you didn't like the "Cheers" part? ;-)

I'm a conservative and I vote Republican, but even while admitting that our side has been far, far better on this issue than the other side, we're still whistling past the graveyard. I can give you many examples, but here's one right off the top of the head: immigration.

As for the study, surprisingly, I haven't seen any like that. Plenty of Cold War-era studies, some recently updated, that talk about the *physical* effects of a nuke attack, but I have yet to see one that talks about the strategic effects of nuclear terrorism.

I guess I'll go hunt around, there might be a RAND or CSIS study out there worth reading.

Oh, and for the anonymous guy-- the nuke can be big, or it can be small. I'm pretty sure we won't know how large until it goes off.

Although, I'd assume that we're still talking in the kiloton range, anywhere from small, 1kt to 500kt (fission) or 300kt-??? mt (thermonuclear).

As someone who's worked this stuff professionally, even a "small" Hiroshima-sized bomb will be enough to ruin Manhattan for a couple of generations. Modern buildings will hold up a helluva lot better than paper and wood, but they also provide a lot more fuel to burn (one word: firestorm), and more debris to remain radiocative.

Bad things, that.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

As someone who's worked this stuff professionally, even a "small" Hiroshima-sized bomb will be enough to ruin Manhattan for a couple of generations.

The upside is that I'll be able to afford to live in Manhattan again. Joking aside, I don't remember it taking generations. I know there was a higher cancer rate. I know the japanese are prejudice against people from those two cities (hey, they are the biggest racists/most bias, etc.), but I don't remember it taking generations to recover. Don't people tour White Sands?

Depends on the fissile materiel.

"Oh yeah, the guy who has made countless posts about fucking someone's mother is going to lecture on common courtesy. Yawn."

So you understand then that the point of using a pseudonym is so you can easily tell who has been saying what which lends itself to discussion and an exchange of ideas. Unlike commenters like yourself who like to be aloof and condescending but not responsible for what they say, even in a very indirect manner. So, in summary, why don't you use a name or shut the f**k up?

BTW, July, I would rather have cedarford commenting here then you. At least he has the decency to put an identity with his ideas. And I hate you for making me say that.

At least now he bothered to articulate that he thinks I called him a racist. I didn't even understand why he was mad, before. I went back and re-read it, and he might have a point. But I'm not that subtle. If I thought he was a racist I would have said it outright.

Feh. I already explained myself to the guy and he told me to cram it. Why bother?

It's not worthy, lauraw, so don't bother. Just another anonymous troll who will soon go away.

yep, lauraw, if you called me a racist I wouldn't have any trouble deciphering it. You are reliably clear spoken.

Aw, don't stand up for me.
I'm bad. I was born bad, and I know it.

Now you're bad too.

Why don't you fucking ignore me or shut the fuck up?

As for your preference for cedarford, of course you identify with him. Happy that I made you finally admit it.

"Why don't you fucking ignore me or shut the fuck up?"

Because, July, I've appointed myself the no-name nudnik.

"As for your preference for cedarford, of course you identify with him. Happy that I made you finally admit it. "

Yes, you are very crafty. I am in awe of your skilz. To bad you're so moronic as to be inable to think up a nickname for yourself. You're like Rainman. Now go back to reading the phone book and leave us alone.

OK. I get it. You despise me. You really, really hate me. GOT IT. Still don't care.

Word to the wise: You shouldn't skip a day when taking anti-psychotic drugs. Every day, dude. Cause I care 'bout ya.

Sorry for breaking into the topic Ace.

Fuck it, I prefer Cedarford too. He's a cocksucker, but at least he has the balls to sign his stupid comments.

I'll avenge you, allah. I'll bomb Mecca and Orange County.

Orange County? Do Boston.

No, laura, I ignore you and brewfan until you insult me. I'm more than happy to return to ignoring you because frankly, you're not that special.

psst! Brownshirt, cedarford has balls alright -- yours.

Our military is the clenched right hand of God Almighty, and our enemies - all our enemies - must learn that lesson anew.

I'm with you. In my mind, this problem started when we failed to provide air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion. That fatal error taught the terrorists, and their sponsors, an important lesson. We're basically inhibited sissies. If the Bay of Pigs invasion had worked, the terrorists (and, more importantly, their sponsors) would have learned the opposite lesson. DON'T FUCK WITH US!

now I'm baaa-aaad.

I'm nation-wide.

Yes I'm baaad baad baaad baaad baaad.

I'm nation-wide.

Oh yeah, the guy who has made countless posts about fucking someone's mother is going to lecture on common courtesy. Yawn.

Actually, Brewfan has made countless posts about fucking my mother. But he has a name, he maintains a persona, his remarks about fucking my mother are made with good will, and I consider him a friend.

psst! Brownshirt, cedarford has balls alright -- yours.
He'd have to take my balls out of your mouth to get to them.

Well, this thread was a most interesting read.

Megan, you crack me up, you really do..;-)

I didn't get to hear the show, I suppose Ace didn't tell Jonah how much I loved his hair?

This thread is so strange. Does anyone think that pre-emptively nuking a few holy sites would actually stop these terrorists from using a nuke on us?

I am ALL FOR making a big smokin' hole out of a city full of terrorists. That's been my husband's job for the last 18 years and he wouldn't hesitate to take out a strategic site (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were).

But nuking a city because it's a cultural and/or religious site of value would not only be an impotent thing to do, it would be against international law.

You're not just talking about "offending" Muslims, you're talking about murdering them. IF Bush did end up giving the go ahead to nuke Mecca tomorrow, he's going to have a little trouble finding someone to deliver it, as it would be an unlawful order.

As someone said up above, what are they going to do to us after they've already bombed New York? Well, shoot, what are WE going to do to THEM after we've already taken out a few cities? Bombing the crap out of innocent people isn't going to deter them because -- and I assume some of you have noticed -- terrorists don't CARE when innocent people die. You need to have a clear target.

The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US. That's all we can do to stop it, and no show of strength will make them think twice if they have the capability to to hit us that hard. Unfortunately, the steps we'd need to take to keep that from happening are not available to us, thanks to the pandering, whiney politicians who don't even have the guts to insist we reconsider racial profiling, much less put a firm grip on our borders. The terrorists know this and they'll use our freedom against us. It's only a matter of time.

Later,
bbeck

You're not just talking about "offending" Muslims, you're talking about murdering them.

Dammit. Double dammit. I have to hear this from a bitch who owns Prado purses.

But, you're right.

We have to be bigger than them.

In the end, that's how we win.

RE: nuke impact.

A little late getting back into the game, but to reply to the poster who wouldn't sign his name up above (dude, really-- just choose a name. Doesn't have to be your real name, it could be a pseudonym, like "Bob", or "Cedarford".)

The key thing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that neither are very indicative of the kind of impact a similarly-sized nuclear weapon would have in a modern city.

First, a terrorist bomb is likely to be a ground burst (just playing odds, although they could fly one in). This would minimize the area damage-- airbursts, like in the Japan blasts, affect a wider area-- but instead you get more radiocative fallout (nuke + dirt = nasty stuff kicked up in the cloud).

The fallout from a ground burst tends to get spread out pretty quickly in the mushroom cloud-- high doses will fall close in (and stick, on everything, and everywhere, until it is cleaned up), and downwind it'll hit at progressively lower doses. The crater will remain hot for a long time to come, far longer than it would if there was an airburst.

However, the modern city poses different problems than a 1940's Japanese city. For one, there's more fuel for the subsequent fires. The initial blast might not be all that bad, but it's going to torch the immediate area, both from direct heat and the thermal flash. Unlike in Hiroshima-- where wooden and paper homes burned hot but quick-- you've got hundreds of tall buildings that A) contain lots of fuel, and B) can act as chimneys for the firestorm.

The direct physical effects of the blast (i.e. overpressure) probably won't do much in the way of knocking down a modern skyscraper-- near the blast, the floors will blow out the other side, taking the occupants for a 300+ mph ride. But the firestorm will burn most of them down, and the ones that are standing will be covered in radioactive ash.

If the bomb is bigger than, say +100 kilotons, then you'll just have a bigger mess in Brooklyn, Queens and Jersey. Only unlike in a smaller burst localized to Manhattan, you won't have the rivers to act as a firebreak. Oh, and no power means no water means most everything burns to the ground over the course of several days.

Bottom line: even with a Hiroshima-sized bomb, NYC would be a lot hotter than Hiroshima, and for a lot longer. Clean-up would take decades, if it was done at all. Take the World Trade Center, multiply that by Manhattan, and make every single speck of dust on the island radioactive to varying degrees, and you *begin* to approach the problem.

But hey, look on the bright side-- I hear Spamalot is going to be in Vegas, so at least you can catch it there.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Dammit. Double dammit. I have to hear this from a bitch who owns Prado purses.

You're confusing me with your boyfriend, dillhole. I don't waste my money to impress strangers, remember?

Geez, if you're going to insult properly, you need to get your context right.

On a related subject: am I the only one who's beginning to think that Cedarford and Michael are the same person?

Later,
bbeck

On a related subject: am I the only one who's beginning to think that Cedarford and Michael are the same person?

I dont recall seeing Cedarford ever exhibiting a sense of humor.
Too Jooish I think.

And on a side note, Is the Boogie dog the new Dusty girl?

"it would be against international law."

There's no such thing.

"you're talking about murdering [Muslims]"

I'm talking about defeating the enemy. Call it what you like.

"We have to be bigger than them. In the end, that's how we win."

No, we win by killing as many of them and capturing or destroying as much of their resources as we deem necessary to ensure that the survivors can no longer pose a threat to our country.

Oh, and we lose by pretending we grow ever more holy and exalted above them with every American they kill. "Unlawful order?" Give me a fucking break. Where was this bullshit when Moslems occupied the Church of the Nativity and used it as not only a cesspit but also a sniper's tower?

These people are evil. You don't talk to evil and you don't try to understand evil; you destroy it. Playing defense and hoping nothing too fucking big gets through your lines is a damn fine way to get more Americans killed, but it does fuck all to win a war.

On a related subject: am I the only one who's beginning to think that Cedarford and Michael are the same person?

OK, now you guys are scaring me. Yes, I defend Cedarford, because it amuses me to watch the reaction. No, I'm not Cedarford. That's just ridiculous. The better theory is that Cedarford is Ace, but I don't know.

So Jonah Goldberg also just read the manuals, rather than actually playing D&D himself.

I'm wondering ... maybe he was as lame as me? So ... there's hope?

For what?

Howard, I don't see Michael displaying a sense of humor either.

There's no such thing.

Geneva and the UCMJ disagree with you.

I'm talking about defeating the enemy. Call it what you like.

Since it's murder when it's unlawful, I'll call it what it is, just as what you're proposing is spite, not defeating the enemy.

Later,
bbeck

Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists. Next.

Oh, and we lose by pretending we grow ever more holy and exalted above them with every American they kill. "Unlawful order?" Give me a fucking break. Where was this bullshit when Moslems occupied the Church of the Nativity and used it as not only a cesspit but also a sniper's tower?

Yes, thank you, Megan, we all know that terrorists are very very bad. 9/11 clued a good many of us in. Some of us knew that even before. That doesn't mean soldiers get to ignore the laws of armed combat.

Michael's the one saying we need to bigger than the enemy. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we have rules to follow regardless of the enemy. What's so annoying is that liberals are insisting we ignore those rules and treat terrorists BETTER than even the rules say.

These people are evil. You don't talk to evil and you don't try to understand evil; you destroy it. Playing defense and hoping nothing too fucking big gets through your lines is a damn fine way to get more Americans killed, but it does fuck all to win a war.

And yes, we also know that the terrorists are evil. And we should also know that they don't think like us, so bombing one city they're not IN isn't going to make a dang bit of difference.

Who's proposing we just sit and play defense? Not ME. I just know it's really a stupid idea to think terrorists are going to say, "Oh no, they bombed Mecca, let's surrender!" when they're still ALIVE after the explosion. The fact that we don't know where they are is the problem, which is what is making the soldiers' job so difficult.

Later,
bbeck

Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists. Next.

Geneva applies to US and what WE can do. Just because THEY don't abide by it doesn't mean that WE don't have to.

Later,
bbeck

"I'm not saying that."

