Agreed. I think that in Islam, what God's will is has been claimed to be understood my many, but in the end they decide it by trial and error- that is they fight, and Allah must've been on the winning side. End of debate. So that is what we must do- win, as that leaves the Islamists no choice but to recognize that they were mistaken as to what Allah wanted. It seems to be the only way to demonstrate that to them, unfortunately.
"The best way to get our message 'heard' is to be victorious on the GWOT battlefield."
Exactly! Lots of people here in the U.S. don't realize that the primary concept that many people in the rest of the world understand and respect is power. The successful exercise of power will win over the hearts and minds of lots of people for a variety of reasons. One of which is that opposition to a powerful state will earn you a quick death and humiliation. Since many in the Middle East embrace death so easily, the humiliation factor should be stepped up a few notches. The terrorists understand the concept of power but the American people do not. IMHO.
The way I see the original remarks, it was intended as a threat that might give the Ts pause and inspire the mod and progressive Muslims to clean up their house. Maybe it would, but I don't see the Ts being deterred; their goal is actually political: Caliphate control of the globe. Their religious coloring is mostly camouflage, IMO.
Lets take it a step further... My feeling is that the appropriate response in the event of Islamofascists launching a nuclear strike on the U.S. would be for us to carry out the following:
1) immediate deportation/incarceration of all muslims in the U.S.
2) Immediate genocide of all Muslims in and around the Middle East.
3) Seizure of the Middle Easter oil fields.
4) Nuclear strikes on all Muslim Holy sites.
5) A televised (world wide) desecration of the Koran followed by a public ass-fucking of Saddam Hussein (who would ideally be dressed up as little Bo Peep.
Matt, I agree with you. After listening to Hugh on his show, I got the distinct impression that he was missing the point. Yeah, wiping Mecca off the face of the Earth wouldn't serve much strategic purpose... but the way the question was posed to Tancredo, it was obvious (to me at least) that he was talking about the US response to MULTIPLE WMD being set off in MULTIPLE US cities. Depending on the WMD in question, that would result in hundreds of thousands upward to millions of Americans dead. The attacks of 9/11 would be a veritable drop in the bucket for casualty count. And for those not keeping track, we took down 2 different hostile regimes (and counting) as a response to 9/11.
At that point, I think the American public (that survived) would agree that what we are doing now in dealing with certain aspects of Islam ("playing nice" by providing democracy as an option to radical Islam) is just not working. At that point, maybe just a bit of indiscriminate killing on a massive scale will get our point across to the rest of the believers of Islam.
The message? "Get your house in order, or we'll do it for you, and you won't much like our solution."
A modern version of the old crusades?
Turn their Islamic carpet slapping a$$es into dust, just please someone send me a plane ticket before you send them big bombs.
Stand Tall all,
Al, are you volunteering to butt-F*&^ Saddam?
I'm not.
IIRC, the US military will utilize the most effective response from a strategic point of view, with the objective of eliminating the aggressors.
Mecca simply doesn't fall in the "strategic target" territory. We'll be busy enough w/Iran, Saudi, Egypt, and the defense of Israel.
Matt, advocating the complete annihilation of two nations of Muslims for the actions of terrorists is irresponsible and incites/aligns you with bigots such as Alfred Gubfenstuppen in the above comment.
Pete, I believe Al is being facetious; or he's a lib trying to be a smartass.
Pete,
I think we would be beyond the concepts of "bigotry" and "hegemony" if we lost upwards of 1,000,000 American citizens and lost the use of large metropolitan areas for 10,000 years. Don't you? What exactly is it that you propose we do in response to that situation? Call the UN? The UN will be gone, man. Worldwide economic collapse. Do you think FEMA and the National Guard will be able to make a dent in the suffering? We would be wide open for follow on attacks and the literal invasion of our homeland. I would say that glassing Syria and Pakistan would be a prerequisite for our self defense. The only reason to not do the same to Iran and the Arabian peninsula is the oil that we will need to get our country back on its feet.
It's easy to snipe, pete, but if you don't have another solution, then keep your holier than thou attitude to yourself.
Matt;
You're spot on.
Forget about strategic targets. The terrorists don't hold land or resources. They live off the fear and kindness of their state sponsors.
Only when opposing the US has greater negative consequences, will the state sponsors stop supporting the terrorists.
