'Nobody can strike the Kabba in Mecca'
 

Or can they? I bet they havent thought about this when planning and funding to kill the infidels. This should be an official policy.

A Saudi official has condemned a radical US Republican presidential candidate's recent comment that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on America would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the Islamic holy sites, Mecca and Medina.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Mr Tancredo happens to be my congressman, and I voted for him.

I have no problem destroying the so called 'holy sites'. If the keepers/guardians of those sites will not keep our lives sacred, I see no reason to extend any other courtesy to them.

I do know nothing about Mr. Tancredo, but that option he mentions should not be taken off the table easily. Which brings me in sharp confrontation with the european positions on such extreme scenarios. But there certainly is a line in the sand which to overstep at no cost ever should be tolerated, or remained unanswered.

German news reported on this guy some days ago. As was to be expected, the answer was poltical correct, hysteric "Wischiwaschi" (=drivel). Somewhere I even read of one lunatic who argued that if an Islamic faction ever strikes by a nuclear attack, maybe the western nations have provocated it and in a way are responsible for that all alone. :doh: The author's conclusions: we should not be so tough and selfish in negotiations on nuclear issues, for example with Iran, and always remind ourseolves of the immense violance and damage Europe has cuased since the crusades. The author was no muhammedan, but some local politicians nobody ever have heared of. But his view unfortunately is quite a bit representative for parts of public opinion. :down:

There should be a law that makes it obligatory to be of sound mind before being allowed to have and articulate one's precious personal opinion. having an opinion is cheap, and not impressive at all. how one is able to found it and being reasonable about it is what counts. - I'm sure even a dog doing it's business between the trees has it's opinion on something.

Last I checked, the Persians and Turks have caused more unprovoked destruction than Europe throughout history. Maybe they should return the favor. Whom invaded Europe? The Turks. So the Crusades had a purpose - to drive them back out. The Crusades were not started by Europe, but maybe Europe should finish the job?

-S

Problem is, today's Islam has somehow managed to convince many in the west of their view of history.
The Ottoman empire was a tolerant state, not a brutal oppressor (as any Greek, Serb, Bulgarian or whatever about that!) yadda yadda.
Strange is that double standard.
I'm pretty sure that Muslims killed far more Muslims in the middle ages than the Crusades did.
Godefrey's Crusaders may have massacred 30,000 in Jerusalem, but the Crusader state let Muslims in afterward pretty soon after that.
But didn't Timur Leng (Tamerlane) raze Bagdhad, killing 70,000?
Timur was a muslim as was his army, as were the citizens of Baghdad.
Timur's Mongols destroyed the libraries of Bagdad, while the Monks that followed the Crusaders eagerly took home everything they could find on science.
As someone mentioned the Turks. They may have given the death blow to the Byzantine empire, but most of the early conquests of the Seldjuks and Marmeluks were brutal occupations of arab and persian muslim countries.
I suppose turks massacred more arabs than any Crusader army ever.

To prove that point, the actual holiest of the relics in Mecca is the black stone.
This is most likely a meteorite worshipped in Mecca since ancient times (no one can be sure as no muslim site is allowed to be scientifically examined). Mohammed himself had it set into its place as a cornerstone of the Kaaba.
Problem is, the stone is broken and is held in place by silver bracings.
Who broke that stone?
It was during sectarian fightings in the 12th century that a muslim sect from Yemen took Mecca, massacred a lot of people and took the black stone with them, during which it apparently broke into pieces.
:D

In Britain they prepare a law to defend against the violation of religious sentiments. Under this new law, I have read, it is practically impossible to say ANYTHING critical about any religion, since this would hurt the religious feelings of that people.

This law will be the final word on enforcing peaceful coexstince in multicultural societes. Clap your hands everybody. Religion is left totally unavailable to reasonable questioning, critically analysis. Every Peter and every Paul can claim that this or that si their relgiion - and from that moment on you can't touch them.