OK.

"Who's proposing we just sit and play defense? Not ME"

bbeck @ 11:06 PM: "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US."

Sounds like playing defense to me.

"I just know it's really a stupid idea to think terrorists are going to say, "Oh no, they bombed Mecca, let's surrender!" when they're still ALIVE after the explosion."

Nice straw man. Of course, no one's predicted anything of the sort. What I've said is give them one object lesson, preferably involving a thermonuclear explosion with lots of radiation and a large crater, point to that and let them know that far worse is on the way if they attack us again. And if they do, then decapitate the barbaric remnants of "civilization" that sustain them.

"Just because THEY don't abide by it doesn't mean that WE don't have to."

That is in fact precisely what it does mean. Burnish your morals on your own time.

But don't expect me to endorse your efforts to sacrifice any other American's life on the altar of your self-righteousness.

"This thread is so strange. Does anyone think that pre-emptively nuking a few holy sites would actually stop these terrorists from using a nuke on us?"

Probably not. But, I doubt much of anything will stop them. So, attack the things they take seriously. Make them realize that we WILL annihilate that which they hold dear.

"But nuking a city because it's a cultural and/or religious site of value would not only be an impotent thing to do, it would be against international law."

To quote George Bush: Ooops, better call my lawyer.

Bbeck, I'm going to be blunt: This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. And I posted on WRESTLING message boards, so I've seen some grade-A idiocy.

You know, I bet that defiling the Church of the Nativity violated int'l law.

That seemed to slow them down.

"You're not just talking about "offending" Muslims, you're talking about murdering them. IF Bush did end up giving the go ahead to nuke Mecca tomorrow, he's going to have a little trouble finding someone to deliver it, as it would be an unlawful order."

I actually doubt he'd have a big problem finding people to do it. We've been exceptionally patient and have sacrificed thousands of our troops trying to avoid offending the ever-so-sensitive Muslims.

"As someone said up above, what are they going to do to us after they've already bombed New York? Well, shoot, what are WE going to do to THEM after we've already taken out a few cities? Bombing the crap out of innocent people isn't going to deter them because -- and I assume some of you have noticed -- terrorists don't CARE when innocent people die. You need to have a clear target."

Yes. Every single religious relic of theirs. Start targeting the less important sites, allowing the terrorists to get their 2 brain cells to connect the dots.

"Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists. Next.

Geneva applies to US and what WE can do. Just because THEY don't abide by it doesn't mean that WE don't have to. "

Do you know WHY they passed the Conventions?

To prevent armies from HIDING AMONGST THE POPULATION TO FIGHT.

They provide incentives (the treatment rules) to get them to follow the rules.

-=Mike

Sounds like playing defense to me.

That's because you weren't paying attention and are playing the Take Out Of Context Game. My statement was, "Who's proposing we just sit and play defense?" Do you know what "just" implies in that sentence? I NEVER implied that ALL we do is ONLY play defense. If that were the case I wouldn't be supporing our current offense.

That is in fact precisely what it does mean.

Megan, I'm sitting 3 feet away from my active duty bomber pilot husband who is telling me you do not know what you are talking about. And he's right. US soldiers are bound by the laws of armed conflict whether or not the enemy is. You REALLY need to do some reading.

"What I've said is give them one object lesson, preferably involving a thermonuclear explosion with lots of radiation and a large crater, point to that and let them know that far worse is on the way if they attack us again. And if they do, then decapitate the barbaric remnants of "civilization" that sustain them."

And even if this could be considered as such, object lessons don't work on terrorists. You're applying a Western rationale to people who don't think along the same vein. They're READY to die and let others be killed in pursuit of their goal.

Burnish your morals on your own time. But don't expect me to endorse your efforts to sacrifice any other American's life on the altar of your self-righteousness.

Why don't you spend less time polishing your holier-than-everybody rhetoric and more time figuring out that you're dead wrong on the armed conflict laws?

Later,
bbeck

"If that were the case I wouldn't be supporing our current offense."

Insufficient.

"I'm sitting 3 feet away from my active duty bomber pilot husband who is telling me you do not know what you are talking about."

How terrifying. :) Maybe you should ask him to come online and defend your honor. And y'know, it's odd, but I don't remember using what other people have allegedly stated to back up my points.

In the meantime I'll just note that if his tour's nearer its end than its beginning, I might have picked out some of his targets a while ago. Beep!

Anyway, I remember that you're incongruously proud of the fact that you possess the self-proclaimed attention span of a chihuahua, so I'll make this short and simple. Bullet points all right, old girl? Grand, here we go.

* Moslems are attacking us.

* Moslems value Mecca above all other sites.

* Providing Moslems with an object lesson illustrating exactly how much power is at our command, and then threatening the target to which they assign the highest value, would in theory deter future attacks.

* If attacks do occur anyway, either because they don't believe us or they don't care, the logical course of action is to destroy Mecca and train our sights on Medina.

* Then we inform every Moslem in the world that if the terrorists hit us again, their second most holy site goes boom.

You think maybe we'll have their attention by then?

You know, I bet that defiling the Church of the Nativity violated int'l law.

And you would be wrong. Good grief, am I the only one who's READ the UCMJ and Geneva? Am I the only one who has access to a miltary officer?

Mike, if you make a church a TARGET by putting soldiers in it, then it's fair game. If you BLOW UP an empty church to make a POINT then you just violated the law. What's been getting soldiers upset is when terrorists have been using mosques to protect themselves and soldiers STILL can't attack them because of political correctness.

Similarly, if Mecca was a center for terrorists, then you can bomb the place. If you're only going to bomb the place because it'll pi$$ the bad guys off, that's illegal.

I actually doubt he'd have a big problem finding people to do it.

As I'm sure plenty of people on this board know, my husband is a B-52 pilot. And he couldn't follow that order because it would be unlawful...unless the city in question was a strategic target.

Yes. Every single religious relic of theirs. Start targeting the less important sites, allowing the terrorists to get their 2 brain cells to connect the dots.

And...it's...against...the...law...to...do...that.

Do you know WHY they passed the Conventions?

To prevent armies from HIDING AMONGST THE POPULATION TO FIGHT.

They provide incentives (the treatment rules) to get them to follow the rules.

YES, Mike, I KNOW that. Why do you think it's so aggravating that, when terrorists are caught, they aren't being shot on sight (which the laws DO permit)? Why do you think the military is so ticked off about all the terrorist coddling? We SHOULDN'T be treating them like soldiers because they're NOT, but we also can't just treat them any way we want because we have RULES, even for unlawful combatants.

Later,
bbeck

"This thread is so strange. Does anyone think that pre-emptively nuking a few holy sites would actually stop these terrorists from using a nuke on us?"

No.

The issue under discussion is how we would react to a nuclear attack.

We are in a war of ideas, not weapons. That's what is wrong with bbeck's nuke'em approach. For an interesting perspective, see the latest Fareed Zakaria column here.

Oh, forgot this. Hope you haven't started looking around for shiny objects yet - I know that last post had a five-syllable word in it.

Sorry!

"Why don't you spend less time polishing your holier-than-everybody rhetoric and more time figuring out that you're dead wrong on the armed conflict laws?"

1. It doesn't take that much time, though I'm flattered that you think it does. Unless you're going by your standards, in which case I'm... well, not.

2. I really don't care to deal with rabid animals as I would with, y'know, actual people.

There, all done! Not too difficult for you to follow, I trust?

bbeck: "Similarly, if Mecca was a center for terrorists, then you can bomb the place."

[laughing helplessly]

You honestly think it isn't?

"You know, I bet that defiling the Church of the Nativity violated int'l law.

And you would be wrong. Good grief, am I the only one who's READ the UCMJ and Geneva? Am I the only one who has access to a miltary officer?"

Well, you clearly lack access to the Geneva Conventions. You've demonstrated that, clearly, more than a few times.

"Mike, if you make a church a TARGET by putting soldiers in it, then it's fair game."

You are aware that Muslim thugs stormed the church and took the CLERGY HOSTAGE, right? No "army" was in there until the Palestinians entered it and defiled it.

"If you BLOW UP an empty church to make a POINT then you just violated the law."

And if you use your mosques as a base to INITIATE attacks (where do you think attacks are PLANNED?), it's VERY fair game.

"Similarly, if Mecca was a center for terrorists, then you can bomb the place. If you're only going to bomb the place because it'll pi$$ the bad guys off, that's illegal."

Apparently, you're unaware of how Islamic terrorism is conducted.

"As I'm sure plenty of people on this board know, my husband is a B-52 pilot."

At the risk of being mean --- back up your OWN points. Don't sit there and constantly reference your husband because you are incapable of making a cogent point alone.

"Yes. Every single religious relic of theirs. Start targeting the less important sites, allowing the terrorists to get their 2 brain cells to connect the dots.

And...it's...against...the...law...to...do...that."

To paraphrase a comment heard elsewhere: Int'l law is not a suicide pact.

"YES, Mike, I KNOW that. Why do you think it's so aggravating that, when terrorists are caught, they aren't being shot on sight (which the laws DO permit)? Why do you think the military is so ticked off about all the terrorist coddling? We SHOULDN'T be treating them like soldiers because they're NOT, but we also can't just treat them any way we want because we have RULES, even for unlawful combatants."

And we're treating them EXCEPTIONALLY fairly.

Why don't we kill them on the spot? Because we need intel, that's why.
-=Mike

Insufficient.

Nice dodge! It still doesn't mean I was ONLY advocating a defensive position when I never was. Let's hope you pay attention this time...

How terrifying. :) Maybe you should ask him to come online and defend your honor.

The only thing in question is your understanding of military law.

And y'know, it's odd, but I don't remember using what other people have allegedly stated to back up my points.

Maybe if you did you'd be getting your facts right.

In the meantime I'll just note that if his tour's nearer its end than its beginning, I might have picked out some of his targets a while ago. Beep!

Eh, I doubt it. He works with people who know what they're doing.

Anyway, I remember that you're incongruously proud of the fact that you possess the self-proclaimed attention span of a chihuahua, so I'll make this short and simple.

No, I just know a waste of time and flesh when I read one. But, since I have you nailed on being wrong all over the place, I'll finish this one up. :)

*Moslems are attacking us.

Incorrect. Muslim extremists are attacking us.

* Moslems value Mecca above all other sites.

* Providing Moslems with an object lesson illustrating exactly how much power is at our command, and then threatening the target to which they assign the highest value, would in theory deter future attacks.

Even accepting such a theory, whether it would be "effective" or not is not the point. The point is that we CAN'T do that. If the terrorists want to move a cell or two there and make it a miltary target, then bombs away.

* If attacks do occur anyway, either because they don't believe us or they don't care, the logical course of action is to destroy Mecca and train our sights on Medina.

* Then we inform every Moslem in the world that if the terrorists hit us again, their second most holy site goes boom.

You think maybe we'll have their attention by then?

Attention? Maybe. A deterrence? No. Surrender? No. But we WOULD be in considerable legal trouble, which you're conveniently glossing over.

Now, do you have something NEW to add -- like finding out you're wrong about the aforementioned laws -- or are you going to continue regurgitating pablum that was already presented, bullet form or otherwise? I know full well what folks in this thread are advocating. I've just been saying that the US can't...do...that.

Later,
bbeck

I have to agree with bbeck. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me nuking Mecca would have any benefit. When she says it is not a center for terrorists, she means it is not a physical center, a base of operations with a concentrated force of terrorists. It holds no strategic value because destroying it would not significantly degrade the enemy's ability to function. If you think it would deter the enemy, just consider, as already discussed in this thread, how a group a people would react to one of their cities being wasted. They, like us, would be pissed, not deterred. Mind you, I don't care if they are pissed. The point is, if you cannot expect to degrade their physical force or will to fight, it is a wasted effort. I'm not prepared to thrash about with barbaric acts that do not provide a reasonable path to the desired outcome.

YES, Mike, I KNOW that. Why do you think it's so aggravating that, when terrorists are caught, they aren't being shot on sight (which the laws DO permit)? Why do you think the military is so ticked off about all the terrorist coddling? We SHOULDN'T be treating them like soldiers because they're NOT, but we also can't just treat them any way we want because we have RULES, even for unlawful combatants.