Wiping Mecca and similar sites off the face of the earth would be only part of those consequences. By themselves they are meaningless.
As for what we do here at home- we need to understand that Islam is more than a religion. It is also the philosophical, legal, political and military expression of a belief system. At the very least we need to keenly monitor what is being said and taught in their mosques and schools.
Moderate Moslems (if there are any)need to realize that they need to reform their religion or it will be eliminated.
I agree that torching the places mentioned above would be the appropriate response, but I doubt it will get that far.
The jihadists recognize that they can win by simply keeping us perpetually off-balance. They attack, they "negotiate", we let our guard down, and the cycle continues. The Israelis know this cycle well, and what the media portrays as heavy-handed over there is really a show of incredible restraint from a country that is literally under attack by these barbarians.
This is why GW is so right; go on the offense and keep them off balance instead of the other way around. Force is the only language they understand.
I truly love this site. Tancredo's comments are difficult to hear and mentally devour, yet it is clear delineation of the circumstances we find ourselves in. I would not be surprised to hear that GWB had already passed a message similar to this through backchannels to OBL, et al. Taking ANY option off the table, no matter what is foolish and suicidal. If the rumors circulating the blogs regarding nukes having been smuggled (leftovers from ColdWar perhaps) into US are true, then AQ is just waiting for opportune time to strike.
One last thing...this is a clash of cultures. We can barely understand the mindset of those who hate us, and they simply despise what we stand for. Let the professionals handle the hard work they have trained for and keep the bad guys on the defensive. If we do not lose our resolve, never forget 9/11, we will prevail.
Just Nuke It!
Many people say that we're not at war w/ Islam, we're fighting a small group of bad Muslims.
I think that's wrong. The majority of Muslims feel the way the terrorists do. We should be fighting Islam, until the majority of of Muslims denounce the actions of the terrorists (which they haven't).
As Pres. Bush said "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
It doesn't get any simpler than that...
I have another option:
I don't have the numbers, but I've seen the maps that show there are more muslims than Christians in the world. Granted they don't have the capability, but (by seizing their shrine) you would hand them the intent to pose a threat to us. I really don't want to face the hordes that will come when we nuke their piece of rock.
But... what has really torn apart the muslims in the past is easily reproduced here. In the past, starting with Mohammed himself and ending with Abdul Azziz, the muslims get absolutely rabid over which muslim group is the "Guardian of Mecca." Winner gets the taxes on the "haj."
If the tangos nuked us, or unleased some crud that wiped out a large percentage of us, I suggest we switch their guards. We step in and pick some poor luckless tribe of muslims from Timor, and put them in charge of Mecca (lots and lots of PR). Of course they will be backed by 5 Divisions of soldiers supplied by the USA.
No one will screw with us because we will have done all that you have mentioned above... glass over Syria and Pakistan and seized Iran and Saudi Arabia. Muslims will run Mecca, and the world of muslims (from the other countries) will have no reason to join the hordes.
As long as we’re just throwing around contingency plans, none of the plans include the largest wild card, China. They are rapidly increasing their dependence on oil, don’t have any significant reserves of their own, and have no apparent intentions of conserving, or developing alternate energy sources (that I have read), nor any concern whatsoever about environmental damage.
Would they just sit back and permit us to secure the oilfields? More likely a realpolitik arrangement whereby they have unlimited access to Iranian oilfields and US holds SA wells? Or would they take an attack on the US as an opportunity to accelerate their plans for global domination?
I did advise my son in Phase 2 of BUD/S class #256 to learn Chinese dialects, but he said his one and only focus is today – learning to love his Dräger.
Matt,
Thank you for not pulling any punches on this subject. What Congressman Tancredo said was not out of bounds in my opinion. I agree with you that it doesn't make much strategic sense to bomb Mecca, but if we get nuked by some Al-Queda types than all options would have to be on the table. We would have to go into self preservation mode. If that means nuking a few militant islamic countries, then so be it. I don't think speaking PC now makes a lot of sense. I like Hugh Hewitt also. He's my neighbor. He got me into starting my own blog, but he's wrong on this issue. I don't think Tom Tancredo should apologize at all.
