Think Progress

12 Responses to “Nuke ‘Em”

1. kindness says:

   ---

   While I do think the Saudi’s financially back extremist organizations that seek to harm others, this comment by this representative was on par with the communist party member in China who last week said they should nuke the US if we defend Taiwan. Brain dead, both of ‘em.

   Follow the money. Shut that pipeline down.

   July 19th, 2005 at 1:08 pm

   ---

2. Juce says:

   ---

   Wingers loooooove their nukes.

   July 19th, 2005 at 1:09 pm

   ---

3. Vaughn Hopkins says:

   ---

   Kindness, what would we, the USofA do if China “defends” Alabama? Don’t forget, we have already acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, not an independent state.

   July 19th, 2005 at 2:15 pm

   ---

4. Mal P says:

   ---

   As an ex-refugee, a victim of ideologically-based tyranny and a long term advocate of women’s rights, I am often invoked with thoughts of “extreme measures� to retaliate or to curb the devastation of terrorism and extremism. But there are so many other more ‘acceptable’ things that US can do rather than destroy a historical site that was founded by none other than the Prophet Abraham- a figure respected by all religions.

   For example, all people of Pakistani and Saudi origins (or anyone else practicing Wahbism) that live in the US and Europe should be put in camps until Al-Quada is destroyed. These countries and their ex-pats have produced more suicide bombers against the west than all other countries put together. Second carpet-bomb the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This area is scarcely populated, it is where Bin Laden and his army operate and this is where the insurgent that continue to destabilize Afghanistan hide.

   But calling for the destruction of the holiest of Islamic places is bad judgment. Not only do you alienate sympathetic Muslims (like Afghans who are fighting side by side with the US army against extremist and who were the most brutalized victims of Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda), you are giving too much legitimacy to these politically, not religiously, motivated groups. When are US politicians going to realize that by associating these groups of draconian, drug smuggling, extremist ‘Wahbi’ infidels (like Al-Qaeda, Taliban or the Pakistan-based Jamaat Islami) with mainstream Islam, they are giving them more power?

   The US war is not against Islam and every real Muslim knows that these Wahabi groups do not care about Islamic holy sites nor do they defend Muslims. Just remember the vindictiveness that they unleashed on the Muslim people of Afghanistan and they hate Shiites more than they hate Americans. These groups are motivated by power (Bin-laden wants to rule Saudi) by money ( Al-Zurqawi wants the Iraqi oil) and by land (Pakistanis have allows salivated over Afghanistan’s trade routs and Kashmir’s resources). Washington speeches should echo this truth and not confuse things by threatening Mecca.

   July 19th, 2005 at 2:41 pm

   ---

5. Jay says:

   ---

   I thought of the Chinese comments too but I think that he was a military official. I happened past Lou Dobbs last night and he’s always talking about China and economic policy but he was posing the question of whether or not the Chinese government sanctioned or tacitly agreed with what the official had said in regard to the US/Taiwan. He mentioned that this officer had been promoted twice within the last several months…..it’s getting hot out there boys and girls, very hot. Buckle your chinstraps.

   July 19th, 2005 at 2:47 pm

   ---

6. kindness says:

   ---

   If they wanted Alabama, I say, let ‘em have it.

   Seriously though, Taiwan has never been part of red China. Now that isn’t to say the Chinese don’t claim it, they do.

   We’ve said we would defend Taiwan. I think we could be a very good broker over there, while reducing such inflamatory remarks at the same time.

   MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked for 4 decades. Is it a good policy? No. Did it work? Yes.

   If you are asking me what I would do. I would sell the Taiwanese all the radar & missles they want. I think economics are what is going to force the US, China and Taiwan to all be on the same side.

   Just because I want to be on China’s good side doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do things they didn’t like. They sold nuke components to Pakistan to help them build their bombs.

   You gotta find ways to make friends with that 800 lb gorilla in the corner, cause some day it will rule the fiscal world.

   July 19th, 2005 at 3:00 pm

   ---

7. kindness says:

   ---

   Sorry, I just read Mal P’s piece. So you like the internment camps idea, kind of like the discredited ones we used in WWII against US citizens of Japanese descent.

   Which form of Nazi are you? Do you goosestep around the house? Do you have posters of Adolf around your house?

   Part of the protection of free speech is to protect the speech of people you disagree with.

   Frankly, I don’t think the fundamentalist christians are much different from the fundamentalist muslims. They both want the same thing. And they both will use violence “in gods name” to show how holy and right they are.

   July 19th, 2005 at 3:05 pm

   ---

8. Lee Russ says:

   ---

   So encouraging zealots with partial truths and emotional appeals creates a cadre of salivating, violence-prone crzies? Imagine that.

   Say, John Podhoretz, can you spell
   F R A N K E N S T E I N ? ? ? ?

   July 19th, 2005 at 5:38 pm

   ---

9. Skid says:

   ---

   Let me get this straight:

   Chinese “blowhard” general saying nuke US = Bad. OK
   US “blowhard” saying nuke “Mecca” = Good?

   Sounds like neither of our countries can control loose cannons.

   Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

   July 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pm

   ---

10. fake but accurate says:

    ---

    If you threaten to kill people, the death cult will only welcome it, all the sooner to get to the virgins and dates. That rock is all they care about, making it glow would be about the only thing you could threaten them with that could give them pause. The context was “if several cities” in the US had been nuked. I think that would only be one possible target. That’s why you guys are not in power, face it, you would not use nukes no matter what, not on cities, armies, rocks, nothing, that’s why you can’t be trusted to defend the country, hell clintoon lost the freaking codes! That is a fact, twice, and once they were never found!
    Hippy was complaining about Bush holding the hand of Saud in Crawford, not knowing that that puts him in bed with us and makes him a target, forces him to work with us for his survival. We may not nuke Mecca, but what’s wrong with making Bin Laden think we would? Don’t tell me, now they are not going to be reasonable. LOL. You should be happy, even right-wingers are trying to be PC.

    July 19th, 2005 at 11:51 pm

    ---

11. fake but accurate says:

    ---

    If they wanted Alabama, I say, let ‘em have it.
    Comment by kindness

    No you guys are not traitors, how could we ever say such a thing? How kind, kindness.

    July 20th, 2005 at 12:01 am

    ---

12. parcequilfaut says:

    ---

    OK. Let’s put this in perspective.

    Internment camps? Are not OK, ever. Name me once in the history of the world that ghettos or camps or any other form of “round ‘em up” presaged anything positive (I am not talking about criminals but the idea that “everyone of Pakistani or Saudi origin or practicing Wahbism” needs to go to the Happy Camps).
    Nukes? A bad idea for everybody, generally, as fallout is indiscriminately nasty. If the wind had been blowing the wrong way after Hiroshima, there could have been a lot of American babies on the West Coast born dead and deformed.
    Nuking Mecca? The 100% guaranteed way to not only ensure that the jihad will never end, but to alienate and anger moderate Muslims and other people of faith the world over, including this nonmonotheist. That’s about as logical as suggesting that blowing up the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem would end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What it would do is turn us into thugs in the eyes of the entire world. And the entire world would be right. Over that, I’d voluntarily renounce citizenship.
    I don’t think George (the first Prez, not the current, although I don’t think he’d do it, either) and his cronies would ever have approved of that kind of terrorism. Yep, I said terrorism. Intentionally targeting a religious site for destruction is terrorism, whether it’s done by a government or a splinter group. What is less American than blowing up people at prayer? Really. Honestly. I wonder if some of these people have control of their inner monologue.

    July 20th, 2005 at 5:12 am

    ---