It's OK with me if we line them up against a brick wall and shoot them. That strategy actually kinda worked for the Nazis, and it could work for us.

But, the issue here is, do we nuke Mecca in retaliation for a dirty bomb in New York. I really hope we're smarter, and more moral, than that. If we're not, we really don't deserve to win the war.

"It still doesn't mean I was ONLY advocating a defensive position when I never was"

One more time -

bbeck @ 11:06 PM: "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US."

Does the word "ONLY" mean something different in your universe, darlin'? Because, as I've been saying, killing them first would also prevent them from getting a nuke into the US. And far more reliably to boot!

"I have you nailed on being wrong all over the place"

Discussion is so much more fun when you just declare victory and run away, isn't it? :D

"Incorrect. Muslim extremists are attacking us."

I'm sorry, I forgot you're getting your talking points from CAIR. They're just terrorists corrupting a religion of peace! It has NOTHING to do with Islam!

Apologies.

"we WOULD be in considerable legal trouble"

I suppose the Belgians would put us on trial.

"I've just been saying that the US can't...do...that."

...or France would stop us.

Terrifying!

bbeck @ 11:06 PM: "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US."

I don't take this to mean sitting at home in a defensive position and waiting for them to show up with a device. Bbeck has soundly backed aggressive action by our military and intelligence services, so why suddenly assume she would pussy out? I believe the point is that nuking Mecca will not, in and of itself, prevent an American city from being incinerated. With a billion+ Muslims spread out across the world and the extremists dispersed among them, why would destroying any one city directly prevent the loss of our own?

"nuking Mecca will not, in and of itself, prevent an American city from being incinerated... why would destroying any one city directly prevent the loss of our own?"

The point is, as stated several times earlier, to provide an object lesson. And if the so-called "moderate" Moslems really exist, perhaps they'll act against the terrorists once they see that we're going to keep going down the list until they're entirely exterminated. If they don't - oh well, no great loss.

Sorry, but "War on Terror" is a misnomer. This is a war of civilization against savages, and if the savages can't adapt, they'll cease to exist. That's just the way the world works.

Well, you clearly lack access to the Geneva Conventions. You've demonstrated that, clearly, more than a few times.

That's interesting, considering we're saying some of the EXACT SAME THINGS.

You are aware that Muslim thugs stormed the church and took the CLERGY HOSTAGE, right? No "army" was in there until the Palestinians entered it and defiled it.

Helloooo, Mike. When the thugs went in there, it was no longer protected.

And if you use your mosques as a base to INITIATE attacks (where do you think attacks are PLANNED?), it's VERY fair game.

Uh, yes, I KNOW that.

Apparently, you're unaware of how Islamic terrorism is conducted.

Apparently, you're not getting what people are advocating here. They're NOT saying, "Let's bomb these sites to take out terrorist cells," they're saying, "Let's bomb these sites because they're religious centers and they MEAN something to their religion." That's not the same thing at all.

At the risk of being mean --- back up your OWN points. Don't sit there and constantly reference your husband because you are incapable of making a cogent point alone.

Gee whiz, Mike, I'm sorry I have a quick, easy, and accurate reference living with me. I can check my facts with a stated question and/or an Internet search (and FYI, the Geneva protocols are online). You're just saying some of the same things I'm saying and then insulting me repeatedly for what we're BOTH saying, which is weird.

To paraphrase a comment heard elsewhere: Int'l law is not a suicide pact.

How quaint. Irrelevant, but quaint.

And we're treating them EXCEPTIONALLY fairly.

I agree.

Why don't we kill them on the spot? Because we need intel, that's why.

It's also because soldiers aren't being allowed to, but that's another subject.

Later,
bbeck

"You are aware that Muslim thugs stormed the church and took the CLERGY HOSTAGE, right? No "army" was in there until the Palestinians entered it and defiled it.

Helloooo, Mike. When the thugs went in there, it was no longer protected."

The thugs entered it illegally. You seem to be missing that there was NO military in the church until the subhuman terrorists decided to make it their base to attack Israelis.

Or --- are you implying that maybe, just maybe, int'l law might not slow down terrorists?

You know, in a war, you can't be utopian.

"Apparently, you're unaware of how Islamic terrorism is conducted.

Apparently, you're not getting what people are advocating here. They're NOT saying, "Let's bomb these sites to take out terrorist cells," they're saying, "Let's bomb these sites because they're religious centers and they MEAN something to their religion." That's not the same thing at all."

That's reason enough. Get the Muslims to stop one another, rather than having us do all of the work all of the time. A shockingly large percentage of Muslims have no problem with terrorism.

Why?

Because there's no personal backlash against them in supporting it.

So, GIVE them a backlash. Give them a reason to oppose it, since their joke of a religion clearly isn't going to provide one for them. Let these alleged moderate Muslims get up and do something, rather than criticizing us for doing more to salvage their sham of a faith than they ever have.

BTW, does anybody else thnk Islam is little more than a front for Saudi tourism? I mean, nobody would go to that hellhole if not for that black box. And Allah does sound a lot like "moolah".

Them Muslims are clever ones. Even Catholicism before the Reformation wasn't quite this good at bleeding money from its adherents.

"At the risk of being mean --- back up your OWN points. Don't sit there and constantly reference your husband because you are incapable of making a cogent point alone.

Gee whiz, Mike, I'm sorry I have a quick, easy, and accurate reference living with me."

One that, mind you, you cannot prove actually exists. Hate to be mean, but you keep referencing somebody else rather than making a point yourself.

If you can't back up your own points, at least link to some idiotic site that will back up your view. I'm sure there's one out there somewhere.

"Why don't we kill them on the spot? Because we need intel, that's why.

It's also because soldiers aren't being allowed to, but that's another subject."

And WHY aren't they being allowed to?

Because we need info.

Really, not that complex.

And, to give you a hint --- arguing "it's against international law" is as weak and meaningless as arguing "well, the space aliens said so".
-=Mike

Does the word "ONLY" mean something different in your universe, darlin'? Because, as I've been saying, killing them first would also prevent them from getting a nuke into the US. And far more reliably to boot!

I already corrected you on this, Megan, and the Dude above just did, too. You just keep wanting to ignore the sentence preceding that one of mine! That's because it proves you wrong. I never did advocate just sitting here, and we both know it. Deal.

Discussion is so much more fun when you just declare victory and run away, isn't it? :D

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to fix your statements regarding armed conflict laws. You, of course, are wagging the dog and have DROPPED that topic completely!

I'm sorry, I forgot you're getting your talking points from CAIR. They're just terrorists corrupting a religion of peace! It has NOTHING to do with Islam!Apologies.

Ah, an attempt at wit, to cover the fact that you were wrong. Sorry, Silly, not all Muslims are the enemy.

I suppose the Belgians would put us on trial.

It would more likely be our fellow Americans and they'd be right to do it.

...or France would stop us.

Or England. And/or Australia. And/or some of our actual allies. That may not mean much to you, though, but at least you've stopped declaring bombing holy sites is not against the law. I DO wonder why...

Later,
bbeck

"I never did advocate just sitting here"

Then I have no idea why you said playing defense was "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us." Because that sentence simply does not make sense.

"Hey, I'm still waiting for you to fix your statements regarding armed conflict laws."

Go back and find a line in one of my posts in which I even bothered to address that. :) I merely stated that the Geneva Conventions do not cover terrorists and left it at that. I can't "DROP" something I never picked up - because I never cared. Feel free to try again, though.

"not all Muslims are the enemy"

Nope, and the handful who aren't are welcome to move away from the terrorists and their supporters. The rest, I really don't care about. And their fanatical adherence to Islam DOES make them the enemy.

"It would more likely be our fellow Americans"

For ending terrorism? Laughable.

"at least you've stopped declaring bombing holy sites is not against the law"

What law?

Interestingly, it seems only Moslem holy sites get the benefit of this protection you're claiming. Funny how it didn't protect the Tomb of Rachel or the Church of the Nativity, isn't it?

Oh dear, but I forgot, Islam isn't the enemy!

Squawk! Islam peace! Islam peace! Squaaawk!

The thugs entered it illegally. You seem to be missing that there was NO military in the church until the subhuman terrorists decided to make it their base to attack Israelis.

Or --- are you implying that maybe, just maybe, int'l law might not slow down terrorists?

You know, in a war, you can't be utopian.

Yes, Mike, thank you, we ALL KNOW that TERRORISTS don't follow Geneva. That doesn't mean that WE are allowed to NOT follow it.

That's reason enough.

No, it's actually not. Such acts are specifically prohibited.

If you can't back up your own points, at least link to some idiotic site that will back up your view. I'm sure there's one out there somewhere.

Excuse me, but I don't see you providing any links to back up your position either. I tend not to provide links for 2 reasons: people I end up arguing with usually don't give a crap about FACTS so presenting them with websites is futile, and people should do their own homework. Hey, here's an idea: why don't YOU provide a link showing that the US gets to ignore things like the UCMJ and the laws of armed conflict and Geneva? Try Googling words like Geneva, Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc, and get all the info you want. You won't like what you find, though.

You could also go here and read about a certain Maj. Beck, but after all the fuss, I doubt you'll want to believe that's my husband.

And WHY aren't they being allowed to?

Because we need info.

Really, not that complex.

Uh, in case you haven't noticed, the liberals also have a big beef about killing them on the spot. It's a problem that's occurred because of the embedded reporters.

And, to give you a hint --- arguing "it's against international law" is as weak and meaningless as arguing "well, the space aliens said so".

I'll be sure to tell all the military people I'm "making up" they can ignore them, then. It's a real shame that space alien argument can't be used to keep the Abu Gharib soldiers out of prison.

Later,
bbeck

Gotta say, and this is probably way OT by now, but this analogy between muking Necca and the Church of the Nativity thing - hey now.

And the CoN thing was one of the first events that clued my former moonbat self in on the real deal.

But still. It ain't even in the same league. Maybe, maybe, maybe symbolically. Kind of. But nukes are sui generis.

"Yes, Mike, thank you, we ALL KNOW that TERRORISTS don't follow Geneva. That doesn't mean that WE are allowed to NOT follow it."

We are under NO obligation to follow it. We're facing a group who was not a signatory and who is not honoring it.

I'll try and make this simple:

The terrorists DON'T QUALIFY AS PROTECTED UNDER THE CONVENTIONS.

Seriously, this is a point you cannot win. Give it up now.

"Excuse me, but I don't see you providing any links to back up your position either."

I'm not pulling some possibly fictitious person out of my butt to back up my points.

"I tend not to provide links for 2 reasons: people I end up arguing with usually don't give a crap about FACTS so presenting them with websites is futile, and people should do their own homework."

Seeing as how you're not only wrong, but glaringly wrong, I'm not sure this is a minefield for you to cross.

"Hey, here's an idea: why don't YOU provide a link showing that the US gets to ignore things like the UCMJ and the laws of armed conflict and Geneva? Try Googling words like Geneva, Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc, and get all the info you want. You won't like what you find, though."

Again, you're missing the whole "the terrorists do not qualify as protected under the Conventions" thing. The Conventions are actually quite explicit as to who is covered.

"You could also go here and read about a certain Maj. Beck, but after all the fuss, I doubt you'll want to believe that's my husband."

You're confusing "not caring" for "caring".

"I'll be sure to tell all the military people I'm "making up" they can ignore them, then. It's a real shame that space alien argument can't be used to keep the Abu Gharib soldiers out of prison."

Apparently, you've missed that the Abu Gharib prisoners weren't tried under int'l law.

Nice try, though.

"Providing Moslems with an object lesson illustrating exactly how much power is at our command, and then threatening the target to which they assign the highest value, would in theory deter future attacks."

Yeah. In theory. It's a stupid fuckin' theory.

Look, Megan, I know you're a frequent poster and I'm rudely butting into a thread and all, but - what the hell is wrong with you? You're right-ish on the issues, but you have the most agressive and assholish tone this side of Cedarford.

If I'm out of line, everyone, I'm sorry. Won't happen again. And if the whole Megan-wrath thing has been dealt with before, sorry. I'm newer here.

"nukes are sui generis"

Of course; that's the point. A proportional response is worthless - ruthless escalation is the only humane approach.

Knemon began, needlessly apologetic: "I know you're a frequent poster and I'm rudely butting into a thread and all"

Oh, don't be silly. I don't care.