Powder Blue Report
I think that what Tancredo said was too simplistic and brief - what he should have said is that half-way war is a losing proposition (see: Korea / Vietnam / et al.). If you want lasting and true peace, you have to wage war to win outright by destroying the enemy. We didn't do this in the Gulf War (Thanks GWB, Gen. Powell and Gen. Schwartzkopf) and we got round two right now in which the enemy didn't allow himself to be killed in military formations because he learned the lessons from Gulf War I.
So, what Tancredo's statement 'could' be taken to mean, not that he's got the guts or brains to say this, is that we will destroy our enemy, and all his stuff, in order to win.
Matt, I agree with you. I actually disagree with Hugh to a certain extent about whether we are at war with Islam. Unless and until all the peace-loving Muslims rise up against and condemn and maginalize the radicals, the entire religion will be and is painted with the extremist brush. It has been hijacked. The religion has yet to undergo their own reformation and it is drastically called for. I'm not for targeting Mecca per se, but all those targets you mention work for me and if Mecca is a casualty I'll be the last to weep. Not with 1 million or more Americans vaporized (and worse, slowly dying excruciating deaths). No way Jose.
And as Steven den Beste pointed out in numerous posts, it is absolutely crucial that the enemy believes we will pull no punches or restrict our options in any way.
Jack,
I doubt that your son loves his Draeger right now. But since he must have made it through pool comp to be wearing it, he probably likes it better than twin 80s. Tell him to keep passing runs and swims and be safe with weapons on the Island and he'll be wearing the Trident in no time.
Right on Bro,
The day of giving them "pampers" is over. But I'd like to "play with" some of those 3000 saudi princes or what ever they call them to see who's got the money going to Iraq and I'll bet that they are in with a Iran.
First off (from a more political viewpoint), having a high level nuclear "incident" in a major US metro area would would AT MINIMUM have the impact Froggy very nicely described as "...change the geography and geology of the middle east permanently".
It's said that Al-Qaeda wants to return Islam back to an era of 14th-century fanaticism. The US gets hit hard enough, and we'll probably make sure they get there, and QUICKLY - at least back to the "14th Century" part of it.
They will likely have the opportunity to learn that it's going damned tough for them to be fanatics when they are just trying to scratch out enough to survive until tomorrow.
Btw, I would probably add Sudan to your list of nations going to "Glass" status.
Also, just as an interesting little political aside (something I found to be extremely interesting) is that both political parties are starting to actively build/recruit candidates for political offices in 2006, but more so for 2008. And one of the primary points they are looking for is military experience, in particular those individuals who just happen to be vets of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That type of search by both parties speaks volumes, regardless of what the MSM is reporting.
I'm with you except for a couple things. One, could we really react with the carte blanche you describe, or would other nuclear powers like Russia, China, India, and even Israel urge some kind of restraint? After all, nuclear fallout can ruin your whole day.
Second, I doubt your proposition that a *believable* threat to nuke (or otherwise obliterate) Mecca would have to have some kind of deterrent effect on that terrorist about to push the button. Why is he not thinking the following: "By destroying Los Angeles, I am killing lots of infidels, but I am also in effect destroying Mecca at the same time. Do I still get my 72 virgins, or is Allah going to be really pissed?"
Why not go all the way and give them the 14th Century they crave?
In the event of WMD, we should innoculate the Anglosphere for smallpox and then release it in the Middle East by infecting the Gitmo detainees and sending them home.
---
Seriously, those ME Nations import most of their food. In the event of a mass WMD in the USA, there will be famine the following year in all developing nations. Disease will follow. It would set the ME back for another 100 years.
Ah, better.
Just cut them off from the West. Some very good suggestions.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...m/atlas_shrugs/
Thanks for your post in response to Tancredo, and to Hugh. It's refreshing to hear a clear difference of opinion on a subject such as this, and to question the utterances of a leader and/or mentor.
To me Hugh is a great leader; I listen all the time and think that on most subjects and on most occasions he's definitely on the mark. He's says donate to Soldier's Angels, and we do. He says to send money to these political candidates, and we do. But to take the time to go on and on about Tancredo's comments has me both wondering and rather irritated. I tend to think you've got it right; in a doomsday scenario such as that, what difference would it make?
You know, during the Schiavo affair Hugh also went on and on about the subject, as did other conservative radio hosts, all with the thrust of keeping a vegetated individual alive ad infinitum, and supporting an act of Congress on the matter and the waking of the president in the very early hours of the morning to sign such an idiotic misuse of government time and attention.
