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

[quote name='E-Z-B']I think you should re-read your last statement. Quite ironic, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

LOL, this is exactly what i was thinking. :lol:
 
Allow me to step through the rubble of PAD and Quack...

So, is bombing Mecca approved by those neocons who believe that spreading democracy and capitalism is the best route to reducing terrorism?

What's the order here, folks? Should we convert them to democracies forcibly, foster a culture of capitalism, and THEN blow them up, or blow them up, THEN foster change? I mean, y'know, bombs are expensive and all. We ought to know the correct time to use them.

I think that if we convert them into a democracy, THEN blow them up, THEN foster a culture of capitalism, they'll be so confused, they won't know what to do; thus, no more terrorism.

We could just blow up mecca, of course. THAT will keep them from attacking us again. :roll:

Why don't we just line up every muslim and kick them in the groin? Then we can blame the coddling liberals and, ahem, "extremists" when attacks on the US occur.
 
Did you read the article? It was one Congressman that said it should be considered an option if a nuclear weapon were used on American soil by Islamic terrorists.

This wasn't a OMG ITZ TEH NEOCONZ!1!1!!! It's not government policy, it's not a Defense Department document or U.S. doctrine.

Read first before you blame anyone for anything and look like an ass.

Ooops, too late.
 
Meh..Tancredo gets a lot of interest here. Personally, It just points to a lack of ideas from Tommy. Outside of immigration, he gets lost.

I think he was caught in a question on radio show, a question he never really considered and defaulted back to a cold war answer. MAD. The idea isn't to nuke holy sites, it is too threaten to nuke holy sites.

Overall, do believe that the question needs to be discussed- "what should our reponse to a nuclear attack on US soil be but answers like Tommy gave do far more harm than reporting abuse or anything Durbin said.
 
You're literate, PAD. Through my pointing out how far this suggestion strays from the neocon philosophy, you should have been aware that I wasn't blaming all self-identifying "neocons," or even all conservatives for that matter, for such a hateful and destructuive ideology.

On the other hand, the things you say do a lot more damage to the "not all conservatives want all muslims dead" argument than anything I can do.
 
When I'm read by more than 20 people on CAG I'll watch what I say.

In the interim you can always bet that I'm of the school of thought that the more we can introduce to Allah the better off we all are.
 
[quote name='kittie']What do you suppose will stop them from attacking us then?[/QUOTE]

Did you see this: :roll: ? It, as an emoticon, helps provide an indicator for my sarcasm. As I don't believe that we should blow up, or threaten to blow up, Mecca, I can't answer the question you're asking.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']As usual EZB can only get half the story right. Not attacked.... nuked. What do you expect though when he quotes Pakistani news sources as opposed to American news sources.

You're the same kind of liberal that would publish quotes from Izevstia, Pravda and Tass to "prove" how great the USSR was.

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Link

Mecca and Media are both in Saudi Arabia.

Finally someone says what I've been thinking. I love this guy. I'd start destroying holy sites immediately if we were nuked. I'd so enrage these animals that they'd no longer be able to exercise any self control hiding, planning and executing attacks. They'd take to the streets immediately and you'd be able to gun them down like a bunch of rock throwing Palestinian teenagers.[/QUOTE]

God you're a bigot. You'd enrage every muslim, and pretty much every worldwide government and population. If you really want to make the u.s. the worlds biggest threat to peace, you got the perfect plan.

I'm not even gonna bother responding to kittie. She's just taking the attention whoring that got her banned earlier into the political realm.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']God you're a bigot. You'd enrage every muslim, and pretty much every worldwide government and population. If you really want to make the u.s. the worlds biggest threat to peace, you got the perfect plan.
[/QUOTE]

Do you think I give a fuck? Do you really think there aren't 90% of Muslim's enraged with us anyways?

Fry them. Give them the wrath of 2,000 W-80 warheads. God knows we'd just have to dispose of them with another round of treaties with Russia. Better to actually cook off 700 million death worshipers in the process and get our money's worth. They weren't cheap to produce you know!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Do you think I give a fuck? Do you really think there aren't 90% of Muslim's enraged with us anyways?

