Shud W Threaten to Nuke Mecca, In the Event of another 9/11

(by the way, Muslims is a term preferred by many. Moslems is archaic, though not gramatically incorrect).

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Yes.

But too subtle for David.

Perhaps u will enlighten me.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

(by the way, Muslims is a term preferred by many.
Moslems is archaic, though not gramatically incorrect).

The Moslems r pretty dam archaic.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

old europe wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The reason for the attacks on 9/11 were 100% religious,

Okay, here's a question for you: if the 9/11 attacks were 100% religious,
why didn't the terrorists bother whether or not they would be allowed to go to heaven?

I don 't understand the question.

Well. The 9/11 terrorists were seen drinking strong alcoholic drinks. I doubt that that's permissible to a true Muslim. The 9/11 terrorists were also seen engaging the services of naked lap dancers. I don't think that's permissible to a true Muslim either.

Maybe they just weren't concerned about it. Maybe they didn't care whether or not they would go to heaven. But if they were not concerned about their religion, then why would the 9/11 attacks have been "100% religious" attacks?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

old europe wrote:
Why, in fact, did they do things that would have made sure that they won't get to Muslim heaven?

I don 't have enuf information
to speculate on their theological reasoning.

Well, apparently you thought you had enough information to speculate on their theological reasoning to call the attacks "100% religious."

Do you have enough information on their theological reasoning? Or not? Which one is it, David?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do u DOUBT that the reason that thay gave up their lives was religious fanaticism ?

I don't know. It was certainly fanaticism of some kind.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do u have an alternative theory as to the motivation of their mass suicide ?

I wouldn't call it "mass suicide." Jonestown was mass suicide. 9/11 wasn't.

I have no "theory" about their motivation.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

George wrote:
Anyone who makes a threat he wouldn't dare carry out is a whiny little weenie.
I know that.
You know that.
They know that.

Wud we DARE do it to the Japs in WWII ?

2ice ?

Is it metaphysically necessary that we can ONLY do it to Japs ?

U think that maybe we shud give the Moslems
a little TASTE with a tiny nuclear artillery round ?
just to show good faith ?

Whatayathink ?

The United States was perfectly willing and able to carry out a nuclear
attack against Japan. It was no mere threat. The same is not true about
a nuclear attack on "the moslems". Any rational person knows this.

"Metaphysically necessary"? What the Hell are you talking about?

The United States has already given some moslems a "a TASTE" with the
shock-and-awe portion of the Iraq horror show. You judge the results.

0 Replies

as long as president bush is holding hands with saudi royalty , i shouldn't worry .
perhaps he'd go on a pilgrimage to mecca , by invitation of the royal house of saudi .
anyone here joining the president and ready to hold hands with saudi royalty - the line forms to the ... ?
hbg

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050425/050425_bush_vlg_12p.widec.jpg

0 Replies

wasn't the majority of 9/11 terrorists on those flights from Saudi Arabia?
Just checking.

david, SOME Muslims are archaic. I have plenty of Muslim friends that are not. SOME Christians are damn archaic, too.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

wasn't the majority of 9/11 terrorists on those flights from Saudi Arabia?
Just checking.

david, SOME Muslims are archaic. I have plenty of Muslim friends that are not. SOME Christians are damn archaic, too.

When I uttered that off-handed remark,
I was only referring to the fact that the Moslems' religion is old.

I know that Christianity is older.

David

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

wasn't the majority of 9/11 terrorists on those flights from Saudi Arabia?
Just checking.

Yes.

0 Replies

Give Me That Old Time Religion!

0 Replies

think of the big picture, youre more likely to get stabbed while some guy is taking your wallet rather than get killed via a holy war.

do you send a missile to detroit?

in fact, david, your more likely to be a homosexual than get killed by terrorists now.

hell odds are youre going to be a porn star befor the muslims get you.

0 Replies

the obvious answer to david's question is, yes

if 19 terrorists ever hijack 4 planes and fly two of them into the twin towers, one into the pentagon and crash one in a field, all on september 11, we should bomb mecca

0 Replies

flakker wrote:

think of the big picture, youre more likely to get stabbed while some guy is taking your wallet rather than get killed via a holy war.

do you send a missile to detroit?

in fact, david, your more likely to be a homosexual than get killed by terrorists now.

hell odds are youre going to be a porn star befor the muslims get you.

I KNOW about the odds;
( I never stopped flying; did not even reduce flying )
but what is the problem with pigskin lining ??
Is there a leather shortage ?
Don 't we eat enuf pork ??

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I KNOW about the odds;
( I never stopped flying; did not even reduce flying )
but what is the problem with pigskin lining ??
Is there a leather shortage ?
Don 't we eat enuf pork ??

You're confused.

This is the thread where you wanted to nuke Mecca.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I KNOW about the odds;
( I never stopped flying; did not even reduce flying )
but what is the problem with pigskin lining ??
Is there a leather shortage ?
Don 't we eat enuf pork ??

You're confused.

This is the thread where you wanted to nuke Mecca.

U r NOT correct.

The subject matter of this thread is THREATENING,
not nuking; ( that is a separate and distinct question ).

We r examining the deterrent value of threatening.

David

0 Replies

But ya see, Sparky, when everybody knows the threat won't be carried out,
its deterrent value is zero, zilch, nada, niete, nil.

0 Replies

Whether or not it will be carried out,
is a function of HOW MAD thay get us.

I think thay know that.

It wud not be the first time.

0 Replies

Oh? Mecca has been nuked before?

I didn't know that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Oh? Mecca has been nuked before?

I didn't know that.

he meqns Pearl Harbor......and the 2 sequels

0 Replies

Did u know that another place
found out the nuclear results of getting us mad enuf ?

0 Replies

Shud W Threaten to Nuke Mecca, In the Event of another 9/11

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know