So Hugh and many of his cohorts can at times be completely wrong, there's no question. But most of the time they're right on the mark; when they're off base it's good to see others with the courage to draw a contrast and to take a different view. So thank you.
As I understand, most of us posting here are not learned in tactical or strategical warefare and I would think that we probably do not know what the most efficient response would be. To respond with emotion would make many of us feel better but, I suspect, will not make things better for the country. To speculate on what would be the right response to a nuclear attack on the US without knowing any of the circumstances is like expecting Judge Roberts to respond to a question about how he would rule on a Roe V Wade case without knowing the details of the case.
Mr Williams,
How was the action if the Senate in the Schiavo case a misuse of government?
I am sure you know that the EX-husband was the first to bring the case to court.
And I am sure that you have knowledge of the basis the original judge used for the his determination.
As you most obviously know all that was being asked by the Senate is that another party review the basis of the ruling and determine whether or not, based upon new information, the basis was grounded in truth.
A misuse of government, as you will agree, was when the case was taken to court in the first place because of the EX-husbands refusal to let the parents care for Ms Schiavo until she died.
OCBill,
As to your first point, I think that making our intentions clear to the Russians and Chinese would be sufficient. I don't think that they would be in the mood to do anything about it if we got nuked and nuked someone in return so long as it wasn't them. What would we say to the Russians if the Chechens nuked Leningrad? How about, "Sorry" and "Do what you gotta do"
With respect to the potential deterrence of terrorists I don't think that it's possible. In order to commit suicide for a religion, a person would have to be totally committed to that ideology. As such, they probably don't believe that it is POSSIBLE to destroy Mecca. They probably would say if you asked, that allah would supernaturally intervene to protect Mecca. That's why I say that MAD is not an effective strategy. Aggressive prosecution of the GWOT is the key to our safety.
I don't think nuking Mecca would serve any useful strategic or tactical purpose, but then neither did Dresden or firebombing Tokyo. These things happen when wars escalate and they always do escalate. Brits in 1939 would have been horrified at the idea of firebombing Dresden. After Coventry Bomber Harris lost 50,000 men over the skies of Germany, and had no problem putting together 1,000 plane raids when Hitler was mostly beaten. A nuke attack would compress that escalation into well, a day basically.
The US has nuclear missile subs, ICBMS, B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers, and cruise missiles. If we say lost NYC and DC, would Mecca and Medina be on the target list? Along with Riyadh and Islamabad and Tehran and Damascus? Most definitely, and that's a terrible thing.
If millions of us die, hundreds of millions of them will die, in the logic of escalation. We can escalate a lot more than they can, which unfortunately they really don't understand. Anyone think PC will hold sway in that situation?
So, to save hundreds of millions of lives, it's imperative we have defense in depth to stop that. People rightly are upset about 1700 dead in Iraq. They'd be a lot more upset with 120 million dead worldwide.
Sam Nunn who is sober and sane, says that a nuke attack on a Western city is 80% likely in the next seven years. That's horrific.
If it takes the Patriot Act, Iraq and Afghanistan, raising taxes, real borders with Canada and Mexico, and a lot more besides, then yeah it's all worth it. Even the terrible sacrifices made by our men and women. Seals poking around the Pakistan border probably save kids on a school bus and it's never even known.
I agree, Tancredo's statements won't matter in a world where it's seriously "demanded" that Spain revert to Moorish rule, or the beef with the Aussies is the Independence of East Timor.
Jim,
What is the order of the Nuclear attack? Nuke blasts have many properties and each depends on the nature of the materials used, the quality of the yield, the placement of the device, the density of structures and the type of terrain, and weather.
Its very hard to kill a lot of people with small devices. 50 kt and below ground burst will do a lot of damage, but its still a 9/11 type incident, not a megakiller.
To get millions of people you need dozens of small devices detonated across a large area or one very large device detonated in the air.
The flip side of this is a lot of London style bombs used to disperse a radiological substance. This is fine in theory, but you need shielding to prevent detection. And this makes the packages pretty bulky.
A more realistic scenario is VX coupled with sapper style attacks or a creative combination of existing methods.
The real nightmare is VX released in a few dozen places or venues at or near the same time with coordinated sapper attacks on Emergency services, Police, and fire.