Fry them. Give them the wrath of 2,000 W-80 warheads. God knows we'd just have to dispose of them with another round of treaties with Russia. Better to actually cook off 700 million death worshipers in the process and get our money's worth. They weren't cheap to produce you know![/QUOTE]

I think I can invoke the term nazi now without much exaggeration.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Anybody else think it would be hilarous if one day Quack and PAD found out that they were actually related?[/QUOTE]
Assuming his home adress is his ISP billing adress and his DMV records are up to date (and my genealogy report is accurate) we are not related.
 
Labeling people has never stopped you before, why would it bother you now?

Self-defence and retaliation would not make you a monster. If we're nuked by Islamic terrorists the response should be to wipe out ever major metropolitan center in the world with a Muslim majority. You end the threat once and for all.

Their centers for religion, gone. Finance, gone. What passes in their countries for education, medicine, commerce and industry... gone. You leave them with nothing. No way to rebuild a society. No way to rise up again for 5,000 years. You salt the Earth of their lands and starve the survivors to death.

When it's all done you open up the lands to colonialization. I'm sure if we made this deal the Russians would want a warm water port. I'm sure the Indians would want Pakistan back. I'm sure the Chinese would like a large stable supply of oil. You think any of them would care if this were the backroom deal? You think they'd stop and say "Damn America, that's insensitive.". You've just placated the major nuclear powers in the world and Pakistan's warheads are neutralized.

The developed world and the emerging economies would gladly sacrifice this entire religion if the deal I put on the table was ever made.

You just don't understand, that's history. That's the role of conquest in mankind's existence. Just at this point it would be on a much grander scale.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Labeling people has never stopped you before, why would it bother you now?

Self-defence and retaliation would not make you a monster. If we're nuked by Islamic terrorists the response should be to wipe out ever major metropolitan center in the world with a Muslim majority. You end the threat once and for all.

Their centers for religion, gone. Finance, gone. What passes in their countries for education, medicine, commerce and industry... gone. You leave them with nothing. No way to rebuild a society. No way to rise up again for 5,000 years. You salt the Earth of their lands and starve the survivors to death.

When it's all done you open up the lands to colonialization. I'm sure if we made this deal the Russians would want a warm water port. I'm sure the Indians would want Pakistan back. I'm sure the Chinese would like a large stable supply of oil. You think any of them would care if this were the backroom deal? You think they'd stop and say "Damn America, that's insensitive.". You've just placated the major nuclear powers in the world and Pakistan's warheads are neutralized.

The developed world and the emerging economies would gladly sacrifice this entire religion if the deal I put on the table was ever made.

You just don't understand, that's history. That's the role of conquest in mankind's existence. Just at this point it would be on a much grander scale.[/QUOTE]

It's not just a label when it follows this

Better to actually cook off 700 million death worshipers in the process and get our money's worth.
Click to expand...

as well as what you just said.

I think you severely underestimate the world to thing they would agree to this, hell there's no way the u.s. would agree to this.

Besides, what good are we worth if we simply return to the ways of european colonization, if that's our goal we should be wiped out too.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Assuming his home adress is his ISP billing adress and his DMV records are up to date (and my genealogy report is accurate) we are not related.[/QUOTE]


Long lost friends from high school?
 
You severly understimate the barbarity of mankind. If we told Russia they could have Iran no questions asked, gave the Indians Pakistan and let the Chinese have oil contracts for the Arabian peninsula they would all take the deal and look the other way. What's their vested interest in saying no? The Russians have wanted a warm water port since before the Czars. The Indians still haven't forgiven the division of their country and the loss of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Chinese crave a steady supply of oil they control. Throw in a division of remaining middle eastern oil between Japan, Korea and Western Europe.... they'd all go for it.

The mistake Hitler and Imperial Japan made was wanting to keep everything for themselves. You placate the major world powers and they'd go for it in a New York minute.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You severly understimate the barbarity of mankind. If we told Russia they could have Iran no questions asked, gave the Indians Pakistan and let the Chinese have oil contracts for the Arabian peninsula they would all take the deal and look the other way. What's their vested interest in saying no? The Russians have wanted a warm water port since before the Czars. The Indians still haven't forgiven the division of their country and the loss of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Chinese crave a steady supply of oil they control. Throw in a division of remaining middle eastern oil between Japan, Korea and Western Europe.... they'd all go for it.

