Salty

iTrader: (14)

CO Congressman reaches out to the Muslim minority vote...



Congressman: Mecca a possible retaliation target

Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html


Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like _ if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

That's a pretty irresponsible comment, besides, isn't mecca in saudi arabia?

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

What do you mean by that? He's saying that might be a hypothetical response to a nuclear attack? They nuke us, we nuke mecca.

I think the whole notion, if we had the backbone to do it, could potentially squelch terrorism. Of course you hit the enemy where it hurts.

In the U.S., hitting the WTC hit us where it hurts most people most, as Cash is king with many here. Religion is king for fundamentalists, no?

Imprezer

iTrader: (9)

He is retarded... That would be one way to loose this war... He will have every muslim in the world trying to kill anyone remotely related to US...

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Who nuke us the saudis? Or islamic terrorists in general. Usually retaliation means getting back at the enemy who attacked you. It would be the same scenario pro choice athiest groups blew up the vatican, it would not help thier cause and probably make most of thier sympothizers turn against them.

That would be stupid, the only thing these people take seriousley is thier religeon, all they would be doing is making more of the muslim population hate us more, I'd imagine even the sane, rational thinking muslims would be pretty pissed. It just doesn't make too much sense to attack a spiritual civilian target.

Exactly, it was a reckless comment that obviosely wasn't well thought out.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

idiot + idiototic comment = idiot blabbing

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

There you go again taking sides....

What sort of response would you suggest?

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

taking sides? how is point out an idiotic comment taking a side?

i will allways side against idiocy.. hence whey i dont tend to agree with you on much of anything..

the guy is a ****ing idiot..

only way you will win over an idea is to change peoples thought patterns..

you dont win a war against an idea by re enforcing the idea you are attempting to attack.

thank god you arent in the IC..