One thing we trained to do was to take and clear buildings holding Soviet command and control elements of Army level. You seal the exits and then clear the whole building. Three to five stories was expected - but apply this to a large skyscraper. There's not a lot the police could do.
I am curious to know Hugh Hewitt's (I think he's a troll) thoughts on Mutually Assured Destruction, Truman's decision to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden. MAD has been stated US policy for four decades. God forbid US cities were attacked and many perished, the US as a matter of official policy of our National Security would be obligated to annihilate with massive and overwhelming Nuclear force any and all parties involved. Therefore, if these terrorist scumbags have even the slightest brain they must realize that an attack on the US would be met with massive Nuclear force against their lands. Yes, that means Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and any other place those cockroaches are hiding. It is meant to act as a deterrent and if the other side does not heed this deterrent and decides to attack us then we are required, again as a matter of official US policy, to unequivocally annihilate the other side. If Hewitt does not subscribe to this policy then he is a traitor.
I'm a little late to the table but I did want to let you know that I like your thinking and agree completely. I almost always agree with Hugh Hewitt but this time he is, in my opinion, really grasping at some very strange and contorted straws.
I agree that no action would be overblown if one of our population centers were damaged by a nuclear device.
My issue with Tancredo is the logic of nuking Mecca.
It is not a major population center.
It is not a major economic center.
It is a major relious center
To nuke Mecca would not defeat the islamofascists.
Remember that 9/11 NYC resulted in the overthrow of two corrupt terrorist sponsoring/harboring regimes.
Rather than "nuke Mecca", which would NOT help us win, I would favor regime change in Syria, Sudan, and other seditiously hostile terrorist sponsor states.
A surgeon is sucessful because he only cuts out what is necessary and then carefully sutures up and promotes healiing.
That is what the world needs.
To use a nuclear device against the islamofascists is to try to do surgery with a baseball bat.
The is just a sliver of a bad MADD strategy. Bombing Mecca may not have any military benefit but THREATENING to take away the thing your enemy holds most dear may prevent the nuking of a major US city.
Sound logic? Perhaps not to your forgiving, diversity embracing, average American but definitely to some Islamofacists living in the hills of Pakistan.
The problem is the threat needs to be believable. If 90% of the MSM and American public expresses outrage at the idea they just don't get it and the threat is empty.
Some don't like it but at times you have to fight terror with terror (a hineous threat). It worked against the Soviets for 50 years.
My response to Hugh Hewitt:
Mr. Hewitt,
During WWII, we faced a fanatical enemy willing to die in suicide attacks, an enemy that did not follow western "laws of war" and scoffed at western norms as decadent weakness. To defeat them, we used two nuclear devices on their cities and then Gen. MacArthur made their Emperor admit he was not a god, but only a mortal man on Japanese radio. This is what was required to defeat what was a true warrior culture. It required not only a military defeat, but required that their will to fight be taken from them.
Should we have avoided taking such "extreme" measures and instead sought dialog with "moderate Japanese elements"?
Should President Truman have offered apologies to the Japanese-Americans who bravely and honorably served in the US Army in the european front for having attacked a core element of Japanese religion and culture?
During the war, Admiral William Halsey’s instructions to his men: "Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs."
Does this mindset shock and sadden you? Should he have been forced to resign? What of the offense to the "moderate Japanese" population that did not endorse Tojo's war?
During the cold war, the Soviet Union's leadership understood quite well that a nuclear attack on the United States would have the immediate result of a nuclear attack on the Warsaw Pact. Was this a radical stance on behalf of the US? What of the political prisoners, the innocent populations held in the chains of the communist governments? Surely the ICBMs targeting Moscow would kill both guilty and innocent. Does this make the MAD doctrine immoral? Perhaps we should have instead insisted that only the Soviet Leadership be directly targeted and refused to respond until such targets could be obtained without "collateral damage". Sound viable?
Islam fuels our enemies in this current war, and with the combination of modern weapons technology and jihadist theology threatens the very existance of the free world.
Islam also has a key theological vulnerability. The requirement for every muslim to make the haj to Mecca and the 5 daily prayers in the direction of Mecca. If the haj had to be cancelled for 10,000 years due to radiation and muslims were bowing 5 times a day towards America's newest nuclear test site, it would obviously pose serious theological questions as to the validity of islam. If we were to launch ICBMs at Mecca and Medina, and the hand of allah did not swat them from the sky, then is the US more powerful than allah? Nothing in the koran or hadith allows for the destruction of islam's most holy cities. How many homicide bombers could then be recruited? No Mecca, then maybe no 72 virgins in the afterlife waiting for a newly minted shaheed.