"what the hell is wrong with you?"

Well, I've spent the last decade watching thousands of my people get murdered by benighted, vicious savages who laud pedophilia, slavery, mutilation and rape as their religious duties, and I'm sort of tired of it. :) Nothing important.

"You're right-ish on the issues"

Thanks!

"but you have the most agressive and assholish tone this side of Cedarford."

Hey, at least I'm still on this side of Cedarford, right?

Let you in on a little secret. That's because I have a fresh pot of coffee next to me.

;)

"ruthless escalation is the only humane approach."

Now that's a statement I can get behind, sort of. If the circumstances we're discussing came to pass.

But at that point, it's sort of a fight for survival. bbeck's basic point seems to be that nuking Mecca would be a pointless diversion, since Mecca is in the middle of the (camel-)fucking desert. And that pointlessness makes it illegal - which may not be a concern by this hypothetical point, but it's still a waste of a nuke.

By all means, use whatever nukes you gotta use - to secure Hormuz, the Suez, etc. But stamping out Mecca, while it might make us feel good in the short run (and god knows nothing else will in this scenario), isn't really going to help us very much.

Mecca is the Vatican, if the Vatican were in the middle of the Australian Outback. What's this obsession with it as a target? Just ignore it and focus on the oil and the shipping routes.

And, uh, sorry for my own tone. That last post came out a little more forcefully than I had intended.

Then I have no idea why you said playing defense was "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us." Because that sentence simply does not make sense.

Welp, that's because you can't grasp context even after two people have corrected you.

Go back and find a line in one of my posts in which I even bothered to address that. :) I merely stated that the Geneva Conventions do not cover terrorists and left it at that. I can't "DROP" something I never picked up - because I never cared. Feel free to try again, though.

Hmm, said chihuahua-like memory comes to mind. If you look up -- and I'm sorry, you'll have to use CONTEXT -- you stated that, since Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists, then WE don't have to abide by it.

So, you DID say more about it than "Geneva Conventions do not cover terrorists" and leaving it at that.

That would be an oops for you. It doesn't matter if THEY don't abide by it, WE have to.

You can correct yourself on that anytime. I'll wait.

Nope, and the handful who aren't are welcome to move away from the terrorists and their supporters. The rest, I really don't care about. And their fanatical adherence to Islam DOES make them the enemy.

I sincerely doubt Muslims are going to start leaving their own holy sites. And I don't care that you don't care, they still can't be bombed because we feel like it.

For ending terrorism? Laughable.

Oh, so now it's not just a THEORY that these bombings would END terrorism (which even the most optimistic of us know won't happen), you can state it as fact! That may not be laughable, but it is pretty funny. And desperate.

What law?

The laws you said didn't exist but actually do. Really, pay attention.

Interestingly, it seems only Moslem holy sites get the benefit of this protection you're claiming. Funny how it didn't protect the Tomb of Rachel or the Church of the Nativity, isn't it?

Yeah, it's a shame that terrorists don't abide by Geneva, but that IS one of the reasons they're considered unlawful combatants.

Oh dear, but I forgot, Islam isn't the enemy!
Squawk! Islam peace! Islam peace! Squaaawk!

And she's LOSIN' it...but was there any doubt?

Later,
bbeck

"Mecca is the Vatican, if the Vatican were in the middle of the Australian Outback. What's this obsession with it as a target? Just ignore it and focus on the oil and the shipping routes."

What's the value of it?

Well, it's this:

We've been told, ad infinitum, that these enemies are not like any we fought before.

THUS, tactics unlike those we used before seem to be very much needed here.

If they aren't like normal enemies --- treating them as such seems counter-productive.

"Now that's a statement I can get behind, sort of. If the circumstances we're discussing came to pass.
But at that point, it's sort of a fight for survival."

Exactly! For some reason everyone seems to think I'm saying we should nuke Mecca NOW. Or tomorrow. Or something. Just because it's there.

But I'm not. I never have been. Go back up and look; it's not there. It was a straw man that certain people attempted to throw in my face, but I didn't say it.

Read my posts of July 26, 2005 @ 06:08 PM and 06:26 PM. You'll see I quite clearly said Mecca should be our SECOND target - after a terrorist attack of sizable significance, and of course after giving a standing warning of our intentions. (That would be the entire point of targeting it in the first place).

"sorry for my own tone. That last post came out a little more forcefully than I had intended."

No harm done. :) It's extraordinarily difficult to offend me.

By the way, Dude and Knemon, thank you.

Later,
bbeck

"you can't grasp context"

Sorry, a word like "ONLY" in all caps doesn't leave a whole lot of room for y'all to nuance it.

"since Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists, then WE don't have to abide by it"

Nope, we don't. Terrorists are the ones we're supposed to be fighting, remember? Why would you suddenly imagine I'm talking about the Chinese or the Russians, to take a random example? If you intend to wait for a mea culpa, I hope you have a lot of time on your hands. Right now it looks like you're just smoking something you probably shouldn't be.

"they still can't be bombed because we feel like it"

[blank look] I suppose we have to wait until they feel like it?

"so now it's not just a THEORY that these bombings would END terrorism... you can state it as fact"

Sure, I can state as fact that that would be the intent. You can't put people on trial for failing at something if you wouldn't try them had they succeeded.

"And she's LOSIN' it...but was there any doubt?"

I caught it from your "Moderate CAIR Moslem" cooties. Ah-choo!

Hey bbeck, are you on AIM?

Bored now. I guess I'll get a head start on this morning's reports.

[sigh]

...at least I still have coffee.

Megan, please tell me that you are a female.

After reading that exchange I am extremely turned on right now.

[curious look] You know a lot of guys named Megan?

The terrorists DON'T QUALIFY AS PROTECTED UNDER THE CONVENTIONS.

Seriously, this is a point you cannot win. Give it up now.

Seriously, this is a point I am NOT MAKING.

What is WRONG with you?

Unlawful combatants -- terrorists -- do not get POW status under Geneva, BUT their treatment is covered by Geneva, and WE have to abide by that whether they do or not. They're entitled to "humane" treatment. It's in the Fourth Convention, I think. Look it up.

I have ALSO been saying that WE have rules under the both the laws of armed combat and the UCMJ on how we treat terrorists, so it's not just Geneva we must abide by. This entire thread started with people talking about bombing Mecca because it's a holy site, and we CAN'T do that.

I'm not pulling some possibly fictitious person out of my butt to back up my points.

No, you're just pulling them out of your azz without help.

Seeing as how you're not only wrong, but glaringly wrong, I'm not sure this is a minefield for you to cross.

Easy to type, impossible to prove. Because you're wrong.

Again, you're missing the whole "the terrorists do not qualify as protected under the Conventions" thing. The Conventions are actually quite explicit as to who is covered.

Yes, EXACTLY! Thank you. Once again, you're saying the same thing I am.

You're confusing "not caring" for "caring".

HEY, thanks for proving that I was right to assume you don't care about facts.

Apparently, you've missed that the Abu Gharib prisoners weren't tried under int'l law.

Yet. Last I heard the UN is still considering charging them, but they may have dropped the idea by now. They WERE tried under the UCMJ, though, meaning, as I have been SAYING, terrorists DO get protection under our laws.

Later,
bbeck

;)

Sorry, a word like "ONLY" in all caps doesn't leave a whole lot of room for y'all to nuance it.

Since I already pointed out the entire context you insist on ignoring, I don't think it's nuance you're having a problem with, but being caught saying something stupid.

Nope, we don't.

Yep, we do.

Terrorists are the ones we're supposed to be fighting, remember? Why would you suddenly imagine I'm talking about the Chinese or the Russians, to take a random example? If you intend to wait for a mea culpa, I hope you have a lot of time on your hands. Right now it looks like you're just smoking something you probably shouldn't be.

Straw men, all in a row. You can twist and contort yourself all you want, but I'm not coddling anyone. I'm just telling you people who think bombing holy sites is a good idea are wrong on a legal and an effective standpoint.

[blank look] I suppose we have to wait until they feel like it?

When DON'T you have a blank look? Particularly when it comes to the laws I'm talking about. And I'm still waiting for you to correct yourself.

Sure, I can state as fact that that would be the intent. You can't put people on trial for failing at something if you wouldn't try them had they succeeded.

No, but you CAN put them on trial for breaking the law.

I caught it from your "Moderate CAIR Moslem" cooties. Ah-choo!

Interesting, since I don't have any. Sorry, Megan, just because I think this bombing idea is dumb, not to mention illegal, it doesn't put me on the side of the enemy.

I am frankly surprised at the resistance to the FACT that the US can't bomb a holy site solely for the purpose of proving a point. Any site has to be used for a military purpose before it can be considered a legitimate target. Civilian sites like churches, water treatment plants, schools...you can't take them out unless the enemy MAKES them a target by using the site for storage or a base of operations or some other strategic purpose. Once an enemy does that, then the locations can be attacked...and any innocent people who end up getting killed are to be blamed on the enemy who placed them in danger. And the laws were set up like that to try and deter the enemy from making civilian locations targets and trying to use civilians to protect themselves. Obviously, terrorists don't have a problem with turning civilian sites into targets...BUT saying that we should start nuking holy sites indiscriminately is not something the US can do.

Later,
bbeck

Hey bbeck, are you on AIM?

No, I got rid of it a while back. I never used it.

Later,
bbeck

Oh, and just to put a couple nails in the coffin of this idea we can bomb Mecca for the hecka because terrorists don't abide by any written rules, here's a site you may want to look at that gives a pretty good summary of what I've been saying:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Quoth the article:

"LOAC training is a treaty obligation of the United States under provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions."

LOAC is the Law of Armed Conflict which I cited earlier.

Another quoth:

"The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged. (Emphases added.)"

And:

"Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)."

And, as a special F-you to those who think international law is a pittance:

"Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law."

And NOWHERE does it state that the US is let out of its obligations to the LOAC or Geneva or the UCMJ because the Bad Guys Aren't Abiding.

Now, let's hope your conniptions cease.

Later,
bbeck

No one's going to be caring about the fucking Geneva Convention if Manhattan is a pile of radioactive rubble. What international law enforcers are people going to bitch to? The UN will be gone. (And even if they were somewhere else - what would they do? Shake their finger at the U.S.?)

But that makes me think -- no, let's not nuke Mecca in retaliation - let's hit Brussels. Just for sheer bloodymindedness.

Still, I think it's more likely that a nuke will be set off in Europe before NYC. The problem is procuring the materials to make the bomb... sure, one can get enough low level radioactive waste in the U.S. to make a dirty bomb, but one that actually has a nuclear chain reaction? Now, one can go on about the loose shit that is the ex-Soviet nuclear stockpile, but it seems to me that stuff isn't leaving the Euro-Asian area.

Hell, you're more likely to see a nuke go off in Saudi Arabia than NYC. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those jihadis decide to beat us to the punch and nuke Mecca themselves. The idea of a caliphate and a non-existent Israel is probably more important to them than Mecca.

Christ you people stay up late.

I agree with bbeck, and I'm an ass man. Go figure.

Seriously, threatening to escalate beyond the enemies capability is fine AFAIC, but only if there's strategic advantage in it. Just killing people isn't good enough.

The Moon God's got a point about Hewitt there on his high horse up there in Frozen Titsville. I'm not sure their freaking grain elevators are real high on the AQ target list.

I agree with bbeck, and I'm an ass man. Go figure.

I've got a nice rump, too.

And thank you, Sponge. I stayed up late 'cause I had a late nap, which is always a mistake.

Later,
bbeck

I would think in this context, a retalitory strike for a major terrorist action, it would make more sense to nuke Tehran or Riyadh than Mecca, after giving their populations a fair warning. At least then it would take out terrorist-manufacturing areas. Moslems only visit Mecca once or twice a year, so nuking Mecca would be more of a symbolic thing. The one good thing about Mecca as a target is that it would minimize collatteral damage, being in a desert, but I would be more worried about it inflaming things into a global holy war. But Mecca does inflame terrorist passions, so the argument can be made in that direction as well.

Just hope the day where this is anymore than an internet argument never comes.

