Fixed that for you, and also thanks for showing you know nothing about islam, which is why you fall for the "religion of peace" lie, show us how your burka looks later...
Nuking Mecca - Reasonable Course Of Action Or Bat Crazy Far Right...
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Fixed that for you, and also thanks for showing you know nothing about islam, which is why you fall for the "religion of peace" lie, show us how your burka looks later...
nah. Liberals on the other hand, are nicer than even God, if you can imagine that!
yes, but all aren't muslims there.
God gives warnings and tells others to also, noah warned of what was coming for 120 years. I would only warn them once.
You have reading comprehension problems, you say?
You voted for clinton who openly supports abortion you say and protect islam who subjugate and rape and murder women all the time, you say?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How have you "fixed" this exactly? You believe that blowing up a 'place' would destroy Islam whereas Rusha is saying that neither blowing up people or objects is going to achieve any such thing.
:AMR:
WizardofOz
New member
To those in favor of bombing Mecca - do you support the $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:think:
Nope. No better than fast and furious to me.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It won't stop Islam full stop and nuking it will only lead to catastrophe on a global scale.
You don't have to stop the belief.
Just decimate them so much that they no longer have the strength or funds to keep them from being a terrorist threat any longer.
There were at least two leaders in the Civil War that knew the means it would take to defeat the opposition.
Sherman and Forrest (both on opposing sides).
Sherman let loose.
And the South regretted not letting Forrest loose as they should have.
Sherman even commented that he considered Forrest one of the few worthy war opponents he had.
Brutality won out.
Japan surrendered after they were hit with an atomic bomb.
Brutality won out.
There is not hardly any war in history that was not won by the side being the most brutal.
Don't know why folks think that will ever change.
You are going to have to get meaner than your opponent or be left in the dust getting walked all over.
Just decimate them so much that they no longer have the strength or funds to keep them from being a terrorist threat any longer.
There were at least two leaders in the Civil War that knew the means it would take to defeat the opposition.
Sherman and Forrest (both on opposing sides).
Sherman let loose.
And the South regretted not letting Forrest loose as they should have.
Sherman even commented that he considered Forrest one of the few worthy war opponents he had.
Brutality won out.
Japan surrendered after they were hit with an atomic bomb.
Brutality won out.
There is not hardly any war in history that was not won by the side being the most brutal.
Don't know why folks think that will ever change.
You are going to have to get meaner than your opponent or be left in the dust getting walked all over.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, again, you clearly have no understanding of what nuclear war entails if you think you can even get away with a low yield nuke attack on 'strategic' parts of the Middle East. The next 'world war' will be the last. Even the incredibly watered down 'The Day After' from the early 80's showed the absolute insanity of nuclear conflict and made pains to state it would likely be so much worse from an American standpoint in the closing credits.
There wouldn't be much more than dust left afterwards...:doh:
Educate yourself Tam. You are embarrassingly ignorant on just what the ramifications of a full scale nuclear war actually are - and even more so if you think you can either win one or that nuking places like Mecca wouldn't lead to one. It ain't just America that would suffer from the fallout - literally and figuratively.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'd sooner adopt a sane attitude that tackles the terrorist element of extremists rather than futilely plunging the whole world into a nuclear war that would destroy it altogether. If you think not willing thermonuclear destruction is akin to tolerating terrorism acts then you're as clueless on that as you are nuclear war itself.
lain:
Good grief, we don't have to use a nuke everywhere.
We have other ways to bomb too.
And we can use bulldozers to level the mosques in our own land.
We should have never allowed the building of meeting places for those with the core belief that America and the world should be subjugated to accept Islam or face death.
We have other ways to bomb too.
And we can use bulldozers to level the mosques in our own land.
We should have never allowed the building of meeting places for those with the core belief that America and the world should be subjugated to accept Islam or face death.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You use a nuke anywhere and what do you suppose the reaction is gonna be? A bit of political indignation and some strongly worded rhetoric? If you think launching a conventional weapons attack on Mecca and the like isn't going to escalate then you're yet again embarrassingly naive. Thank goodness the likes of you are nowhere near the bloody launch buttons...
:doh:
:chuckle: Especially considering that Rusha is only seeing what *you* quoted. Showed me!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It wasn't particularly worth reading. Nuking Mecca will eradicate Islam, world probably goes on aka white picket fences, American dream etc, no reprisals blah blah blah...
Of course, in reality...
Islam isn't organized. There's no Muslim pope, there's no leader, there's no leadership, not globally, maybe nationally, in a few cases, that's it. Who's going to "surrender for Islam?" The problem we've got now, with individual Muslims, individual mosques, individual organizations, acting independently, is terrorism. Aside from Mosul and few other examples, it's not even guerilla war, it's terrorism. There's nothing you can do to get a bunch of unorganized people to organize together so that they can act as one and surrender. Consider the end and work backwards to figure out how to get there. You're imagining a table at which there's a meeting of the minds. Maybe the leaders of the West are sitting at the table, but who's on the other side? There's no Muslim pope.... You'd have to kill every last one of them, in order for violence to answer this problem. And that's just---not the answer.
You can't kill ideology...but you can make it worse.