"While the vast majority of Muslims who hate to have Mecca bombed I'm sure there are a few hardline radicalized wackos that would LOVE nothing more than the US to bomb Mecca."
Given that they would certainly nuke us if they could, and they certainly will be able to do so if they are not ended, isn't the threat that we will further "provoke" them superfluous? What do you imagine they would then be able to do, that they are not already motivated to do?
So how much things are "improving" in the muslim w
Conjecture. Same as someone else's post above that loads the premise by saying we should nuke em, but only qualified by premise (CONUS city nuked) once asked to. A bit like saying Hiroshima & Nagasaki or Berlin ought to have been nuked on Day 1. Of course the analogy breaks when other real factors are considered, not least said galvanizing effect. You want to break terrorists by fueling them? Only way that kind of dynamic succeeds is with a truly massive offensive impulse.. Snuffing a well fire with an explosion -- getting all potential terrorists to take arms and wiping them out in a single or few close (in time) engagements.TDPerk wrote:"While the vast majority of Muslims who hate to have Mecca bombed I'm sure there are a few hardline radicalized wackos that would LOVE nothing more than the US to bomb Mecca."
Given that they would certainly nuke us if they could, and they certainly will be able to do so if they are not ended, isn't the threat that we will further "provoke" them superfluous? What do you imagine they would then be able to do, that they are not already motivated to do?
Much more constructive is to crank up the volume on intercultural dialog. Like that triggered by muhammad caricatures. Human people are whimsy and shifty undisciplined animals. But their software nonetheless is rooted in reason. Sufficiently transparent reasoning to the point of being undeniable will nuke faulty muslim rhetoric more effectively than a nuke on Mecca.
Last edited by Betruger on Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
It would have shortened the war considerably.A bit like saying Hiroshima & Nagasaki or Berlin ought to have been nuked on Day 1.
And if you consider that we have been at war with the jihadis since 1776, maybe they are over due.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Get 'em all twitchy and they are easier to find.You want to break terrorists by fueling them?
So let me see if I get this. They are already angry with us. And that would make them really, really, angry. Good.
Too much anger clouds the judgment.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Yes I thought of that. It's a bad analogy because the war-making substrate that Japan and Germany were based on wasn't like the Jihadist substrate. Not top down. I would've (I could be wrong, dunno if it was possible) used tac nukes on industrial centers. Give something like 24h warning that those locations will be absolutely razed. Added effect of the voice of the USA coming thru direct to German people, as a truthful voice.
I edited above post.
I edited above post.
That's right. Moon em with things like the Muhammad caricatures and the veil laws in France. But nuking em? You actually give them a valid reason to attack you. Whereas the former strategy gives you carte blanche to wipe their sorry backwards ass on the battlefield. Edit - Major national voices also need to not give them any slack. Not only must information be fed to western people (e.g. all the arabic/muslim tv/radio shows and movies etc since 9/11) but dialog like what followed the muhammad tantrum and .. people like this brit journalist that totally rips apart faulty islamic rhetoric. I can't recall his name..MSimon wrote:Get 'em all twitchy and they are easier to find.You want to break terrorists by fueling them?
So let me see if I get this. They are already angry with us. And that would make them really, really, angry. Good.
Too much anger clouds the judgment.
Something like CONUS city nuked is a different story. Then you can tac nuke targets correspondingly. I personally (all the way back to the first post-2001 actions) would let the military brass loose.. Unlike what seems to have happened. Politicians and media left in the way, an initial "surge" that could've gotten it done right. I wouldn't have had a problem doing it right and then "paying" publicly for it. It's the right thing to do. Just like nuking Mecca out of the blue isn't the right thing to do.
Our leader is bat sh*t crazy. Don't Pi$$ her off. You never know that she will do.Just like nuking Mecca out of the blue isn't the right thing to do.
Me? The Empty quarter of Saudi needs a dusting. Co60. Make it uninhabitable. That is where are the nuttiness comes from.
No one will miss a few goat herders.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote: Our leader is bat sh*t crazy. Don't Pi$$ her off. You never know that she will do.
What? Sorry but this one keeps flying over my head no matter how many times I read it.
Not sure what, but it would light a fire under the complacent public's ass. Cogs and bearings would actually start to turn.choff wrote:Let's say the Danish cartoonist is threatened with murder by some Muslim terrorist. The big deterrent right now is probably that the next day after he's killed, every pro-western newpaper in the world would republish the same cartoon as an act of defiance. Opinions?
May you just kill everyone in the entire world who isn't American, that would be a good way to pre-emptively ensure that noone commits anymore act of terror in the U.S. .... not wait, I forgot about Timothy McFeigh.MSimon wrote:It would have shortened the war considerably.A bit like saying Hiroshima & Nagasaki or Berlin ought to have been nuked on Day 1.
And if you consider that we have been at war with the jihadis since 1776, maybe they are over due.
There are plenty of law-biding citizens who are muslims who just grumble alot, who would take up arms if you bombed Mecca, you make enemies out of ill-wishers.MSimon wrote:Get 'em all twitchy and they are easier to find.You want to break terrorists by fueling them?
