LaShawn Barber has long been one of my favorite conservative bloggers. But we’re going to have to have a long talk here:Most politicians are faint-hearted, weak, ineffectual, disconnected, and desensitized pencil-pushers, so when one comes along and s…

In case you haven’t noticed, we are exterminating cells as we find them in the context of GWOT. That is not stopping them of dreaming and scheming greater attacks. The only thing to defuse the situation is to demonstrate the futility of taking on us infidels.

The point about Eric Rudolph and McVeigh is moot. They didn’t use the ultimate weapon and it is clear that they are not christians. The only way your thinking would be acceptable is if Catholic priests & pope were advocating terror against abortion clinics. Or if Mormon bishops were urging terror against non-Mormons and then some of them went and set off a nuke.

Go back to #85 to see where I specify the only situation where the black rock and mecca would be taken off the table. Keep in mind that under Islam, the church and state (Sharia) are one entity for all pracical purposes (See #111)

In context of Eric Rudolph or better yet that anti-gay wack from KS, Phelps, if his people were to somehow set off a nuke under the pretext of wiping out the fags, then I have no problem with obliterating his church and followers.

If the moderate muslims play ball with us and actively marginalize the radicals and somehow Osama bin Dead was to set off a nuke here, we’d have no cause to flatten mecca. But as it stands now, the wahabbi sect, keepers of the black rock & mecca, are the fastest growing and unapologetically anti-western to the point of urging annilhation of us infidels. Therefore it is emminently logical to target their sacred ground until they repent.

I see the arab street didn’t rise up when shia’s holy sites were desecrated. Why would the world at large rise up if mecca, under the leadership of the wahhabis, led them into ruin.

W/o mecca & black rock, there is no allah, w/o allah, there is no islam. (See #113)

Don’t you get it? Given enough time, I think most Americans will get it (see #114 and Judges chp 12). We have the right to take extreme countermeasures. Again, not necessarily premptive, but certainly ruthlessly when provked.

Oh and FunTed? I think it’s safe to say most of us don’t care about the views of insipid trolls like you’re acting. If you’re serious, fine, but you’re going to have to come up with more thotful comments, otherwise you’re wasting your time.

The Three Conjectures

A Pew poll finds 40% of Americans worry that an US city will be destroyed by a terrorist nuclear attack . James Lileks thinks the annihilation of a city is a dead certainty and will only mark the start of a long, wearying struggle against Islamists armed with nuclear car bombs.The imminence of the threat is open to debate. Despite the perception that technological diffusion has put weapons of mass destruction within easy reach of Islamic terrorists — the cliche of a mullah brewing anthrax in a cave — terrorist weapons remain at the 1970s level. The Al-Qaeda attack on the September 11 was the most sophisticated terrorist assault in history. Yet it did not employ any new technological elements, just the creative use of old techniques like the airline hijacking. High explosives, small arms, and poison gas still comprise the terrorist arsenal…
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

I didn’t miss the point of any of your questions! My comment about dropping bombs on terrorists and terror cells rather than Mecca at large is exactly about deterence! Killing terrorists deters them! Threatening Mecca with destruction doesn’t! What is so hard to understand about that?!? Perhaps your questions weren’t clear, which is a very likely possibility with you! And I understand you are defending Tancredo, but you’re being obtuse!

I would then state my disagreement with Tom and say, “I don’t think Islamofacists would be deterred in any way from nuking an American city”.

Then I also would state (don’t know why – but I’m learning from spade) that Tom doesn’t control the military and doesn’t make military decisions. I’d wonder why Tom was even speaking as if he was in charge.

You are right you didn’t evade a question. You just misread it and then answered it as if we asked something else.

Sure I’m difficult. You are attacking Tom. I’m defending him. I ask a question to see how you might offer deterrence given the posed question. In #116 you act like you are going to answer it and MISS the entire point of the question by talking about what you’d do when finding terrorists and terror cells.

Tancredo should have said “all options are on the table.” I’m not sure there is anything Tancredo could have said in that situation that would deter terrorists from using nuclear weapons.

Talk about guilt. You are attacking and smearing a guy who is wonderful, good for America, smart, and deserves respect. People all over are missing the point ENTIRELY. Even in the midst of us trying to help you understand the point.

If you disagree that Islamofacists can be deterred then that is all you can really state. Then you are done.

-Spade

Let me address nonsensical point #2. Tom didn’t issue a threat to Muslims as if he was in charge of the military. He was answering a question about what we should do if an american city was nuked. He stated that we should make the threat before any thing like that happens so that everyone knows that there is no option off the table.

Point #1 now. If you don’t think terrorists will be deterred then that is the end of your argument. You really have nothing further to say except that you disagree that terrorists will be deterred. Maybe you explain why (that they are madmen, not moderates, insane, have no fear whatever) but going on as if it was more than a threat for deterrence is what is degenerating the conversation.

You saw that too huh?

Tom never said nuke but you go on for a full paragraph as if Tom did. What literature have you been reading?

You keep talking as if Tom would bomb Mecca. It hasn’t happened. Probably won’t happen. What he talked about Spade (I’m informing you now so you can’t keep up the same argument if you read this) is the threat of the worst if they do the worst. They have to know that nothing is off the table. It was a conversation in context of deterrence. If you don’t think they can be deterred then state that and you are done. But you go on as if Mecca will be bombed. You are done by saying it won’t be a deterrence. You disagree with those who think it is a deterrence to some extent. That’s that.

Spade wrote in total avoidance, “What do I suggest for deterrence? Every time we find a terrorist or terrorist cell, we drop a bomb on it and do our best to avoid killing civilians, thus keeping this a West v. Terrorists thing.”

Spade. The question was about what we do if a terrorist nukes an American city. Not if we “find a terrorist or terrorist cell” what do we do. You deflected or are uninformed about the entire dialog that Tancredo had with the interviewer. I have it posted above if you don’t know it.