Do you think that megan and bbeck's nipples got hard at the zenith of their argument? What do you think would happen if they were in a room and Karol was there giggling in her catholic school girl dress?(obviously we KNOW what Megan would want to happen).

It doesn't feel like murder to me if there is a strategic and/ot tactical reason to bomb a target. Obviously, we knew we were going to kill civilians at Hiroshima. If we KNOW obl is on a mountain in pakistan and we nuke it, kill him, some goats and goat herders is it illegal? Tragic maybe...but not illegal I think.

Do you think that megan and bbeck's nipples got hard at the zenith of their argument?

I dunno. Mine did.

Well, technically, I was asleep during the zenith of their argument. bbeck gets a hell of a lot more out of a nap than I do.

Ya know bbeck, I think Mr. bbeck is a lucky man. I really do. BUT God help him if he happens to be foolish enough to disagree with you - LOL! Last post @ 6:11 a.freaking.m.!? 'Nuff said.

Is there any way you can have the radio show as a Podcast?

bbeck: "I don't think it's nuance you're having a problem with, but being caught saying something stupid"

Nah. I wasn't the one who suggested that we have to play defense in order to survive.

"Yep, we do."

No we don't times infinity +1

"I'm not coddling anyone"

awww, and here I thought we had something special!

"bombing holy sites is... wrong on a legal... standpoint."

Better call my lawyer!

"saying that we should start nuking holy sites indiscriminately is not something the US can do"

Oh, not indiscriminately, certainly. I'm pretty focused on Moslem holy sites. :)

"No, I got rid of [AIM] a while back. I never used it"

Shucks. I was bored last night :(

"NOWHERE does it state that the US is let out of its obligations to the LOAC or Geneva or the UCMJ because the Bad Guys Aren't Abiding"

From the 3rd Geneva Convention, Article 4 Section 1.2, specifying whom the rules apply to:

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

I'm curious, which exactly of the above criteria do you believe terrorists fulfill?

None? Why yes! Bzzt! Geneva doesn't apply. Can we move on now?

"let's hope your conniptions cease"

Oh, I promise you they shall - probably a short while after your apologetics on behalf of our enemies.

Cheers!

spongeworthy: "threatening to escalate beyond the enemies capability is fine AFAIC, but only if there's strategic advantage in it"

As noted above, the advantage inherent in targeting Mecca would be to finally give the so-called "moderate" Moslems a self-interested reason to turn on their jihadi confederates. If they turn on us instead, whoops! There goes one holy site, want to spin the wheel and try for another?

They're crazy and they're evil, and as bbeck rarely tires of repeating, they don't think like us so it's HOPELESS TO TRY TO FIGHT THE FANATICAL MOSLEM WARRIORS blahblahblah, but (I hope) they aren't completely fucking retarded.

Show them a cause and effect chain even a dead fish could grasp and we might start seeing some results.

RedBeer: "What do you think would happen if they were in a room and Karol was there giggling in her catholic school girl dress?"

I'd have found better things to do halfway through the beginning of my second post. :)

So this is all Karol's fault, if you examine the facts objectively.

"But, the issue here is, do we nuke Mecca in retaliation for a dirty bomb in New York. I really hope we're smarter, and more moral, than that. If we're not, we really don't deserve to win the war." - mm

More moral than what? The people who just nuked New York? Why should we want to be more moral than them? And what are we supposed to do if New York is nuked? Ask 'what did we do wrong? Surrender? Or fight back (with Mecca being a possible but not necessarily an actual target).

We didn't start this fight, but we have to win it.

However, if mm and all his friends in the Code Pink crowd with their narcissic concerns about making sure we are 'moral enough' have their way, we will lose and deserve to.

PS - mm is not Cedarford - even C isn't dumb enough to write what I've quoted.

PPS - I read somewhere that Cedarford isn't ace either, but ace's big sister.

brak: "The one good thing about Mecca as a target is that it would minimize collatteral damage, being in a desert"

Meh, if you insist. I was hoping to press the button during their haj rush.

max: "More moral than what? The people who just nuked New York? Why should we want to be more moral than them?"

In our immediate actions, I presume you mean. I trust you're not thinking along the lines of Michael "If [we nuke Mecca], we really don't deserve to win the war" Meyers. (July 27, 2005 02:20 AM)

That kind of crap just makes me shake my head in disbelief.

This discussion, and the previous one in the comments for Worst Bombings In Egypt In A Decade are deeply disturbing. The insistence on conflating Islamist extremism with the Muslim world and the resulting arguments for nuking Mecca, or any city for that matter, in response to the nuking of US cities is childish, irresponsible and counterproductive. Please, again, let it sink in that over half the world's Muslims live in non-Middle East/South Central Asian countries. That even in ME/SCA countries the support for terror is well below 50%, with the apparent exception of Jordan, even if those societies are not as pro-active in searching out the terror supporters in their midst as we would like. But the suggestions bruited about in this Blog that we should in fact declare total war on Islam will do nothing to make us safer, on the contrary it will simply bring the rest of the Islamic world into the conflict and confirm that the Islamists were correct in framing this as a war between Islam and the West. This would be stupid beyond comprehension.

I suggest reading this Belmont Club post regarding Oriana Fallaci, who advocates the same kind of anti-Islam pogrom that many of you seem to favor.

Regarding BBeck and her proposition that, "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US." This is tautological and in no way advocates that we must ONLY play defense. BBeck is quite clear and correct in arguing that to avoid being nuked we must do what it takes to prevent a nuke from entering the country, and this means playing both defense (screening container cargo, securing world wide nuclear material, etc.) AND offense (infiltrating terror organization, killing terror organization members, destroying terror organization infrastructure, etc.). That this got argued is also quite disturbing.

Megan,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I was appalled at what Michael Meyer wrote.

Nuking Mecca in response to New York being nuked may or may not be the right thing to do; however to assert as mm did that we would be acting immorally and deserve to lose if we did so under those circumstances is the most disgusting thing I have ever read at Ace of Spades.

"This discussion, and the previous one in the comments for Worst Bombings In Egypt In A Decade are deeply disturbing...
That this got argued is also quite disturbing."

Cool. :) See, we should print Ace's comments threads and drop them all over the Middle East, rather than those silly "The US is your friend!" leaflets. I'm all for "disturbing" a great many more people; the world needs a hard slap in the face.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of Oriana Fallaci! God, I love that lady. Totally class act.

Max,

Ah, good, then we're in perfect agreement.

FYI - Mecca is actually in the Hijaz, one of the few non-desert areas of the Arabian peninsula. Riyadh, OTOH, is smack dab in the middle of the peninsula and so in the middle of the desert.

Hey, I'm not picky, vonK. Either or.

"You gotta nuke sumfin'."
- The Simpsons

I am ALL FOR making a big smokin' hole out of a city full of terrorists. That's been my husband's job for the last 18 years and he wouldn't hesitate to take out a strategic site (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were).

Wait. Bbeck is a girl?!?

"You gotta nuke sumfin'."
- The Simpsons

This is exactly right; to nuke an Islamic city for whatever reason is an idea right out of Homer Simpson's brain.

We were all shocked, Karol. It's okay.

Actually, vonK, it was Nelson. :) Not Homer.

The problem is are we at war with Islam? Of course, right now, we are only at war with the fanatics. Supposedly. How do you fight a war against a religion? You crush it, thoroughly. That's what the Muslims did to the Christians in North Africa. And they only way they were stoppped was beating them in merciless battle. Of couse, that was hundreds of years ago. Now Muslims are spread across the world. I don't know where I'm going with this, but it seems that nuking Mecca would either turn all Muslims against us and result in a global war, or would make them wake up and have the moderates among them purge the jihadists. Unfortunately, I think it serving as a wake-up call is giving them too much credit.

"Unfortunately, I think it serving as a wake-up call is giving them too much credit."

Brak, agreed. But what are the options? We might not be supposed to admit it or talk about it but we ARE at war with Islam. The "moderate" Moslems excuse, equivocate, and ignore at best; conceal, support, and finance at worst. Pretending that we have allies where we don't is delusional; denying that people who danced in the streets on 9/11 are our enemies is ridiculous.

I'm done saying "pretty please stop killing us."

"to nuke an Islamic city for whatever reason is an idea right out of Homer Simpson's brain."

No one is talking about doing it on a whim. I realize that this is a long thread, but, the conditions--after a nuking/detonation of a dirty bomb of an American city--have been laid out time and again here.

Juliette - I recognize the premise and attempted to address it with, "...for whatever reason...". Nuking Mecca, or any city, no matter how horrific the terrorist provocation would be incomprehensively stupid. It's not like we don't have many other means of retaliation, means that have a hope of actually being effective. To nuke in response to being nuked would, among other things, negate the horror the world would feel at our being nuked and thus negate the support and cooperation that we would receive in implementing other, effective, means of responding to our holocaust.

"To nuke in response to being nuked would, among other things, negate the horror the world would feel"

Jesus. CHRIST. That should be our main objective then, should it? MAINTAIN THE HORROR THE WORLD WOULD FEEL.

You complete fucking idiot.

10 million casualties, hypothetically, the complete destruction of at least one city and the irradiation of hundreds of miles, and you liberals will STILL be worrying about world opinion.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Whn would you suggest we do use nuclear weapons then? Are they just there to say we have them, just to serve as a threat? If we were nuked, hitting back in kind would and should be an option. What if they have more nuclear bombs? I don't care so much about the world's sympathies arguments, obviosly terrorists nuking a civillain target would obviously generate sympathies, and to those it didn't, they are scum anyway.

negate the horror the world would feel at our being nuked and thus negate the support and cooperation that we would receive in implementing other, effective, means of responding to our holocaust

Not engaging in the argument, others have covered both sides a plenty, but who gives a shit about this?

"We Are All Americans Now, er, again. For A Few Weeks Anyway"

Megan, have you ever known a Muslim? I've known a handful over the years and they have been decent, hardworking people and as far removed from the terrorist extremists as possible. If any of their holy sites are attacked, without a clear military target in site, you ask them to choose between their religion and this country. You create enemies out of reasonable people. The same sort of reasonable people we are hoping will rebuild Iraq and overthrow regimes in Syria and Iran. You casually dismiss any concerns over the all out war with Islam that would be provoked by attacking Mecca as well as the subsequent loss of life on both sides. Revenge is nice, sometimes, but I'd much prefer to pursue an end to the conflict. Certainly achieving that end will require violence, but it need not be indiscriminate. It must be focused to reach the goal of a stable world and a safer America. I understand that you suggest this action only after a nuclear attack on the US, but you have failed to show how it would help. You call it an object lesson, but who will learn anything from it? Extremists will remain extremists and moderates would most likely begin to join them, not turn against them. You are advocating a nuclear tantrum that would expand the conflict on a massive scale and that is disturbing.

Oh, and as for the "HORROR." Thousands of Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9/11. Tens of thousands of Arabs celebrated openly. If we're nuked, every Palestinian alive will be delirious with glee and hundreds of millions of Arabs will be cheering for the next week if not the whole fucking year. The French will tell us we brought it on ourselves and everyone else will caution us to make sure innocent moderate Moslems don't suffer a BACKLASH at the hands of us evil racist Americans.

The horror. Don't fucking make me laugh.

Wait. Bbeck is a girl?!?

Well, that's been debated. It is fair to say that based on some of her comments, she does appear to have a penis ; )

"Megan, have you ever known a Muslim?"

Yep, lived in Pakistan for 4 years, Malaysia for 2.

"You create enemies out of reasonable people"

Reasonable people should understand that you push hard enough and we'll push back. They'll decry the terrorists and the so-called "moderates" who left us no choice and they won't blame us.

At least, that's true of the handful of Moslems I'm willing to meet on occasion. Don't know what sort you hang out with.

To nuke in response to being nuked would, among other things, negate the horror the world would feel at our being nuked and thus negate the support and cooperation that we would receive in implementing other, effective, means of responding to our holocaust.

Yes, wouldn't want to squander all the goodwill they feel for us.

9/11, right after they said 'Our Condolences,' the world kicked us in the ass and said we had it coming.

The Europeans' traditional response to holocaust is underwhelming at best. At worst, they commit atrocities of their own because they think nobody's looking.

They arent going to help us, and they will chuckle over the pictures of death and gore in their newspapers, just like they did in the cafes of Paris on 9/12/01.