The mistake Hitler and Imperial Japan made was wanting to keep everything for themselves. You placate the major world powers and they'd go for it in a New York minute.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming this assumes that the population will immediately give in.

India wouldn't take pakistan with singh in power (who is a moderate and a sikh), put a BJP member and they'd take pakistan in an instant. Most sensible indian politicans would not take pakistan due to the majority of muslims and all the conflicts between the two (more often than not hindu extremists are to blame). But, then again, I'm assuming all these land grabs assume no resistance.

Thoughout their history china has never been expansionist beyond their region. There are specific areas they have considered part of china (that aren't part now), but they have lacked the ambition for real territorial expansion outside of those areas.

You ignore many things about governments, things such as the kyoto treaty, peacekeeping in non strategic areas, aid programs to poor countries etc. The type of governments you believe we have wouldn't support those things. Individual nations are put first, but most governments aren't of the kind you believe they are. I'd also like to know if you believe bush invaded Iraq for democracy and human rights reasons, if so then add that to the list of examples.

Besides, if they were to willingly begin colonize the world again and mass killings, then they should be destroyed as well.
 
Most governments are the kind of governments I think they are. They're no different than kids on a playground. They don't pick on the little kid because he's the big kid's brother. We're that big brother.

If we told them "Hey guys, it's all up for grabs! As soon as the netron bomb effects clear out that land and resources are yours!" they're all in. Forget what you think you know about the Chinese, they're communists! You think they have zero ambition beyond their borders???

There is no Islamic country with ties strong enough to the developed world and with major powers to stave this off if we announced our intentions. You'd see Chinese armored divisions Fed Exed to Riyadh if we offered it to them.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Most governments are the kind of governments I think they are. They're no different than kids on a playground. They don't pick on the little kid because he's the big kid's brother. We're that big brother.

If we told them "Hey guys, it's all up for grabs! As soon as the netron bomb effects clear out that land and resources are yours!" they're all in. Forget what you think you know about the Chinese, they're communists! You think they have zero ambition beyond their borders???

There is no Islamic country with ties strong enough to the developed world and with major powers to stave this off if we announced our intentions. You'd see Chinese armored divisions Fed Exed to Riyadh if we offered it to them.[/QUOTE]

Poor logic behind china (worse than the rest), saying they're communists means nothing, they've fought vietnam and they almost fought the ussr, there is not blanket communist together or expansionist ideology. Some countries have that, china does not. Chinas territorial ambitions are in what it considers historical china, not the middle east.

But wait, you think america is stopping the rest of the world from going into a feeding frenzy? That the rest of the developed world would support nuking large regions? It also seems that you think these countries would respond (I was assuming this was is they just let it happen) and the people would resist but it would mean nothing. The world isn't run by genocidal governments, and that's what would be necessary for this.

I hope you just forgot to take your pills or drank a bit to much, it's no fun arguing when you've lost the last of your sanity.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Labeling people has never stopped you before, why would it bother you now?

Self-defence and retaliation would not make you a monster. If we're nuked by Islamic terrorists the response should be to wipe out ever major metropolitan center in the world with a Muslim majority. You end the threat once and for all.

Their centers for religion, gone. Finance, gone. What passes in their countries for education, medicine, commerce and industry... gone. You leave them with nothing. No way to rebuild a society. No way to rise up again for 5,000 years. You salt the Earth of their lands and starve the survivors to death.

When it's all done you open up the lands to colonialization. I'm sure if we made this deal the Russians would want a warm water port. I'm sure the Indians would want Pakistan back. I'm sure the Chinese would like a large stable supply of oil. You think any of them would care if this were the backroom deal? You think they'd stop and say "Damn America, that's insensitive.". You've just placated the major nuclear powers in the world and Pakistan's warheads are neutralized.

The developed world and the emerging economies would gladly sacrifice this entire religion if the deal I put on the table was ever made.