Too brutal? Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki gentle? We had already burned Tokyo to the ground with conventional incidaries. What of the German innocents in Dresden? Were more lives saved by Hiroshima and Nakasaki, avoiding a conventional invasion of the Japanese island?
We are in a savage war for our very survival with an enemy that has no rules. Our only rule should be to win. I would prefer a "kinder, compassionate victory", but I doubt that such a thing is possible. Instead, with the enemy we face we need the mindset that will allow us to preserve this nation for future generations. Most of the muslim world will never love us, but if we finally show that we can meet every attack with a greater degree of intense violence they will learn to fear us. Fear is the currency of respect in the islamic world. Machiavelli understood this and in this modern war, his words ring especially true.
You may think my position extreme now, but would you feel the same post-nuclear attack on US soil? Many experts on the topic seem to be of the opinion that it's not a matter of "if" but "when". Obviously the prevention of nuclear terrorism is a complex issue, but it is my belief that a modified version of the "MAD" doctrine might help in addressing it. I think you are too hasty in your condemnation of Mr. Tancredo.
By reading the above comments it is easily apparent that many of your opinions are not supported by any rational academic or strategic defense approach in regards to national security policy.
The scenarios many of you cite as an "appropriate response" to a WMD terror attack on US soil go far beyond inappropriate; rather they irrevocably trample the fundamental values this country was founded on.
I consider myself conservative in regards to issues involving the military and national security, but the ideas being discussed here are madness. I suggest that before you float these ideas out for others to read, that you take a moment and ponder the implications of this type of thinking.
God bless our country and our troops serving overseas.
Nicely said Anon.
What many here seem to overlook is that the Enemy is scattered around the world and does not have a command center.
Although the Japanese did practice suicide attacks they still had a command and control target. They had an economical target as well and the leaders of Japan, IMO, did not want to see their country destroyed to nothingness.
The enemy today has no such central target and all that would be destroyed is a small part of the enemy and a large part of people and places that have nothing to do with the enemy.
MAD does not work because they do not have anything to destroy. They are the lowest for of life, anolagous to leeches and cockroaches combined.
Hugh recognizes this.
And again as I said before the response to an attack on the US will be calculated and planned by leaders that, I have faith, know much more about the targets than we do.
Mistakes have been made and more will be made, but as time goes on, less will be made and the setbacks will be fewer.
Think back to mistakes made prior to WWII. What if GB et al had not allowed Hitler to invade Poland...
"Winning isn't everything,it's the only thing".Vince Lombardi and I think this is the philosophy that the U.S. must get back and finally retain.Nobody likes losers,even Gen.Patton said that to his troops before they went out to battle.It is time out for us playing pattycake with these people.We've been doing that for close to 30 years and where has it gotten us?Froggy,bombing Mecca wouldn't have any strategic value at all,but I also realize that at Least we have a few honest politicans who do take the threat of world wide butchery seriously.But the American people need to discard this damnable p.c. nonsense so we can get the job done.
I've taken a few days to think about the Tancredo remarks vs. Hugh Hewitt's reaction. There's no doubt that HH is one of my heroes and a brilliant and talented man. On this subject, though, he has a dangerous blind spot. Hugh is a religious man who is equating "devout" Muslims with "devout" Christians. Islam is not Christianity.
I don't agree with bombing Mecca for dramatic effect, but I think we should keep all options on the table when dealing with the Islamo-terrorists. And I'm still waiting to hear from that "vast majority of Muslims" who are supposedly on our side.
OK, why don't we wait and see what happens. The response to whatever attack happens to the US in the future should be immediate and devastating. The mistake made by Tancredo is that he has no way of knowing what would be the best response to an attack on the US.
Until the act occurs and the experts and military analyze what response would be strategically or tactically correct a person in political power should not be hypothesizing what the appropriate response should be. A national leader should never decide before the action what the response should be. The leader can say that we will come after those responsible with everything we have and he may be able to identify the enemy as extreme Muslim fascists, but to identify a specific target that will most probably have nothing to due with the perpetrators of the attack is wrong.