There is no international goodwill, there is only national interest.

If we did go berserker, the 'international community' will lick our ass, like they do to all the freaks they fear.

9/11, right after they said 'Our Condolences,' the world kicked us in the ass and said we had it coming.

No, the world was very supportive and cooperative with our war on terrorists UNTIL we insisted on conflating that conflict with our long standing grudge agains Saddam AND our refusal to allow the international community to have any actual say in our invasion of Iraq. And yet still France, that's right the fucking French, continue to be one of our best and most effective partners in actually combating terrorists!

I am not arguing that we should consider the impact on world opinion because it is world opinion. I'm arguing for EFFECTIVE responses to terrorism instead of stupid responses. We should consider world opinion because we cannot actually win the war on terrorists without world cooperation. Duh.

Yeah, we heard about the global test already. Sorry. Not buying.

Laura and Megan - Are you arguing that we can, and perhaps even should, fight the war on terrorists by ourselves? That the goodwill and cooperation of other nations is not valuable in our fight?

Yes.

And now I'm going to eat my Cocoa Puffs.

Well, actually, I think they will help us only to the degree that it is in their national interests- like your example with France. They are fucking lousy with vermin. They have to do something.

Duh.

Well, I'm glad you included that non-condescending word, so that an idiot such as I could understand you better.
BTW, it wasn't merely a grudge against Hussein.

He was in violation of the terms of his surrender, for 17 years. In hindsight, we should have gone in the very first time he violated his agreement, the very first time he shot at our aircraft.

The Food for Oil scandal should educate you as to the reason that 'world opinion' was against the invasion. We have found them out. You may not have heard about the Ol for Food scandal if you were watching the MSM.

As far as giving them a say in the invasion; when we have a say about whether or not the Sudanese can slaughter each other, or whether France can build a nuclear reactor in Iraq, or whether Putin and his goons can all but erase the democratic process in Russia, and when these disapproving little countries stop sucking our tit, or when they become US citizens, then they can have a say.

France is effective in fighting terrorism, again, because it is in their national interest. They have allowed a violent ring of Islamic neighborhoods to sprout up in their capital, and they are sitting ducks.

Last post was me.

Frankly, at this point, I'm somewhat annoyed that other countries still exist in the first place. The world ends at the borders of the United States, and the sooner everyone else realizes and accepts that the better. They continue to live at our pleasure.

We've taken massive amounts of shit from foreigners over the last few decades. Enough is enough.

Ok, so we don't need to take the opinion of other nations into account in fighting our war on terrorists. Now, how do we base our troops? How do we gain intel from other sources? How to do we fly our planes and sail our ships to various areas of operaton? How do we gain access to terror suspects held by other countries? How do we get help in funding, or even cooperating in our occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and future operations?

How do we continue to import oil? How do we export goods? How do we get the Chinese to contine to fund our debt?

No man, or for that matter nation, is an island even if actually on an island.

LOL!

Yeah. The other countries are all like, "I'm a person!"
And we're like "No way, you retard!"
And y'know. It was cool.

Same way we do it now, VonK. What would change? Terrorists threaten all of civilization. If its in their national interest, we share intel and resources. If its not, we pay them. Exactly the way we have always done it.
Countries don't have friends. Never have, never will, regardless of what conflicts are occurring.

vonK,

How about this:

"Do what we tell you or we'll blow you to hell."

"Okay."

Problem solved.

Laura's being all reasonable and stuff. :/ Spoiling my fun.

Well, we can always fall back on my proposal if her approach doesn't work with someone.

"How do we get the Chinese to contine to fund our debt?"

Are you channeling cedarford?

"Take this money and let we do what we want or we call Megan."

Laura - But the way we do it now does not have the US in the position of having nuked a city recently. I expect that the willingness to cooperate would plummet.

Megan - Right, we go to war with the world; not just terrorist, not just the Islamic world, but the world. Yeah, that'll work.

"we go to war with the world; not just terrorist, not just the Islamic world, but the world. Yeah, that'll work."

I think most of the rest of the world isn't quite that suicidal, actually.

Brew - Nope. Are you channeling an ostrich?

See:
Bloomberg: China held $243.5 billion of Treasury securities in May, up from $72.5 billion five years earlier, according to U.S. government data.

CSMonitor: The peg also contributed to an out-of-sight US trade deficit - now 7 percent of the American gross national product - which has made the US vulnerable to foreigners, including the Chinese government, buying and selling that US debt.

Forbes: Treasurys extended their losses into a fifth week as investors mulled foreign demand for US debt and gauged the US economy's strength. ... China is the second-largest foreign holder of US debt, behind Japan.

"Take this money and let we do what we want or we call Megan."

"Yeah, Laura's a nice girl. Real nice. Sweet personality, great legs. I know you liked dealing with her. Real charmer, Laura. Gets along great with people, always willing to cut you a fair deal. Me, I'm not so nice. I don't like to talk so much. I don't do good talking. The way I see it you got to make up your mind 'cause I got a lot to do today and I can't spend all morning with you. But you and me, we can come to an agreement together. We'll send you some nuclear material and some advanced technology in exchange for what you're offering. Might be coming in at about 20 thousand miles per hour though so you'll want to set up a net... oh, you want to talk to Laura now? You sure? All right then. I'll go tell Laura. We won't be having this conversation again real soon, will we? Good, good. You be nice to Laura now."

WHAT IS WORSE?

Nuking Mecca as a response?

Or Tehran?

In other words, are you more worried about offending Muslims and their crooked beliefs than your own moral beliefs about killing lots more innocent people?

Well if we nuke China we don't have to worry about that debt.

I'm joking, FWIW.

More people who like us in Tehran, at any rate.

vonK, I was just kidding. Should have used a smiley. But, as long as you asked, what difference does it make how many t-bills the Chinese buy? It seems the risk is on their side, not ours.

brak perspicaciously noted: "Well if we nuke China we don't have to worry about that debt."

Hey, there's a thought. Since we're due to be at war with them in a decade or so anyway. This could work out pretty well. Good thinking! I'll pass it along.

"I'm joking, FWIW."

...oh

"Hey, there's a thought. Since we're due to be at war with them in a decade or so anyway"

Depends on who is President when they invade Taiwan. If its Hillary! there won't be a war, just focus groups to find out why the Chinese hate us so much.

I doubt it'll be over Taiwan.

But the way we do it now does not have the US in the position of having nuked a city recently. I expect that the willingness to cooperate would plummet.

Are you shitting me?? LOL
They'd be bowing and scraping and sending fucking bouquets and asking us for our opinion on what to do with their economies.

Please! I hate to say it, but you are thinking like an American. European nations don't kick crazy-ass aggressor nations around, they sign treaties and set up generous trade deals.

They kick us around because they think we are a big overfed, dumb, happy non-agressive dog. That's right, even with the current war- they think of us as essentially NON-aggressive in nature.

If you had to live on a continent that houses Germany or Turkey or Russia or Syria, you'd think the same thing too.

If it's Hillary! then she'll be decorating the WH with items from Chinese donations

Addressing Ace, who just bumped our thread and noted its drift:

"I really wouldn't want to see the US become a terrorist power, attacking civilian targets to terrorize a billion people."

They started it. I don't consider terrorizing terrorists to be an immoral or even questionable act.

"you can't threaten to destroy what you've already destroyed"

Right now you pansies aren't even willing to do THAT. Can we get the ball rolling on threatening Mecca and Medina first? Then I'll worry about not being able to destroy them again, like you're so concerned about.

"Not only does doing that [destroying Mecca] play into the terrorists' hands"

OK, I'm getting tired of this meme.

"They WANT this to be a war of civilizations! They WANT to set us against all Moslems! We can't afford to do ANYTHING to offend the Moslems because THAT'S WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT!"

Newsflash, Sparky:

Most Moslems are either against us or can't be bothered to care. Therefore, I consider all Moslems enemies until they prove otherwise. You don't like it, they don't like it - they should've helped out sooner.

It already is a war of civilization against savagery. Pick a side and stop being so damned finicky. You should know by now that the real terrorists won't be.

...

I just realized that everything I said immediately above was proven in articles Ace cited or arguments he made himself.

Weird.

Do you think that megan and bbeck's nipples got hard at the zenith of their argument?

I dunno. Mine did.

Well, technically, I was asleep during the zenith of their argument. bbeck gets a hell of a lot more out of a nap than I do.

*snicker*

I figured someone would be coming along and making catfight-like arguments. I think this pretty well demonstrates, tho, why I rarely, RARELY bother to argue with stupid people.

Later,
bbeck

And no one laughed at my "bad cop" schtick.

Now I'm depressed.

:(

"I think this pretty well demonstrates, tho, why I rarely, RARELY bother to argue with stupid people."

Because you hate losing? :)

I think that nuking Mecca would be pretty dumb. Why do that when you can use conventional (or nuclear) weapons against the ACTUAL terrorists and their state sponsors, as opposed to a symbol cherished by hundreds of millions of actual and potential U.S. allies worldwide, as well as a fair number of U.S. citizens?

You would have a blowback like you wouldn't believe, and wouldn't accomplish anything positive. No terrorists would be killed, and no one is going to stop being Muslim just because an earthly shrine is destroyed. Would non-Israeli Jews stop being Jewish if Israel was wiped out?

In short, why not aim our nukes and daisy cutters at actual enemy targets?

'Cause Moslems are the enemy.

Gee, I could keep doing this all day long.

Regarding BBeck and her proposition that, "The ONLY way to keep terrorists from bombing us is to keep them from getting a nuke into the US." This is tautological and in no way advocates that we must ONLY play defense. BBeck is quite clear and correct in arguing that to avoid being nuked we must do what it takes to prevent a nuke from entering the country, and this means playing both defense (screening container cargo, securing world wide nuclear material, etc.) AND offense (infiltrating terror organization, killing terror organization members, destroying terror organization infrastructure, etc.). That this got argued is also quite disturbing.

I didn't find it disturbing but I DID find it moronic.

Later,
bbeck

Wait. Bbeck is a girl?!?

Well, that's been debated. It is fair to say that based on some of her comments, she does appear to have a penis ; )

lol. Yeah, it's at work at the moment attached to my "fictional" husband. Geez, the DUMB things people say when they're losing an argument...

Later,
bbeck

"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked."
- Proverbs 29:27

And the above would've been from me. No charge!

We laughed Megan, but there's no follow-up.

Okay. [g]

How about hitting Pyongyang as a head fake?

For all we know, the nukes will be coming from North Korea... then maybe it will be Seattle in ashes.

I still say that Mecca is more likely to be nuked by the jihadis than by the U.S. The ultimate in suicide bombing, and they'll say the U.S. did it.

The more this goes on, with the jihadis holing up in mosques and indiscriminately killing the infidels and Muslims alike, you get the feeling this isn't about religion, but about power. They want that caliphate, which wasn't exactly religious when it did exist.

And no one laughed at my "bad cop" schtick.

Oh heck, I thought it was funny. I just didn't see it coming. Up to that point, it was an intense, hotly contested debate. I wasn't ready for you to switch modes.

It was kinda like, watching a lion tearing into the carcass of his freshly dead gazelle for a half hour, and suddenly his head pops up and he says "you know what? I think I'd like a salad too"!

Meep, I wouldn't have an objection to hitting Pyongyang either. I'm easy to please.

not to imply bbeck was a dead gazelle - it just made my salad line work better.

I don't do this for a living.

Dave, problem is, everyone else seems to takes shit like this super-seriously and gets all personal. I'll make serious arguments and I'll advance them seriously but if bbeck had been on AIM last night I was hoping we could chat about coffee brands while we were posting to each other. [shrugs] Some people get het up real easy, unfortunately. Pity - she was holding her own initially.

Despite finding religion, and particularly Islam, to be pretty stupid myself, you have some incredibly doltish views, Megan. All Muslims are the enemy? My, I'm sure some of the fine Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would be surprised to learn this!

Regarding the numerous mentions of the possible size of a nuclear weapon used against us and the amount of damage it would do: I've read within the last few months that the new thinking is that the way scarce weapons-grade fuel would be used would be to lay down a pattern of small nukes in preference to a single, larger one. For those who've retained a bit of high school or college physics, the preferability of a number of small nukes is a consequence of the inverse-square law, that is a consequence of the fact that the destructive energy of a single explosion would decline, not in proportion to the distance from "ground zero," but in proportion to the square of the distance. So if New York is ever nuked at all, it's likely to be a cluster nuking.

