Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

Thoughts and musings on current events and other random occurrences.

Location: South Jersey, United States

Monday, July 18, 2005

Snark not needed

I was trying to think of a funny way to describe the jack-assery of this comment, but I thought, the comment doesn't need it.

I mean, are there any intelligent people out there who DON'T think that part of the War on Terror is to win the war of present freedom and democracy to people who don't have it and show them that we don't want to change their religion and change their morals, we just want them to be free.

Or ya know, we could just bomb the shit out of their holy lands.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

I'll give everyone one guess which part of the above exchange ends up on the front page of the Terrorist Post-Gazette? I mean, I thought Durbin's remark was equally idiotic, but at least he was trying to make a point.

I'm starting to think their should be an IQ requirement for Congress. This would take many Republican and Democratic Congressman out of the running thankfully.

More than anything, this is a war of ideas. We need to show the world and citizens in the Middle East (and other oppressed countries for that matter) that freedom is the best way. No matter how much force we use, democracy will not 'stick' unless people embrace freedom. The above is just another roadblock in getting Iraqis and Muslims in general to trust our motives; something we have not yet accomplished.


Blogger Dave Justus said...

I am not sure why you dismiss this idea completely.

I don't know if this idea would deter terrorists or not, but if it would, it is certainly worth considering.

As a practical matter, if several U.S. cities were nuked, what do you think we would, or should do?

I expect that nuking Mecca might be the minimum that the U.S. people would demand as a response.

I hope that it never comes to that, but the loss of several U.S. cities would demand a signifigant response.

11:21 AM  
Blogger Katinula said...

I dismiss it because bombing Mecca would undoubtedly be punishing those who AREN'T responsible. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but no one advocated bombing them. I'm assuming if nuclear weapons were ever used, we would go after those responsible, not take out the holiest site to Muslims worldwide. Its a narrow-minded view to think of Mecca as a target unless the perpetrators were holed up there. It would be seen, as I'm sure the comment is, as an attack on Islam itself, and that most certainly would NOT be a way to win the war on terror.

8:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Find an Attorney