So let me see if I get this. They are already angry with us. And that would make them really, really, angry. Good.
Never has a truer word been said, maybe you should take a look in the mirror.Too much anger clouds the judgment.
I find it hilarious the way you write reams and reams about freeing people from the fear in general when your referring to global warming, talk about how much worse it is to be addicted to hatred then drugs when referring to legalization of drugs, but then when you refer to muslims I can't find much other than fear and hatred in your posts. To the point where you'd support a nuclear strike on Mecca as a valid response to a terrorist attack from a lone wacko.
Betruger:
I generally agree with what your saying, the way forward is not to allow muslims to restrict the freedom of speech for those who criticise their religion.
I have to say that once again I'm seeing things from an outsider's perspective (I was born a foreigner in a foreign country and that trend's never changed since, no matter where I go). MSimon isn't speaking out of fear and hatred.
The way forward isn't just to not allow muslims or anyone else to restrict anyone's freedom of speech, but to catalyze critical or at least informative debate to the max. Everywhere. Just as evolutionary algorithms crank out optimal solutions sooner if you increase their rhythm of iteration, so intercultural dialog will productively hash things out by taking wheat from chaff. On science vs religion, reason vs faith, western vs eastern, "conservative" vs "liberal", etc. To the average man these things seem like abstractions distantly related to everyday events, but they're at the heart of every choice everyone makes every instant of their life.
The less intercultural dialog, the more stagnant intercultural evolution, the longer we'll be stuck with the bulk of each country mostly ignorant of the what and why of "foreigners", and the easier things go astray without public notice until the only solution is to nuke someone or something. It could be avoided if people woke up and smelled the roses early on. Porn and the internet, as MSimon's put it, is one adequate means to this end.
Because even though Islam is a religion and thus is in the realm of faith, outside of rationalization, it has some elements that are just bogus. IMO sex is one of those. Of course there's a wide variance of appreciation of the wisdom of the original Word, but IMO there's something wrong with at least part of it. Women shouldn't have to live under curtains. Just the same as "sacred" religious tradition of castes in India. I don't know how that injustice wouldn't get someone's blood boiling.
A pretty abstract and maybe esoteric argument but I don't have time to develop it more.
The way forward isn't just to not allow muslims or anyone else to restrict anyone's freedom of speech, but to catalyze critical or at least informative debate to the max. Everywhere. Just as evolutionary algorithms crank out optimal solutions sooner if you increase their rhythm of iteration, so intercultural dialog will productively hash things out by taking wheat from chaff. On science vs religion, reason vs faith, western vs eastern, "conservative" vs "liberal", etc. To the average man these things seem like abstractions distantly related to everyday events, but they're at the heart of every choice everyone makes every instant of their life.
The less intercultural dialog, the more stagnant intercultural evolution, the longer we'll be stuck with the bulk of each country mostly ignorant of the what and why of "foreigners", and the easier things go astray without public notice until the only solution is to nuke someone or something. It could be avoided if people woke up and smelled the roses early on. Porn and the internet, as MSimon's put it, is one adequate means to this end.
Because even though Islam is a religion and thus is in the realm of faith, outside of rationalization, it has some elements that are just bogus. IMO sex is one of those. Of course there's a wide variance of appreciation of the wisdom of the original Word, but IMO there's something wrong with at least part of it. Women shouldn't have to live under curtains. Just the same as "sacred" religious tradition of castes in India. I don't know how that injustice wouldn't get someone's blood boiling.
A pretty abstract and maybe esoteric argument but I don't have time to develop it more.
But I'm not angry. Any more. Post 9/11 for about a year or three I was angry. Now it is just - what do I have to do to get rid of the roaches?jmc wrote:Never has a truer word been said, maybe you should take a look in the mirror.Too much anger clouds the judgment.
I find it hilarious the way you write reams and reams about freeing people from the fear in general when your referring to global warming, talk about how much worse it is to be addicted to hatred then drugs when referring to legalization of drugs, but then when you refer to muslims I can't find much other than fear and hatred in your posts. To the point where you'd support a nuclear strike on Mecca as a valid response to a terrorist attack from a lone wacko.
Personally I like what we are doing so far. Small wars and large flows of information.
And the Saudis are looking for trouble.
======
BTW I'm as sure as sure can be - that all the Islamic countries have been told: use a nuke anywhere in the world against any one and (.... name your city) gets it. Let the jihadis do it for you and we will accept no denials. So you had better keep an eye on them.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Barbra Streisand Effectchoff wrote:Let's say the Danish cartoonist is threatened with murder by some Muslim terrorist. The big deterrent right now is probably that the next day after he's killed, every pro-western newpaper in the world would republish the same cartoon as an act of defiance. Opinions?
[Edit]Link added.
Last edited by BenTC on Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Could you elaborate?BenTC wrote:The Barbra Streisand Effectchoff wrote:Let's say the Danish cartoonist is threatened with murder by some Muslim terrorist. The big deterrent right now is probably that the next day after he's killed, every pro-western newpaper in the world would republish the same cartoon as an act of defiance. Opinions?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.