It's a stupid hypothetical. Stunningly ignorant. The repercussions would be beyond catastrophic. It's beyond sacrilegious, in the first place. Taking such actions would incite war without end.
This hypothetical reminds me of a story they ran the other day on NPR about psych experiments on moral decision-making. The basic idea is that people have 2 parts of the brain advocating on a moral choice that fight it out in the brain -- an emotional reaction and a logical utilitarian calculation -- and that emotional will win when accompanied with vivid imagery but more abstract problems are usually governed by the utilitarian part of the brain. Thinking of it this way, everything seems to point in the same direction. I have a visceral repugnance for the ideas of (a) causing mass, indiscriminate, and unwarranted civilian deaths, (b) destroying some of the most significant cultural and historical cities in the world, and (c) achieving peace through war. And then the utilitarian part of my brain also tells me (a) even if all the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda were all there (and were actually enemies of mine when half of them are not), bombing them wouldn't destroy those organizations; (b) even if these organizations were destroyed, you've just created a brand new problem - an actual Muslim world jihad against the US for destroying their holiest cities; (c) ending world terrorism this way is therefore impossible; and (d) Israel's security (assuming it's part of my calculus) would be imperiled, not secured. Even if I was wrong about all that and there was some scenario in which this would work, which I can't remotely imagine, the emotional response to the idea of destroying two holy cities filled with innocent people still makes it moot. The example they used in the psych experiment was this: if a train was about to run over and kill 5 people, but you had the opportunity to push one fat guy in front to stop the train and save those 5 people, would you do it? Normal people say no.
DingoJesus....funny. If I was to make a moniker with an 'animal / Islamic Prophet' you lefties would throw a fit, calling me all sorts of names racist, islamophobe, hypocrite, xenophobe, installing, childish, inciting hatred....etc But when y'all do it all I see is a group of guys giving each other high fives around of bowl of weed, in a room full of Che Guevara posters, giggling like girls saying, 'yes we insulted that radical conservative!', 'we showed that Jesus freak'...one more point for Obama! That is why I don't get mad. I was told to never make fun of the kids that rode the short bus to school. Here is another picture to make you giggle. KingCheetah Future democrat spin doctor... :grin:
You have just described what the al Queada terrorists do. I'm glad that you actually took the time to intelligently answer the question. Now take out the names Mecca and medina replace it with two random cities...if you knew 100% that using nukes on those two cities would end world terrorism and bring about a certain level of peace ( because of the fear of retribution ) would it b a feasible argument? Depending on who was on the tracks, I would probably jump in front of the train myself.
everyone getting all these hypotheticals? this guy has American lefties pegged! ID13- your style is so erratic. you go from attempting to have legitimate debate about America to posting the dumbest and most nonsensical jpegs. go ahead and make your moniker. no one would bat an eye. go ahead and suggest NUKING MECCA AND MEDINA as a hypothetical solution for world peace. lather, rinse, repeat. also, it appears we need an Australia subforum now.
You've apparently missed a thread I started that is still on the front page and ATW's recent thread (front page) on Embassy closures.
Sorry for just now chiming in, just read through the thread since I've been extremely busy with school lately. I don't know a whole lot about CAIR's history but I do know they were involved in some fishy business in the past. I am uncertain if the current administration is different or has the same views. Personally, I don't believe their goals involve anti-American initiatives but I haven't had much experience with them. I've attended a few talks given by their members and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. They seem to do a lot of good publicly and I'm sure they're under close watch by the government anyway so I wouldn't worry about them. I understand why some people may be weary of them because of their history. Regarding Imam Siraj Wahhaj, he is well respected by the majority of the Muslim community in the US as a leader and speaker. I don't know much about the allegations involving him in the past but they were shaky anyway as nothing was concrete. In my personal opinion, there is nothing to worry about with him. I see him as a speaker who focuses on spreading Islam (nothing wrong with that, I don't mean violently) and educating Muslims. In fact, he was in Houston last weekend for an event. But yeah, looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I can understand why one may be uncertain about him but I don't believe he is really an issue to worry about.
That's 13 symbols too many. Study your semiotics. Do you honestly believe that these buffoons deserve to be articulated in any sense other than ridicule? I will not spend valuable, precious symbols, whether they be verbal or numerical, on these clowns.
Calling someone a kid on an Internet message board usually happens when one is insecure of their own intellectual inadequacies. Are you the exception?