The only problem is the price for this omnipotential solution. the price is total forging of history, arbitrary deleting of unwanted historical episodes, censoring of ideologies' content and meaning, educating the people in simplified and silly ways, reducing the qccess to information on unwanted historical episodes. In other words: an orwellian method of controlling a society by controlling language (and by that: thinking), designed by people who alredy are brain-amputated and cannot tell the differences between their left and their right hand.

I'm sure the EU will further push this. The anti-racism-laws of recent origin are already a step into that direction. Has any of these brilliant British policy-makers ever considered how far-leading the consquences of this BS of theirs are...?

Hell, why had Bin Laden had to bomb the WTC? If he would focussed on getting us rid of these pseudo-intellectual moralists in Europe, I would applaud him until today and say "Thank you, thank you, thank you, Sir!"

Oooops - I forgot: every person is holy and untouchable. Even if he ruins and cripples all country, all nation, all community, all history, all reason, all identity, all culture we live in, and sends us back to the religious medieval where blind dumbness was a virtue and worth a ticket to paradise.

"Sind wir eigentlich noch ganz bei Trost...?"

We were actually talking about a way around this 'religious protection' legislation in the UK, and the best we could come up with, was to outlaw Halal meat on the grounds of animal cruelty, thus circumventing the notion of it being religious persecution. I must admit, I think such a thing is unlikely, but it is a clever notion to use someone's religious beliefs as a weapon against themselves! A little unfair perhaps, not every Muslim is a sword-wielding maniac after all. What I'd like to see is all religions stamped on, that way, it wouldn't be classed as persecution, rather, common sense.

Frankly the laws on this sort of thing in the UK are ridiculous. I gave up hope when I saw those protesters in London carrying banners with 'behead those who offend Islam' etc, and not even being cautioned, let alone arrested. Kind of makes that guy's 'Don't Piss Me Off' T-shirt seem a bit tame in comparison.

Beats me why the guy even wanted to come here to be honest. Living in the UK is crap.

:D Chock

The intollerance of some Islamists towards the west must be stamped out.

Declareing war on them, invadeing their lands, killing them and destroying the things they see as holy is one good way to make them more tollerant to the west and to ensure that those who are allredy tollerant of the west remain so.
:up:

"An eye for an eye" - you know what Ghandi said about that one. I tend to agree, though the proposal itself already sounds rather blind to me. :hmm:

To get back to the point of the topic: What is the point of threatening to blow up the Qaaba?

Deterrence or revenge?

There are strong anti-idolatory feelings in Islam and the Wahhabist groups that provided much of the ideology for the Bin Laden wave of terrorism are not just iconoclastic regarding other faith's sacred objects. There are influential forces in Saudi Arabia that also want to destroy the Qa'aba and the Grand Mosque on the grounds that these mere objects have become an idolatrous focus of worship among the Muslim masses, distracting from the entirely sublime nature of God.

Don't assume that they are obsessed by the sanctity of material objects.

A deterrence has to threaten to hurt what the other side holds valuable, otherwise it is no deterrence. As for revenge, well...big deal. Whatever would make you feel better...

Think again, chaps. Perhaps you'd be better off suggesting you'll bring the whole thing to Disneyworld instead.

Well, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, either. :88)

Was it "please, poke out my other one"? :hmm:

There was a funny comment on Mock the Week about this, went something like:

"Do they really think that by bombing Mecca they'll stop extremism... like Independence Day, you take out the mothership and all the radical Muslims are like 'Oh, I don't think I'll bother with that any more.'?"

Difficult to believe that what some are writing here is meant serious.

An interview, featuring the statement that it is needed to fight a 100 year long cold war in Islam:

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesells...499223,00.html

If I find the time this afternoon, I'll translate it.

If they targeted Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, that would be the final injustice to Islam and the arabs. And I sincerely would wish a hundred more 9/11's would happen.

But the west wouldnt do that.

I think