nkb said:I was illustrating how silly it is to read something without verifying it, then basing an argument on it.
My point is that the pig treatment sounded about as believable as my approach. Excuse me for using humor.
You enjoy putting words in other people's mouths, don't you? I never said that a problem doesn't exist, I was merely arguing with your approach to solving it.
In your mind, I guess I have failed to counter your argument. However, I have made multiple points about why your approach (remember, this started with your proposed peace plan that advocated nuking Mecca) is asinine, overly simplistic, juvenile, and not grounded in reality. Let me summarize my arguments (which you must have missed) and clarify or add some other ones:
1. You are advocating murdering millions of innocent people to combat a very small, radical group of nuts. Innocent men, women and children will die in your plan. You see no issue with that?
2. You are making an incredible assumption that taking out Mecca would make all the radicals give up.
3. You are also assuming that people who are sympathizing with the terrorists will stop supporting them. I claim that they will become even more convinced of that what they are doing is right, and millions of others who were not supporting them at the time, now will.
4. Killing millions of Muslims in a nuclear bombing will produce millions of martyrs, reinforcing the image of the USA being an evil giant.
5. What happens if we do bomb Mecca, and it doesn't work out the way you foresee it? What's next? On to the next Muslim holy site? Or will it be one of the major Muslim cities?
6. We will have NO allies left in the world. The entire rest of the world will condemn us. Diplomatic ties will be severed. Trade will cease. Economy goes down the tubes, etc, etc.
And I'm not even listing the obvious effects of using nuclear weapons.
I know these points are all silly, and pale in comparison to your well-thought out plan.
I'll be honest, I don't have a solution. But, no solution is better than an idiotic solution like yours. I think we should all be happy that you are nowhere near being in charge.
Oh and we'd all be better off with a guy like you in charge. A guy who barely admits there is a problem let alone has any solutions for it.
I didn't just blindly accept the pig thing. Most people have heard about the Muslims aversion to swine. I didn't realize that you'd never heard anything about that before this thread. They do consider it taboo to be exposed to it under many circumstances (in death, etc.).
The 'nuke Mecca' comment was a bit incendiary. I'll admit it. By the time that nuking Mecca actually looks like a politically viable option, the radical Muslims (condoned by the inaction of the 'peaceful' Muslims) will have committed so many horrible acts that the civilized world will undertake this mission in unison as a last ditch effort to spare an all out assault on Muslim population centers. If we find that Muslims can't or won't contain their radicals, the best bet may be to covertly place something in Mecca to expose pilgrims to deadly doses of radiation. If the goal is to rock the pillars of Islam then creating a scenario under which they are forced to equate their holiest city with sickness might serve the cause. The negative impact on the health of women and children would be tragic but any inaction that leads to them thrive unabated to a future life condoning or committing acts of terror against civilized people would be a far greater tragedy.