1
   

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

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:36 pm
Oh yeah right.

There's probably no difference between getting attacked by a country that declared war on you and a loose network of terrorists that's basically scattered across the globe. Actually, "network" is probably too strong a term.

But sure, let's just pretend Mecca was the capital of the terrorists, and threatening to nuke it would actually change a thing.
0 Replies
 
massmutual
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:48 pm
it would prolly accelerate the terrorist attack byut you can't take such a threat seriously

Obama had my support till he threatened to nuke the himalays , like, forget it, the mountains won't move with thousands of nukes falling on them
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:57 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
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.

Anyone other than the Village Idiot knows that the United States will not
drop a nuclear bomb on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

You may not be aware of this, Skippy, but the United States was at war
with the Japanese Empire when the US dropped those atom bombs. I'm
pretty sure the United States is not at war with Saudi Arabia.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 12:59 pm
Mecca?

I dunno. There are some pretty cool other countries we could take over that would be better for like the tourism industry or something since oil has already gotten theirs.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 05:24 pm
i'm sure when president bush was holding the hand of the saudi royal , he put in a good word for david . i'm also sure the saudi royal assured president bush : "tell david not to worry , i'm holding my royal hand over him for protection" .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 05:41 pm
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 ?


And here I was thinking that the United States was a civilized country. Well, actually the U.S. IS a civilized country. It is only those that promote the kind of ideas that you propose that cause the world to think otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 05:45 pm
George wrote:
But ya see, Sparky, when everybody knows the threat won't be carried out,
its deterrent value is zero, zilch, nada, niete, nil.


Exactly! I did, however, like Skippy better than Sparky. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 05:47 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
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.


Can you provide evidence of this?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 06:48 pm
old europe wrote:
Oh yeah right.

There's probably no difference between getting attacked by a country that declared war on you
and a loose network of terrorists that's basically scattered across the globe.
Actually, "network" is probably too strong a term.

But sure, let's just pretend Mecca was the capital of the terrorists, and
threatening to nuke it would actually change a thing.

Yeah.
These terrorists r religious fanatics,
and in their religion, thay CARE about Mecca.
If thay did not,
then threatening the well being of Mecca wud be ineffective.

Thay might think that Allah will get mad at them
if thay get his favorite place blown up n radioactive.



P.S.:
So far as I remember,
the Japs did not declare war on us,
tho thay acted in such a manner as to give us a hint
,
on a date that will live in infamy.



Thay DID send us an ultimatum.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 06:54 pm
Intrepid wrote:
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 ?


And here I was thinking that the United States was a civilized country.
Well, actually the U.S. IS a civilized country.
It is only those that promote the kind of ideas that you propose

that cause the world to think otherwise.

I cud not POSSIBLY care less than I do,
about what the world thinx.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 06:55 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
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 ?


And here I was thinking that the United States was a civilized country.
Well, actually the U.S. IS a civilized country.
It is only those that promote the kind of ideas that you propose

that cause the world to think otherwise.

I cud not POSSIBLY care less than I do,
about what the world thinx.


You state the obvious. Fortunately, you are not in charge. Also fortunate is the fact that even GW wouln't likely contemplate what you propose.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 06:58 pm
squinney wrote:
Mecca?

I dunno. There are some pretty cool other countries we could take over that would be better for like the tourism industry or something since oil has already gotten theirs.

I don 't wanna take it OVER.
I just wanna use it as a threat target.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 07:43 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Yeah.
These terrorists r religious fanatics,
and in their religion, thay CARE about Mecca.


David, I don't doubt that religious, devout Muslims care about Mecca.

But I seriously doubt that fanatic terrorists care more about Mecca than about their fanaticism. I think you're making a mistake if you assume that every terrorist who wants to harm the US is a devout Muslim. In my opinion, that was clearly not true for the 9/11 terrorists.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
If thay did not,
then threatening the well being of Mecca wud be ineffective.


That's pretty much the point.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thay might think that Allah will get mad at them
if thay get his favorite place blown up n radioactive.


Or maybe they couldn't care less about what Allah thinks about it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 08:25 pm
old europe wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Yeah.
These terrorists r religious fanatics,
and in their religion, thay CARE about Mecca.


David, I don't doubt that religious, devout Muslims care about Mecca.

But I seriously doubt that fanatic terrorists care more about Mecca than about their fanaticism. I think you're making a mistake if you assume that every terrorist who wants to harm the US is a devout Muslim. In my opinion, that was clearly not true for the 9/11 terrorists.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
If thay did not,
then threatening the well being of Mecca wud be ineffective.


That's pretty much the point.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thay might think that Allah will get mad at them
if thay get his favorite place blown up n radioactive.


Or maybe they couldn't care less about what Allah thinks about it.

I was under the impression that Atta
and his followers were 100% motivated by religion
and getting on Allah 's good side.

Maybe I missed something:
will u enlighten us as to what non-religious motives moved them to suicide ?
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2007 11:14 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
squinney wrote:
Mecca?

I dunno. There are some pretty cool other countries we could take over that would be better for like the tourism industry or something since oil has already gotten theirs.

I don 't wanna take it OVER.
I just wanna use it as a threat target.

Of course you do, Scooter. And if you had your finger on the button, that
would be a frightening threat. But you don't.

In the real world, those in control will not drop the bomb on Saudi Arabia.
In the real world, all rational people know this.
In the real word, therefore, such a threat would be ludicrous.

It would make a cool scenario for a graphic novel or a video game, though.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 05:01:19