Another consideration is the likelihood of blackmail: "We have nukes hidden in a number of your cities. See? Here are the photos of them, taken in their undisclosed locations. Now do as we say, and no one will be hurt this week, insh'allah. Hand over the blasphemous pundit 'Allah' and we will torture him as you did our people in your 'Gitmo.' We will start by having Redsugar Muse do a lapdance on his naked body while we play Christina Aguilera." I think we would hand Allah over. But they'd be back the next week with a new demand.

"All Muslims are the enemy? My, I'm sure some of the fine Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would be surprised to learn this!"

Then reread my posts above, Midge: I've said, numerous times, that I don't think they're irredeemable or should be shot on sight. In fact I've used the words to the effect of "should be so considered until proven otherwise" numerous times.

Like it or not, the ones on our side are FAR outnumbered by the ones who, to one degree or another, aren't.

After skimming the comments a little more closely, I'm no longer sure Megan was being serious.

My sincere apologies if I missed the joke, but I think some slack should be given what with the enormous size of this thread (hey, there's over 250 posts, so it's hard to find the joke's set-up).

I thought it was pretty clear where I was being serious and where I wasn't. :P

Nah. I wasn't the one who suggested that we have to play defense in order to survive.

Neither was I. You've now had THREE people tell you you're wrong on this one.

No we don't times infinity +1

Mathematically, that's undefined. Intellectually, yeah, that's about right for you.

awww, and here I thought we had something special!

Yay, another dodge.

Better call my lawyer!

PLEASE call someone to explain it to you.

Oh, not indiscriminately, certainly. I'm pretty focused on Moslem holy sites. :)

I see no evidence of any real focus.

Shucks. I was bored last night :(

I was bored with you, too.

Now, as for stating information from the THIRD Convention in response to THIS...

"NOWHERE does it state that the US is let out of its obligations to the LOAC or Geneva or the UCMJ because the Bad Guys Aren't Abiding"

...I just have to say you're still an idiot. First, I already pointed out to Mike that he needed to look in the FOURTH Convention, which states:

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be."

Why, there it is.

The Third Protocol Deals with POWs and the Fourth deals with prisoners who don't fall in the POW category. However, we HAVE been treating them like POWs and that is WRONG.

So, terrorists ARE covered but not in the way liberals are insisting they are. There's another oops for you.

And second, as I have ALREADY said and pointed out that the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES we abide by Geneva and the LOAC, that it does not matter if the terrorists aren't abiding by these rules. WE still have to...which means, as the argument started out, that we CAN'T target their holy sites for the purpose of making a point. It's against the international law we are legally bound by whether the terrorists recognize that law or NOT.

So, to say that terrorists aren't covered by Geneva is both WRONG and a straw man argument, the former because they ARE, and the latter because WE are.

Oh, I promise you they shall - probably a short while after your apologetics on behalf of our enemies.

Then quite obviously your conniptions aren't going to cease.

Later,
bbeck

Oh, and Midge -

As for some of the "fine Moslems" serving in our armed forces, much though I love and adore our military people - following the grenade attack in Iraq, the "kidnapped" Marine who broke parole, &c, not to mention all the Moslem chaplains it turns out are being sponsored and recommended to the US Army and other branches by radical extremist groups... well, you'll forgive me if I'm more wary of the Moslems who serve, as well, until it's established that their credentials are extensive and impeccable.

It was kinda like, watching a lion tearing into the carcass of his freshly dead gazelle for a half hour, and suddenly his head pops up and he says "you know what? I think I'd like a salad too"!

Well, we all have our little metaphors. Right now, you look an awful lot like the cheerleader for a losing team, Dave.

Later,
bbeck

Presumably Ace's argument for nuking innocent Muslims belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the predatory imperialist aims outlined by the crypto-fascist Project for a New American Century. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the unstated purpose of this war brings about an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a minority of warmongers and apologists represents the repudiation of international law in order to bring about the police state which has come to pass. Clearly, the appropriation of Arab resources is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the essential Western imperial interests.

Megan: "Oh, I promise you [my 'conniptions'] shall [cease] - probably a short while after your apologetics on behalf of our enemies."

bbeck: "Then quite obviously your conniptions aren't going to cease."

Baffling that you'd actually admit that. And you're supposed to be married to a USAF officer? Huh.

Hey July your comment would make more sense if you put a name to it. Well, maybe not.

bbeck sniped: "Right now, you look an awful lot like the cheerleader for a losing team, Dave"

Oh, leave other people out of it, for chrissakes. He said he wasn't casting you in any particular role in his "metaphor." I don't need cheerleaders and I don't need help and you ought to stick to the points without wandering all over the place, never even bothering to be consistent from post to post. You're always thanking someone for leaping to your defense or relying on someone else's authority or bitching at anyone who doesn't agree with your pompous directives from on high or admiring your breasts or your ass or whatever. Have you ever even tried to formulate and defend an argument on your own? Jesus.

nuking Mecca or Media seems awfully counterproductive ... but you can't threaten to destroy what you've already destroyed.

Well put ACE. In case we are nuked by a terrorist group, we need to be prepared to nuke somewehere though. I would suggest that we hold the governments who sponsor terrorism as the very first target, particulary those countries and cities the terrorists last passed through on the way to the US. ANd we need to let the whole world know about it beforehand. They'd be a lot less willing to support or look the other way if they knew that they faced certain immolation for it. And we shouldn't have to prove we were right about it all either. It is far more important that we hold somebody accountable than we do nothing because we don't have 100% certainty. This would make the rogue states even more uneasy about sponsoring terrorism.

MAD was a powerful tool during the cold war and as close as we ever came, we haven't yet had a nuclear war.

If the worse should happen, and a terrorist power or state obtain a nuclear weapon and threaten to use it on (or actually detonate it in) a US city, we're going to have to threaten something extreme.

It's nice to see where Ace is coming down on this.

I agree completely, and what we should threaten -- or in fact, actually do -- is something that is both effective and within the laws of combat.

Later,
bbeck

$0.02...

I've always proposed the Kaiser Sose (The Usual Suspects) method. If you recall, Kaiser Sose killed his own family and one of their attackers after they were defiled. He sent the remaining attacker back to their bosses to tell him what he had done. Kaiser Sose then went about taking his revenge on the bosses, their families, and anyone else connected.

Hence, forget Mecca and Medina... Nuke Paris!

Baffling that you'd actually admit that. And you're supposed to be married to a USAF officer? Huh.

Gee, Megan, I knew you were stupid, but I REALLY didn't think my last comment would zing over your head that badly! Your conniptions won't cease because I won't be doing any apologizing. Get it?

Oh, leave other people out of it, for chrissakes. He said he wasn't casting you in any particular role in his "metaphor." I don't need cheerleaders and I don't need help and you ought to stick to the points without wandering all over the place, never even bothering to be consistent from post to post. You're always thanking someone for leaping to your defense or relying on someone else's authority or bitching at anyone who doesn't agree with your pompous directives from on high or admiring your breasts or your ass or whatever. Have you ever even tried to formulate and defend an argument on your own? Jesus.

Wow, ALL that and not a PEEP about getting busted for citing the wrong Geneva Protocol! LOL.

Why aren't you addressing the facts I just gave you? Why aren't you addressing the fact that we can't bomb holy sites?

Dave can take care of himself. I got the humor in his post and I hope he got mine...which was meant to be at your expense, not his.

Your argument doesn't need a cheerleader right now, Megan, it needs a coffin. :)

Later,
bbeck

Y'all be sure to read this.

it was just a bad joke bbeck, didn't mean anything by it. I'm not prepared to endorse Megan's suggestion in this thread, and I agree with your point on illegal orders.

I've been thinking about it in the context of what constitutes real deterrence (which worked against nation-states quite well). I think 72 is on to something when he suggests making the threat real to state sponsors, but like Megan has pointed out that threat doesn't cower the enemy, just his hidey-hole and money. It isn't enough to keep them from acting.

We were willing to crush an enemy 50 years ago largely because 1) we didn't have 24x7 media reports showing the horrors of bombing Dresden (although Ernie Pyle's haunting stories made what our boys were enduring very real - the one about Captain Eddie Waskow - who is from a town very close to my own - was heartbreakingly real), 2) nuclear weapons were built and used without any public awareness, and even after the public had difficulty comprehending the nature of the beast, and 3) even though we had German, Italian and Japanese Americans in the US, we weren't particularly sympathetic toward them. Japan committed a sneak attack and that was by God it.

I don't know if we as a nation have the will to fight like that anymore. Sure, the America First crowd was loud and convicted. The difference is, after Pearl Harbor they packed up their offices and went home to support the war.

Nuke em! Wars are brutal, and if they have nothing to loose they have no reason to stop.
Innocent? Something needs to change their attitude from innocent to actively against this militant Islam.

it was just a bad joke bbeck, didn't mean anything by it.

It's cool, Dave, sorry if I offended with MY bad joke.

I'm not prepared to endorse Megan's suggestion in this thread, and I agree with your point on illegal orders.

Thank you.

The Geneva Conventions occurred after World War 2, so some of the actions we took during that time don't really apply. But it is useful to look back and see what we did in order to plan for this war.

Later,
bbeck

"FYI - Mecca is actually in the Hijaz, one of the few non-desert areas of the Arabian peninsula. Riyadh, OTOH, is smack dab in the middle of the peninsula and so in the middle of the desert."

Ya got me. Geography ain't my strong suit.

Riyadh *is* their capital, though. Presumably all sorts of Mukhabarabullshit is located there.

Megan seems to want to nuke it in a "See what happens" sort of mindset. I'm just saying it'd be low on a list of legitimate targets, way lower than were Nagasaki or even Dresden, so why not concentrate on the chokepoints first.

The only problem with nuking China is that, an hour later, we'll feel like nuking again.

(had to be said)

I still stand by mu original comments. The second New York gets nuked, we should unleash our nukes on Mecca, Medina, and pretty much any other terrorist enabling capital city in the region.

Why?

Because of proportionality. New York (and Washington DC for that matter) are more than just important cities, they are living representations of the United States. They are emblematic of our economic, political and cultural might.

Suppose NY gets nuked. Americans will be demanding blood in return.

What, then, does the Arab world have to offer as a target of equal worthyness?

Do you think setting off a nuke in some remote section of Afghanistan in which it is alleged that terrorist camps may or may not be operating is a sufficient response? Might as well send cruise missiles to bomb an empty tent.

The fact of the matter is that if a NY or DC were lost in a mushroom cloud, our failure to hit a target that the Islamists themselves viewed as equally important would be interpreted as a sign of weakness.

So what do the Islamists have that is an "equal" target to New York?

Riyadh? Teheran? Tripoli? Cairo? Islamabad?

Their choice of "important" targets is rather limited. Not just because they are cities that time forgot, but also because the average American citizen is not going to interpret these cities as being "equal" to what was lost in NY or DC.

That leaves only two cities that Americans and Islamists will recognize as having roughly equivolent value to the Islamic world, as NY had to ours: Mecca and Medina.

If you want to give notice to the inhabitants that we are taking those cities out, fine.

But don't come crying to me about inflaming the Arab Street. Provided we are nuked first, no target should be taken off the table.

And that includes "holy cities" where state-sponsored Clerics preach "Jihad" and incite young men and women to become "martyrs for Allah".

Mecca and Medina are jihadi recruiting stations. They lost their status as innocent targets a long time ago.

It's cool, Dave, sorry if I offended with MY bad joke.

Nah...admittedly, thermonuclear warfare is tough material to make good jokes about. Unless you're Stanley Kubrick. Now THAT shit was funny.

You know, I was surprised to see the 4 conventions post WWII cause I kept thinkin "wait a minute, then how come they kept talking about the 'Geneva man inspecting the camp' in Stalag 17"?.

Like many bodies of law and treaty, this one evolved over time.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

click on history

Allah wrote: Y'all be sure to read this.

His comments echo my own from a different thread on this site. Those being, if we know that 75% of the worlds opium is coming from Afghanistan, why in hell are we not taking out those fucking poppy fields?