You just don't understand, that's history. That's the role of conquest in mankind's existence. Just at this point it would be on a much grander scale.[/QUOTE]

You must be drunk. Alternatively, you've lost your mind.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Finally someone says what I've been thinking. I love this guy. I'd start destroying holy sites immediately if we were nuked. I'd so enrage these animals that they'd no longer be able to exercise any self control hiding, planning and executing attacks. They'd take to the streets immediately and you'd be able to gun them down like a bunch of rock throwing Palestinian teenagers.[/QUOTE]
Anyone else find it amusing that PAD wants to round up a group of people based on their religion, and exterminate them? Hrmmm...where have I heard that plan before...:whistle2:k
 
Tancredo: No apology
He believes bombing of Muslim holy sites has been discussed

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
July 19, 2005

WASHINGTON - The remarks were hypothetical but the outrage was real.

Facing mounting criticism, Rep. Tom Tancredo on Monday refused to apologize for suggesting the United States could target Muslim holy sites if radical Islamic terrorists set off multiple nuclear attacks in American cities.

"It's a tough issue to deal with," Tancredo told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Tough things are said. And we should not shy away from saying things that need to be said."

Tancredo is known for his fiery rhetoric on immigration and other issues, but his words are coming under more scrutiny because he has started traveling to test the waters for a possible presidential candidacy in 2008.

A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Tancredo's remarks irresponsible.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3937059,00.html

And this guy is considered as a contender for the 2008 presidential election. Tancredo has done far more damage for our soldiers than Durbin's remarks ever could.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Anyone else find it amusing that PAD wants to round up a group of people based on their religion, and exterminate them? Hrmmm...where have I heard that plan before...:whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

Who said round them up?

Nuke them in place. No round up necessary!
 
Who said round them up?

Nuke them in place. No round up necessary!
Click to expand...





Innocent men women and babies alike right you fucking piece of shit ?

Dont worry if they are guilty just worry if they are part of a certain religion.

Hitler and you would have gotten along well.

You could have nuked the Muslims and then baked the Jews.

Rot in hell fucker.
 
[quote name='Dirt']




Innocent men women and babies alike right you fucking piece of shit ?

Dont worry if they are guilty just worry if they are part of a certain religion.

Hitler and you would have gotten along well.

You could have nuked the Muslims and then baked the Jews.

Rot in hell fucker.
[/QUOTE]

Ya, he's the first person on here who has made enough consistent comments to justify the nazi level (obviously the target and ideology is different) accusations.
 
And again everyone ignores that this is the retaliation for a nuclear strike not a conventional strike......

The policy in question would be no different than our standing national policy during the Cold War. If nuked, even just once, our response is complete, total and overwhelming. We would have baked 250 million citizens of the USSR had nukes been used on us. That's what kept the world in balance and out of war.

Without a fear of that type of retaliation terrorists with nuclear weapons have nothing to be concerned about.

Call me Nazi all you like but if we are the victim of a nuclear weapon on our own soil you'd see dozens of cities baked in retaliation. It wouldn't matter if it were Bush, Kerry, Gore or Clinton in the White House. The response to nuclear attack is to go nuclear. It's been national policy since the USSR demonstrated their A-Bomb.

Me posting it on a message board isn't the origin of the idea or policy.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']blah blah blah I support the killing of innocent men women and children and then i puss out and try to defend myself by saying other people would have done it in the past[/QUOTE]










:roll:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']And again everyone ignores that this is the retaliation for a nuclear strike not a conventional strike......

The policy in question would be no different than our standing national policy during the Cold War. If nuked, even just once, our response is complete, total and overwhelming. We would have baked 250 million citizens of the USSR had nukes been used on us. That's what kept the world in balance and out of war.

Without a fear of that type of retaliation terrorists with nuclear weapons have nothing to be concerned about.

Call me Nazi all you like but if we are the victim of a nuclear weapon on our own soil you'd see dozens of cities baked in retaliation. It wouldn't matter if it were Bush, Kerry, Gore or Clinton in the White House. The response to nuclear attack is to go nuclear. It's been national policy since the USSR demonstrated their A-Bomb.