Hugh by no means is being a pacifist.
You can quote Kenny Rogers “you have to know when to hold them and know when to play them”…
A million dead Americans won't be avenged by a robot glazing a grid coordinate in a desert. The final fight will start here in our streets.
We've been under attack since the 1970's. We sort of half-assed a Munich approach with Oslo and Arafat, and were the only side in this fight to opt for sitzkrieg. It drove them nuts... more nuts than they already were.
They can't produce toilet paper or lead pencils or anything else for export but oil... but they can buy death by the quart or kiloton with what they make from that, and eventually they will.
It will be our Coventry. And we will have brought it on ourselves by not acting sooner.
Yes. My previous remarks were somewhat facetious though not wholly so. And no, I am not a liberal. I sincerely believe that genocide against more or less the entireity of the muslim world will unfortunately be the result of the scenario that I see developing over the next 10 years.
Those who've posted to the "non-existent" reality of the moderate muslim world are 100% spot on with their remarks.
Additionally, let me add the following. As an atheist, we are rapidly coming to a point in time when the world will be forced to come to terms with the reality that there is no equivalency between the world's two great religions and cultures. I stand 100% on the side of the Judeo-Christian world and acknowledge that we are rapidly approaching the time where the 2nd "final solution" will need to be applied against the Muslim world that seeks to bring all of mankind back to the stone age. And though it saddens me greatly to think of all of the innocent millions who will die a miserable death if that scenario comes to pass, the simple fact of the matter is that Islam is a vile, sick, dirty religion that must be put down with the same clinical precision that a vetenarian puts down a wounded animal.
Alfred
Froggy...
...That's why I say that MAD is not an effective strategy. Aggressive prosecution of the GWOT is the key to our safety.
I take your point that Mecca probably doesn't count as a strategic target, and that the "irrational" Islamoterrorists won't respond when faced with MAD. They believe Allah will reward them in every case--win or lose.
However, I don't think that a MAD strategy and an aggressive stance on the GWOT (a position which I completely agree with you on) are necessarily mutually exclusive. With no data what-so-ever, I've got to believe that there are some moderate Muslims who may be responsive to our taking a MAD approach. Perhaps our expressing a new MAD strategy would get them to get serious about getting control of their religion and their societies.
But should we find ourselves enduring the loss of a large American city, I will understand that their might be more important targets in the first or second rounds of retaliations, but I won't be regretting our targetting Mecca.
Geez. I fell for one of my own pet peeves. I hate it when I do that. The last sentence should read...
...I will understand that there might be more important targets in the first or second rounds of retaliations, but I won't be regretting our targetting Mecca.
Oh Hugh...I thought you were smart...I thought you knew things.
I think bombing Mecca and Medina would serve a very strategic purpose.
If you know anything about Islam...you'd know that muslims believe wholeheartedly that Allah would NEVER allow the infidels to destroy his little black stone
...
http://www.crystalinks.com/
black...ackstone.html...
...so if or when MEcca IS destroyed...I believe the wind would be removed from the sails of extremist Islamists...obviously it would be difficult to recruit terrorists to die for such a weak god.
So don't overestimate the usefulness of removing the holy centre of terror.
Roll a nuclear carpet over every Muslim land. We must do to the Muslims what Rome did to Carthage when it became clear that only of the 2 civilizations would survive. Hanibal attacked Roman settlements and cities with war elephants and butchered Romans by the tens of thousands. The Muslims now attack Western societies with conventional weaponry. If the United States every suffers a major WMD attack, the entire Islamic society should be wiped from the face of human history. This is our right!
Islam is a religion of murder and conquest. It must be defeated along with those who bring such evil to our shores under force of arms and terror. God wills it!
You are SO right, Froggy. You just forgot Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Algeria...I'd make a nice big glass parking lot outta them too (along with S.A., Syria, Iran, etc.) if anyone were so stupid as to nuke the US. Hell, I'd evacuate every non-Muslim/non-Arab Israeli and lay waste in that place too, just to get rid of the stupid Paleoswinians, who'd be stupidly cheering in the street (again).
And yes, I am serious. I'm f'n sick and tired of playing the "we're above that" game, as if being weak were sooo superior. Pbbbbt.
And Tancredo's going to turn them (Islamonazis) against us? Jesus. People need to wake up!
Commenting by HaloScan