One of the eternal Laws of the Aceosphere (#24 in a continuing series):

No matter how many times people post a product of the Random Leftist Babble Generator, someone will respond to it as a real troll.

Yes, O Great One, you have your own 'sphere now.

/my nose is brown and pungent

The only problem with nuking China is that, an hour later, we'll feel like nuking again.

LOL.

And Dave, I think more people need to understand what Geneva is and what laws we're bound by. I didn't know that the LOAC is required training once a year by Geneva, but it sort of explains why they hubby could practically quote it chapter and verse. I know there are some military types that post here and I wanted their input on this Nuke Mecca idea, too.

Later,
bbeck

Since no one else seems willing to ask -
1) bbeck, you stated "And NOWHERE does it state that the US is let out of its obligations to the LOAC or Geneva or the UCMJ because the Bad Guys Aren't Abiding.", yet in the same quote you highlight "However, if these objects [mosques, schools, hospitals etc.] are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity." Hasn't the extensive use of madrassas and mosques as training facilities, weapons depots etc. nullified their religious immunity ? Isn't that exactly letting the US out of it's obligation, etc. ? Can you explain this contradiction ?
1) LOAC states "In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission." Now, if the President determines an attack on Mecca is in fact legitimate targeting, are you claiming your husband "the Major" can overrule him ? Is your husband stating he will refuse any orders from the President to bomb Mecca, no matter the basis for them ?
3) If even experts can't agree on how much of the GC applies in the WoT, what is your basis for declaring that the US would be violating the GC by a strike on Mecca ?

It seems to me these are the major points at issue and are far from resolved.

But nuking Mecca or Media seems awfully counterproductive (obviously it's immoral). Not only does doing that play into the terrorists' hands -- now they've got 1 billion recruits ready for total war -- but you can't threaten to destroy what you've already destroyed.

If Allah was truly the allmighty, would he ALLOW the nuking of Mecca & Medina and the bulldozing of the Dome of the Rock by gleeful land-grabbing Zionists that got the green light from America to do so???

If Allah was shown to be powerless against the infidel, it would wreck the Muslim faith. Perhaps even to the point of self-implosion vs. explosion elsewhere.

Seriously (being only semi-serious about nuking spiritual centers - I'd need lots more evidence of it's projected effectualness before thinking it was a viable strategic option....) Seriously, we were dead serious about establishing credible nuclear deterrence in the Cold War. We nuked the Soviet military, they'd nuke ours, no question. They blew up our cities, we'd retaliate with more megadeaths than they inflicted...knowing they'd probably hit back themselves until MAD was achieved...

The Muslims are not protected by MAD. We could wage total nuke war against them and remain intact as a civilization. Or a partial, limited global thermonuclear strike that would bar Islamoids from any WMDs in the future at the penalty of being nuked again if they were caught..

Sure they'd hate us!

But nuking a city calls for something more than just catching and trying the ringleaders at the Hague over a 10-year trial deluxe with half the ACLU defending em.

It requires blood for blood.

Actually, more blood.

Seems like the Muslims have a better MAD defense than did the Soviets. We nuke you, but you cannot nuke back or even talk about nucking back because this would enrage all Muslims and you don't want that now do you, infidel.

1) bbeck, you stated "And NOWHERE does it state that the US is let out of its obligations to the LOAC or Geneva or the UCMJ because the Bad Guys Aren't Abiding.", yet in the same quote you highlight "However, if these objects [mosques, schools, hospitals etc.] are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity." Hasn't the extensive use of madrassas and mosques as training facilities, weapons depots etc. nullified their religious immunity ? Isn't that exactly letting the US out of it's obligation, etc. ? Can you explain this contradiction ?

Joe, it's not a contradiction. The LOAC states that specific places are immune from attack until the enemy engages in an act that makes them lose their immunity. That does not mean we can then toss out the LOAC and Geneva, but in fact, UNDER the LOAC, the enemy can then be engaged. We're still following the LOAC because it allows for this exception.

It's like saying, "Here are 10 rules we have to follow. Rule 5 has a caveat, and if you break it then Rule 5 doesn't apply...BUT the other 9 rules are still in place."

In other words, the exception to this rule does not mean we are released from all the other obligations of the laws.

And YES, as I have said, when these mosques are used by the terrorists then they become targets. That's not what the original argument was, however. The argument was "Let's bomb Mecca to make a point." And we can't bomb Mecca for the purpose of an object lesson because that would be unlawful.

Does that clear things up?

1) LOAC states "In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission." Now, if the President determines an attack on Mecca is in fact legitimate targeting, are you claiming your husband "the Major" can overrule him ?

No, Joe, what I have been saying is that he can't follow an unlawful order, and Mecca is NOT a lawful target just because it's a holy site; in fact, it's specifically protected from attack because it's a holy site. When the enemy makes a religious site a strategic target as defined by the LOAC, then it can be bombed.

Is your husband stating he will refuse any orders from the President to bomb Mecca, no matter the basis for them ?

I haven't even come CLOSE to saying that. In fact, I've said the OPPOSITE.

3) If even experts can't agree on how much of the GC applies in the WoT, what is your basis for declaring that the US would be violating the GC by a strike on Mecca ?

The definition of "humane" treatment from the Fourth Convention has obviously been debated in terms of torture, as has this silly notion that terrorists should be treated as POWs. In the instance of bombing Mecca for point-proving, the LOAC is pretty darn clear as to what US soldiers can and can't do, and whatever "experts" you're referring to are going to have a problem with the specific laws that are in place.

Later,
bbeck

as has this silly notion that terrorists should be treated as POWs

Reagan rejected that when we rejected Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Convention, which attempted to extend those privileges to "guerilla" warriors who hide among the indiginous population.

Rightly so. It was a lame attempt to legitimize "armies" such as the Viet Cong.

Some thoughts on LOAC and use of nuclear weapons from Air Force Doctrine, Document 23, Nuclear Operations:

If deterrence does fail, the use of nuclear weapons should have definite objectives. These objectives should: 1) forcibly change the perceptions of enemy leaders about their ability to win; 2) demonstrate to enemy leaders that, if the conflict continues or escalates, certain loss outweighs any potential gain; 3) encourage negotiations; 4) preclude the enemy from achieving its objectives; 5) ensure the success of the attack by US or allied forces. The purpose of using nuclear weapons can range from producing a political decision at the strategic level of conflict to being used to directly support military operations in theater warfare. All uses of nuclear weapons will have strategic implications, regardless of the targets attacked and in all circumstances require Presidential approval. Options for employing nuclear weapons may have a greater impact on a conflict than operations involving only conventional weapons.

The targeting restrictions of nukes are covered in Appendix C of the JointChiefs Operations Plan, which is top secret. Needless to say, tit for tat is in there. If a city of no military value is hit by an enemy nuke because deterrence fails, a nuclear response that forceblt changes the perceptions of enemy leaders about their ability to win would be undertaken, and legal under LOAC...which does permit use of nukes.

The interesting thing is, say with Congress and the SCOTUS a crater, 500,000 dead...the retaliation would have to be abhorrently bloody to make even Islamoids never, ever think of doing it again. No "we are dispatching teams that will hopefully lead to indictments at the Hague". What country gave the money or the weapon? What is a fair number of dead to pay their blood debt? 2 million for 500,000? Or 3 million??

Dave, we should still be rejecting the idea. The liberals are trying to force us to treat terrorists like POWs and extend to them the same protections that POWs receive, which is wrong for all sorts of reasons.

Later,
bbeck

bbeck, agreed. It perverts the intent of the accords.

Folks,

I think we all need to examine the premise before we discount nuking Muslim cities (of any and every location). Remember the entering argument here is that some million(s) of Americans are probably killed, and an entire city or more than one, is annihilated.

I used to be on the trigger end of nuclear strategy and posture. I am not a nuclear strategist. But you learn the way the planners think by executing the plans we have for nuclear warfare, and seeing how we target things. Most of us submariners don't look at the targets we are nuking, but we review the planning where necessary.

A single nuclear explosion in the US, I believe, would cause overwhelming panic and demand an overwhelming response from the US government. And it would have to be timely. There is no way we are going to conquer Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran within 90 days. That is a 2 or 3 year war just to get enough men and equipment in the theater with sufficient guns, etc... to handle the situation. And American casualties will be enormous. Think World War II. Nuclear response within 24-72 hours would be called for.

And an analysis of the situation now reveals that none of us can agree what a suitable target package should be because of the massive collateral damage (civilians in the millions) from this targeting. If we can't agree on a reasonable target package when things are so relatively calm, can you imagine us (or anyone) making rational, calm decisions after a nuclear terrorist attack? And an attack against one Muslim city will only lead to further escalations from them. The only possible credible response which will be taken seriously by Muslim governments is the largest scale devastation possible, across the Muslim world.

So that is why it is imperative that we PREVENT a nuclear terrorist attack now. Because failure to do so leads us to only one avenue, and that is massive nuclear retaliation AGAINST THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD. We don't want to be responsible for the elimination of 1 Billion Muslims worldwide. But unless they, their religion, and the countries where they live repudiate, eliminate, and prevent terrorism and its supporting mechanisms from their and our way of life, we in the West have no alternative but to eliminate them before they destroy us through nuclear terrorism worldwide. This is a harsh and extremely disagreeable position to be coming from, and I hate to have to be the one saying it, but agressive pursuit of the War on Terror now in every Muslim country we can influence or act covertly in, is absolutely necessary to prevent MAD (Muslim Assured Destruction) after a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States.

Ask yourself, if after the deaths of 4 million Americans in a split second explosion, absolute collapse of American security institutions due to massive panic and exodus from cities in the US, and the elimination of our open and free way of life, any of you would support moderation in our response to the event. Failure to respond quickly and decisively will most assuredly lead to additional nuclear attacks in a piecemeal or coordinated nature. And if we retaliate with nuclear missiles, what will be the response of the Chinese, Russians, and even the Brits and French to our nuclear war? Millions of their citizens will be killed as well in the attacks (from both sides) and in the end, we will be at their mercy if they have not expended their nuclear arsenals as well. They may well enslave us or exterminate us for "making the situation worse" in their eyes.

This is a road we don't want to go down. Mecca and Medina will NOT be the only targets. Riyadh, Damascus, Tehran, Islamabad, Karachi, Qom, and Aleppo among others in their countries will be eliminated. Riots in Afghanistan and Iraq will lead to our immediate withdrawal and the obliteration of those countries as well. The countries of Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, and numerous others will either fall in line under our "empire" or they will be destroyed. We will be responsible for the extinction and deaths of over 1 Billion humans. We will not be able to tolerate the existence of even moderate Muslims if they insist that our extermination of their co-religionists was a crime, and they intend to fight us.

This is not an hysterical right wing rant for revenge. This is a logical carefully imagined and reasoned thought process, but in the absence of total accurate information. I don't have all the tools the planners will have. But if you can disagree with it logically, then you can only do so if you have better information than is currently available to normal Americans, or you must be clairvoyant. Massive loss of American life will demand a massive response to the Islamic World.

Now do you understand why it is so important that we fight the current war aggressively and with dispatch? Why we cannot afford even the least dissension in the prosecution of this war? The consequences of its failure are too horrible to imagine. When it comes down to our lives or theirs, I can assure you, whomever is our leader will choose our lives first, --- and their lives will be ended.

Subsunk
"The Hell this isn't the most important foxhole in the world; I'm in it!"
-- Bill Mauldin, from a WWII Willy & Joe cartoon

Forget it, Subsunk. Hugh Hewitt ate ace's brain.

Hey Subsunk, now that this subject has fallen so low on the page I don't know if you'll see this, but I must say that was a very good post. This especially caught my eye:

And if we retaliate with nuclear missiles, what will be the response of the Chinese, Russians, and even the Brits and French to our nuclear war?

People in this thread have the attitude of "So WHAT is we offend all the Muslims by nuking Mecca?" without bothering to consider what other countries will do. Not only do we need to understand how all the Muslims in the world will react, but how all the countries will react. We can't expect them to just sit there, particularly if the Muslim nations begin uniting against us. We also shouldn't expect them to come rallying to our side, either...and in China's case, quite the opposite.

Later,
bbeck