Me posting it on a message board isn't the origin of the idea or policy.[/QUOTE]


First the difference is you know exactly the nation that attacked, and the attacks are all directed at that nation. If responding to a terrorist attack you will be attacking targets that have absolutely no affiliation. It would be like getting nuked by russia and responding with nuking russia AND vietnam, despite no threat or support of the russian attack from vietnam, simply because they're both communist. Nuking multiple cities due to what an underground group carried out is very different than nuking an area of a country that nuked you.

Second, your plan is designed to purposefully kill every human there, and if the nukes don't work then you are going to starve them. No where in cold war plans did we intend to purposefully kill every single ussr civilian. Targeting major cities would have knowingly killed many civilians, but that was a side effect. The goal wasn't to ensure the death of every civilian, they are in your plan.

Though I doubt the response would be rampant nuclear attacks at multiple cities. There would be calls for it, and the administration in power may decide if some nuclear response is used (though I doubt it would be unless deemed necessary, and not just as a response when a conventional response would work), but nothing like you suggest. Also, a nuclear attack would likely be of a smaller scale compared to what normally comes to mind when thinking of a nuclear attack.
 
Did you think of the cut and paste fake quote response all by yourself?

Wow, no one's ever thought of that!

I'm quite fond of the salting the earth and starving them part of my plan. I actually think it's the most creative part of it. Think of how much fresh water we can get for our mult-national occupation and colonization forces by desalinating enough sea water for the necessary salt!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Did you think of the cut and paste fake quote response all by yourself?

Wow, no one's ever thought of that![/QUOTE]




Sorry all that is coming through when you post is 'I support nuking babies because their parents are of a certain religion.'
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I was all for nuking the whales but Muslim babies will have to do in their stead.[/QUOTE]




That was so funny I almost forgot about you promoting atrocities that would make 9/11 look like a birthday party.

Have you ever considered working for Bin Laden ? All he would have to do is get you to hate a different group of people and you would have the same goal. Destruction of millions of innocents.
 
I notice you arent denying the similarities between your goals and Bin Ladens.

You would make a great addition to the Taliban.

Bin Laden only killed 3000 you would set his sights much higher.

You are talking about killing a billion people !
 
story.baby.bomb.jpg


What difference does it make? We're saving the world 18-24 years of food, water, energy consumption, trash production on top lives we'd save for every Muslim baby killed before they conducted their eventual martyrdom operations. We're doing the environment a huge favor. Waste management in the Islamic world is not as advanced as in the Western world and the Asian democracies.

Introduce as many to Allah as early and often as possible and the world is a better place. Hey, they all want to get to paradise as martyrs. Think of it as a massive early admissions program! I think a billion is a little optimistic. I'd be satisfied with 700 million in the initial strike.

The straglers we'd have to let die from radiation or starvation. I'm willing to bet lack of clean water would do in most of the survivors in. They would drink radioactive water rather than die of thirst.

On top of all the above benefits we'd really make a dent in this out of control world population growth. The planet itself would be thankful.
 
Time to say my piece. I can kinda see where PAD is coming from except for China. As Alonzo said China has NEVER shown themselves to be expansionist like the USSR has also PAD do you REALLY think we'd settle for giving them that oil when the smoke had settled? We'd try to make a more beneficial deal for ourselves.
I can theorhetically see the Republicans doing a deal like this MAYBE not the Democrats though.
PAD you REALLY need to drop your prejudices. I have my prejudices again Gypsies, personally I think they're fucking thieves and haven't contributed much to society but if specific Gypsies show me they have I can recognize that.
 
Looks like Tancredo's remarks have caught the attention of Turkey, a U.S. ally, and hurting our efforts with the war on terror:

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Top U.S. and Turkish officials on Tuesday condemned comments made last week by Rep. Tom Tancredo that the United States could “take out” Islamic holy sites if there were a nuclear attack on the United States by Muslim fundamentalists.

The Colorado Republican refused to apologize Tuesday, telling The Associated Press that his comments had been taken out of context.

U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called the statements Tancredo made Friday “insulting and offensive.” He said Americans “respect the dignity and sanctity of other religions.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul labeled them irresponsible.

