Rep. Thomas Tancredo (R-obviously) says bomb Mecca if US attacked

[quote name='captaincold']For anyone to even say that they would attack a Holy site is utterly foolish.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think we SHOULD nuke ALL the Muslim holy sites ... mostly because that would include Jerusalem, and I'm sure that would go over real well with all the Christians and Jews.
 
[quote name='trq']Actually, I think we SHOULD nuke ALL the Muslim holy sites ... mostly because that would include Jerusalem, and I'm sure that would go over real well with all the Christians and Jews.[/QUOTE]

You'd have to hit bethlehem as well. Not only a major holy site for christians, but holy to the jews due to being the home of david, and holy to muslims due to being the birthplace of the prophet jesus.
 
And I have the first addition to my ignore list.

PAD apparently, you have no ability to put yourself in others shoes. Bigotry for the win. Who cares if the attack is state sponsored or not, attack wherever they are from. You just better hope that if someone nukes the US they weren't a Muslim born and raised in Pittsburgh, because that would really spoil your retaliation plan.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The argument was in response to PAD who suggested china would love to get a hold of a part of the middle east. The logic he used to back it up was "They're communist", when many communist countries have no expansionist history or tendencies. China has just been so big for so long, that many former parts of china are no longer under their control, but that doesn't mean many don't still consider them parts of china.[/QUOTE]

I'd have to disagree with you on this one as well Alonzo. China's expansionist tendencies may not be as overt as Hitler's, for example, but talk to the folks in Tibet (presently occupied) and places like Sikkim (just recently China renounced their claim to this Indian territory). I guess they will say they are part of "historic China," even though they're not (except for Tibet since it has been occupied, modern history). Your standard would allow the U.S. to reclaim places like the Philippines, for example.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'd have to disagree with you on this one as well Alonzo. China's expansionist tendencies may not be as overt as Hitler's, for example, but talk to the folks in Tibet (presently occupied) and places like Sikkim (just recently China renounced their claim to this Indian territory). I guess they will say they are part of "historic China," even though they're not (except for Tibet since it has been occupied, modern history). Your standard would allow the U.S. to reclaim places like the Philippines, for example.[/QUOTE]

While I obviously disagree with you on their expansionist aims, I'm not saying that I agree with the idea of them controlling all of historic china (though I do agree that taiwan is part of china, but I don't think it should be forced to return to the mainland), simply saying they have never shown a desire to expand outside of that area. I don't think anyone ever believed the philipines was ever a part of the u.s. in any real sense either, that's really all that's important to my argumkent here. Essentially, I'm not arguing whether that their view of historic china is completely accurate, but my argument is they simply haven't shown the desire to expand outside of that.

Though here's a bunch of chinese historical maps http://www.artsmia.org/arts-of-asia/china/maps/ching-map.cfm. Sikkim is a border dispute, due to its close ties to tibet, over a small area snuggled in between nepal and bhutan. It does not signify expansionist goals.

As for tibet, here's an article from freetibet.com. http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact15.html It states my basic point, that many do argue that tibet is part of china. I personally don't agree, I support tibet, and I think it should garner much more worldwide attention (the dalai lama is what gets attention now, not tibet). But, all that is important to my argument is that it is viewed by many as historic china.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While I obviously disagree with you on their expansionist aims, I'm not saying that I agree with the idea of them controlling all of historic china (though I do agree that taiwan is part of china, but I don't think it should be forced to return to the mainland), simply saying they have never shown a desire to expand outside of that area. I don't think anyone ever believed the philipines was ever a part of the u.s. in any real sense either, that's really all that's important to my argumkent here. Essentially, I'm not arguing whether that their view of historic china is completely accurate, but my argument is they simply haven't shown the desire to expand outside of that.

Though here's a bunch of chinese historical maps http://www.artsmia.org/arts-of-asia/china/maps/ching-map.cfm. Sikkim is a border dispute, due to its close ties to tibet, over a small area snuggled in between nepal and bhutan. It does not signify expansionist goals.

As for tibet, here's an article from freetibet.com. http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact15.html It states my basic point, that many do argue that tibet is part of china. I personally don't agree, I support tibet, and I think it should garner much more worldwide attention (the dalai lama is what gets attention now, not tibet). But, all that is important to my argument is that it is viewed by many as historic china.[/QUOTE]

According to those maps China has controlled Tibet for 434 years since 3500 BC, or 434 years out of 5505, or 8% of history. That doesn't seem like a good argument for "historically part of China."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']According to those maps China has controlled Tibet for 434 years since 3500 BC, or 434 years out of 5505, or 8% of history. That doesn't seem like a good argument for "historically part of China."[/QUOTE]

I already said that I'm not arguing that it is a correct assesment, just that it is an argument believed by many chinese. As long as that is true, it supports my opinion of china not being expansionist.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
rel_pie.gif

Really?[/QUOTE]

If on that chart for the Christians it only counted people that actually practiced Christianity and not just claimed they were Christian it would be a whole lot smaller.

What does that dumbass tom tancredo think will happen if he bombs the holy sites?

A small group of people attack the US, now lets exterminate the religion they are a part of and blame them all :roll:

And its happening. Name a country the U.S. is "fighting terrorism" in that isn't an Arab country.
 
[quote name='whoknows']If on that chart for the Christians it only counted people that actually practiced Christianity and not just claimed they were Christian it would be a whole lot smaller.[/QUOTE]

This is a falacious argument as that is true for any religion nowadays. Or perhaps you think every Saudi is a devout Muslim, every Israeli is a devout Jew, or every Indian is a devout Hindu?

[quote name='whoknows']And its happening. Name a country the U.S. is "fighting terrorism" in that isn't an Arab country.[/QUOTE]

Our leaders have repeatedly and consistenly characterized the "war on terrorism" as a worldwide conflict. This means that we are attempting to fight terrorism all around the world. But just to point out some specific examples to disprove your ridiculous statement, the Philippines and the tri-border region of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil have been reported on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top