|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation |
 |
|
August 3, 2007
Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation
Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo
WASHINGTON (CNN) � Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo�s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good �deterrent� to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.
�This shows that we mean business,� said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. �There�s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.�
[Obama and now Tancredo.... ]
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Likely not the best idea.
What would be a good idea, though, is something the Russians did in Chechnya.
Bury jihadists in pigskins in unknown locations.
In reality, this is a totally meaningless act. But to the nutty jihadis, it is the ultimate cack-block to the 72 black-eyed virgins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Bury jihadists in pigskins in unknown locations.
|
I thought that was an IDF invention. Apparently even a few drops of pigfat is enough to bar a jihadi for eternity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Perfect Cup of Coffee
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How 'Christian' of Mr. Tancredo. You know, turn the other cheek, and all that.
Speaking of the IDF, one psych strategy sometimes used is to take out an obituary of a suspected terrorist in the local newspaper--before they're dead. Ouch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These guerrillas very much understand and respect political and politico-religious symbols: World Trade Center. Pentagon. Statue of Liberty. Afganistan's Buddhas. The list goes on.
Might make sense...
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jihadist have it easy. Shoot/kill and run to the nearest mosque for safety.
I don't agree with his comment, but, in a way it does make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Perfect Cup of Coffee wrote: |
How 'Christian' of Mr. Tancredo. You know, turn the other cheek, and all that.
Speaking of the IDF, one psych strategy sometimes used is to take out an obituary of a suspected terrorist in the local newspaper--before they're dead. Ouch. |
This smacks of bigotry, if you ask me, and I am surprised you are the only one who seems to have mentioned it. I mean the Taliban do not represent all Muslims obviously. It would be like attacking the Methodist Church just because George Bush is a member and he launched, in your mind, an illegal war. This is not a responsible comment.
As far as the pigs and jihadis and virgins, Muslims don't need to die in combat to actually receive women if they are admitted to heaven, and I believe also wine. Fighting religious wars is not motivated by getting women if that is the reward of those who also don't die in combat. That is more of a propaganda thing rather than political fact. Anyway, what does that have to do with Tancredo wanting to bomb Mecca? How does it make sense to punish all Muslims for something some do? It would be terrorism simply put. Do you fight terrorism with terrorism? I believe Yitzak Shamir once said "We will fight terror with terror". I don't think terrorism from any side promotes stability... I was horrified when the Buddha statues were destroyed, but it is not the same thing as blowing up Mecca. One of the excuses for the Crusades was the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem where Jesus is supposed to be buried.
Also, Obama's comments regarding Pakistan really makes one think "What was he thinking"? There seem to be way too many ignorant politicians and that explains the failure in Iraq - ignorance and naivete.
Where have all the James Bakers gone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| It would be like attacking the Methodist Church just because George Bush is a member and he launched, in your mind, an illegal war. This is not a responsible comment... |
Or how about attacking the World Trade Center or the Madrid or London public transportation systems because you disagree with America, Spain, or Britain's "foreign policy...?"
Bigotry my ass. Sounds like fighting them in terms that they have laid down and that they understand and respect.
They love when we produce civilian casualties via collateral damage. Best propaganda material they have ever had. As we saw in Lebanon last summer, they even provoke and induce such casualties. Maybe this offers a way to hit them in a way that actually hurts them, demoralizes them, makes them bleed for real, so to speak.
Tell them the next time they hit us like 9/11, Madrid, or London, we will respond by tac-nuking Mecca and other of their precious targets. And then follow through. Develop our new kind of MAD to stabilize things and see where it leads.
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:00 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
in_seoul_2003
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Generally, muslims are not afraid of pigskin. I've never met a muslim afraid of pigskin, blood or even meat. They just don't eat it. But even then it's not a problem if there are no other means to survival. It says so in the Koran.
As a matter of fact, this whole fetishisation of muslims in relation to pigs and anything from a pig is, to my knowledge, a purely Western one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
Fighting religious wars is not motivated by getting women if that is the reward of those who also don't die in combat. |
Not so fast.
| Quote: |
According to the Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, a comprehensive history of this troubling yet topical phenomenon, while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim. Why is this? Why is Islam the only religion that motivates its followers to commit suicide missions?
The surprising answer from the evolutionary psychological perspective is that Muslim suicide bombing may have nothing to do with Islam or the Koran (except for two lines in it). It may have nothing to do with the religion, politics, the culture, the race, the ethnicity, the language, or the region. As with everything else from this perspective, it may have a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.
What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.
However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars�but not suicide bombings.
The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.
It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single. |
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml
islam is the philosophical equivalent of a "perfect storm". All the ingredients are in order to take a normal dude and turn him into a weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Or how about attacking the World Trade Center or the Madrid or London public transportation systems because you disagree with America, Spain, or Britain's "foreign policy...?"
Biggotry my ass. Sounds like fighting them in terms that they have laid down and that they understand and respect. |
Was destroying the World Trade Center a good deterrent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Was...? |
"It's a trap!"
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Perfect Cup of Coffee
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, the issue with the Taliban and the current Afghan government in power has very little to do with Islam. It's more an ethnic tribal war with Islam pasted on as a label to make it easier for the rest of us to follow who are too lazy to read up on Afghan history and demographics. In a perfect world, Afghanistan either wouldn't exist and would be a series of mini-states; or every "Afghan" would get along peacefully, drop the 9th C. tribalism, and actually live and let live.
And as for Mr. Tancredo speaking about attacking Islamic holy sites as some kind of retaliation to a hypothetical attack on the United States, it's absolutely hypocrisy for someone who so conveniently wraps himself in the pro-life / Christian / anti-illegal immigrant issue. Just another false neo-con who's kissing a$$ for extra votes.
And as for James Baker, I agree with you. Where have all the sensible American diplomats gone and hidden themselves? Too bad it basically takes selling one's soul in order to rise high in American politics. What's the going rate for a politician's soul and morals these days?
Sorry for the rant. It's a slow Saturday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Yes. "Fighting them in terms that they have laid down and that they understand and respect" only applies to "THEM". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is what the State Department said:
Sloganeering troubles diplomatic pros By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 3, 7:46 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.
ADVERTISEMENT
Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.
"Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do," said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.
First it was Barack Obama's talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants, then it was Hillary Rodham Clinton refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.
The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo's comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy
[These kinds of attitudes are extremely unhelpful and unbalanced, in my opinion.] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