“This was nothing but a fanatic speaking completely personally, irresponsibly and without thought of how far his statements would reach or what kind of problems they would create,” Gul said, according to the Anatolia news agency. The Foreign Ministry confirmed Gul’s remarks.

‘The thing we need least’
Gul, speaking prior to Tancredo’s response Tuesday, said that he did not think the people or the government of the United States shared Tancredo’s view, according to Anatolia.

“This shows that this kind of fanatical person can emerge anywhere. This kind of speech is the thing we need least these days,” Gul was quoted as saying. “I strongly condemn it.”

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Tancredo owed an apology to Muslims around the world.

“Tancredo’s statements go against the very message America is trying to send to the world, that the war against terrorism is not a war on Islam,” Dean said. “Remarks threatening the destruction of holy sites akin to the Vatican or Jerusalem do nothing to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the United States and abroad.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8633005
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yes, because using this rhetoric (petty vengeance with the destruction of holy sites) will ensure that we'll win the hearts and minds of the world's entire muslim population and eliminate the true cause of terrorism, thus protecting national security.[/QUOTE]

You still think we have to befriend the terrorists don't you? lol :)

(no, not all muslims are terrorists, but the terrorists are primary muslim)

This is obviously more of a threat than anything we would actually do.
 
For anyone to even say that they would attack a Holy site is utterly foolish.
The bottom line regardless of what happens is that we have to make OUR COUNTRY SAFE & only a fool would think that blowing up a holy site would achieve that.
 
[quote name='captaincold']For anyone to even say that they would attack a Holy site is utterly foolish.
The bottom line regardless of what happens is that we have to make OUR COUNTRY SAFE & only a fool would think that blowing up a holy site would achieve that.[/QUOTE]

See, that's where you're wrong. PAD's plan took care of that, he would make sure to nuke every muslim area and, those that didn't die immediately, he would make sure that they died of radiation and starvation.

Now, if someone tried to stop us, I guess we'd just have to nuke them to.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I can kinda see where PAD is coming from except for China. As Alonzo said China has NEVER shown themselves to be expansionist like the USSR has[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think Taiwain might disagree about that.
 
[quote name='trq']Yeah, I think Taiwain might disagree about that.[/QUOTE]

Taiwan is considered part of historic china, I explained that already. They have never shown any interest in territory outside of what they consider historic china.

Besides, taiwan claimed to be china throughout much of the second half of the 20th century, taiwan was taken over (at a significant toll to the indigenous population I might add) when the previous government of china, led by kai shek, was forced from power. He brought about one million chinese with him when he took control of the island. The overwhelming majority of the population is chinese (a majority of which were there before kai shek took over).

Taiwan is as chinese as you can get without technically being in china.
 
[quote name='Ruined']You still think we have to befriend the terrorists don't you? lol :)

(no, not all muslims are terrorists, but the terrorists are primary muslim)

This is obviously more of a threat than anything we would actually do.[/QUOTE]

Well, the terrorists we're concerned with at the moment are Muslim. There are plenty of Basque seperatists, Chechnyian rebels, Maoist Shining Path guerillas, anti-Castro airline bombers, anti-government militias, and so on around the world. Heck, the first group ever put on the Department of Defense's list of terrorists were Puerto Rican. Don't confuse "the particular group of terrorists who hate us right now" with "terrorists in general." They're not the same thing.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They have never shown any interest in territory outside of what they consider historic china.[/QUOTE]

Well, most Muslims also consider Israel "historic Palestine," too.

I've agreed with everything you've posted, though, so I don't want to sidetrack anything -- I was just making the point that it's kind of foolish to get into a "This country isn't very expansionist, so we don't have to nuke them" frame of mind, because, well, it justifies nuking countries that ARE expansionist. That's all.
 
[quote name='trq']Well, most Muslims also consider Israel "historic Palestine," too.

I've agreed with everything you've posted, though, so I don't want to sidetrack anything -- I was just making the point that it's kind of foolish to get into a "This country isn't very expansionist, so we don't have to nuke them" frame of mind, because, well, it justifies nuking countries that ARE expansionist. That's all.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top