Presidential candidate suggests bombing Mecca

[Firecat]

http://www.nbc11.com/politics/13817698/detail.html

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina"

I try not to use curse words in the political discussion section, but what a fuckin' moron.

[bartboy9891]

Kill more people, that'll surely win everyone's votes!

[jayhawk]

He must be wanting to appeal to a very small group of people, a small group that cant fathom that Islamic militants psycho jerkoff's make up probably far less than 1% of that particular society.

On the opposite side, this link shows how much the Barack needs to learn. Probably...no, it IS as stupid as what Tancredo said.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...bout_pakistan/

Anyone else find it rather funny that he spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center?*



*Woodrow Wilson was a great diplomat for the United States.

[cdbob]

Wow... just simply wow, if he gets elected were all doomed.

[American TG Man]

Time to drag out some "Dan Gurney for President" stickers?

[nomix]

That's some of the stupidest words I've ever seen written in any media, ever.

What this moron probably doesn't understand, is that Islam is a religion with moderates and fundamentalists, often referred to as islamists, and the first example is the majority. This goes for Islam, Christianity and any other religion.

Are there no limit for how low an IQ one might have to stand for president?

[jetsetter]

Get over it guys. The people with no hope to get elected have to say outlandish statements like these to get noticed. Oh look, it worked. Still doesn't mean anything. There is always some "crazy" candidate.

[nomix]

Guess so. The leader of one of our minor parties, one of the very smallest in fact, went on CNN before a national election here in Norway with the idea of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to George "Dubya" Walker Bush. That must be one of the stupidest ideas in the known universe.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Get over it guys. The people with no hope to get elected have to say outlandish statements like these to get noticed. Oh look, it worked. Still doesn't mean anything. There is always some "crazy" candidate.

Well, I guess the State department has to get over it as well. Because they have reached their limit with what candidates have been saying as it complicates matters overseas.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/tancr...-sites-clinton

[thedguy]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Well, I guess the State department has to get over it as well. Because they have reached their limit with what candidates have been saying as it complicates matters overseas.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/tancr...-sites-clinton

We're so fucked next election.

[jetsetter]

Nah, it should just be very interesting.

[zenkidori]

Jesus fucking H christ this guy is such a HUGE embarrassment.

[poptya]

what would be accomplished by bombing mecca? its just a bunch of old dudes in bathrobes laying on the ground. Not exactly a military site.....

[HondaF1]

Barack Obama wants in on the taking over of other countries too now.

Pakistan Criticizes Barack Obama

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistani officials called Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama irresponsible for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes in Pakistan against al-Qaida.

Hundreds chanted anti-U.S. slogans and burned an American flag in the street to protest the remark.

Obama's comment turned up the heat on already simmering anger among Pakistanis about the issue, after senior Bush administration officials said last week they too would consider such strikes if intelligence warranted them.

Further inflaming the situation was a comment by Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican whose bid for the White House is considered unlikely to succeed, that the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on America would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest of Islamic sites, Mecca and Medina.

U.S. officials quickly distanced themselves from Tancredo's remarks.

In Miran Shah, a major town in the lawless region that borders Afghanistan, about 1,000 tribesmen condemned recent Pakistani military operations in the area and vowed to repel any U.S. attack.

``We are able to defend ourselves. We will teach a lesson to America if it attacks us,'' local cleric Maulvi Mohammed Roman told the rally.

In Karachi, Pakistani's largest city, about 150 people chanted slogans against the United States, Obama and Tancredo at a demonstration organized by Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of six hard-line religious parties. Protesters set fire to a U.S. flag.

``Those who are talking about attacking our holiest places are committing blasphemy. The punishment for this offense is death, and death only,'' said coalition lawmaker Mohammed Hussain Mahanti.

In a major policy speech Wednesday, Obama said as president he might order strikes in Pakistan's tribal zone to get terrorists, including those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

``There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again,'' Obama said. ``If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.''

Top officials in the government of Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism, bristled at Obama's comment.

``It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say,'' Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. ``As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections ... at our expense.''

Bush called Musharraf Friday to congratulate him on the 60th anniversary of Pakistan's independence, but also mentioned ``recent statements emanating from the U.S. regarding possible U.S. action inside Pakistani territory,'' the foreign ministry said .

Bush ``said that such statements were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering,'' the statement said, adding that Bush said the United States fully respected Pakistan's sovereignty.

However, the White House took issue with part of the Pakistani statement, saying the U.S. president never termed the political statements ``unsavory,'' said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely about the president's private conversations. The official said Bush said that he realized Musharraf has been hearing a lot of things in recent days, but that U.S. policy remains that Washington wants to work together with Pakistan. Bush reiterated that the only voice that counts, and that Musharraf need worry about, is his, the official said.

Tancredo told a gathering in Iowa on Tuesday he believes a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent.

``If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,'' he said.

In Washington, the State Department reacted with unusual venom to Tancredo's remarks, which some diplomats fear could damage U.S. ties with the Muslim world and hurt efforts to counter Islamist extremism.

``Let me just say that it is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,'' deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11 attacks. It has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, hundreds of whom have been killed fighting militants.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen has fueled U.S. fears that al-Qaida has been given space to regroup.

Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afghan said Friday he would open a debate in the national assembly next week on recent U.S. criticism of Pakistan.

It was a matter of ``grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election,'' Afghan said.

Source

[jetsetter]

Obama is correct about Pakistan. Everyone knows that many a time terrorist forces have retreated into the Afghan/Paki border area. This has hampered efforts to capture and kill terrorist forces.

[swek]

Sure he is but the focus of the question should be this: Will an US intervention make the situation any better? If we can take Iraq as an example matters will be worse after such a strike.

I believe sanctions (Which the US is already pushing for) are a more adequate method of dealing with Iran. And I'm not talking about US sanctions here since the US does no business with Iran. Talk to China, Russia etc if you really want to archieve something.

German banks already stopped financing deals with Iran due to US pressure.

[Firecat]

I don't think Iran has done anything to deserve being sanctioned by the international community.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Firecat

I don't think Iran has done anything to deserve being sanctioned by the international community.

Not anything that has been proven yet, but intelligence from Iraq is saying that the insurgents are trained and sent over there from Iran, and if it is state sponsored terror, that would make the US fighting the Iranian's by proxy, which would justify sanctions. Very, very complex situation. Obviously we cant go up to Iran and ask them if they are causing havoc in Iraq, but all the trails seem to lead to them.

Truth be known, the good people of Iran are of quite the opposite mind of their leaders. I am very sure in time, Iran's religious dictatorship will fall apart, like how Russian communism fell apart. That is, with Levi brand jeans, Nike shoes and Coca Cola.

Money trumps ideals, always.

[nomix]

The USSR fell because they used market economy and to be frank, because Gorbatsjov wasn't ready to use force to maintain the union. You know what? Iran's economy is based at the same ideas as yours, and Iran has leadership with balls.

Just because of that, I like Gorbatsjov. Bush, or Reagan for that matter, would not act in the same way as Gorbatsjov did. Neither did Jeltsin, and neither will Putin do.

But Gorbatsjov put liberty above power. And I like him for that. And I don't like Jeltsin that much for the same reasons.

[SuperStalin]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Obama is correct about Pakistan. Everyone knows that many a time terrorist forces have retreated into the Afghan/Paki border area. This has hampered efforts to capture and kill terrorist forces.

So what?

If USA should invade Pakistan, the insurgents from Pakistan would flow over into India and Iran. So then USA would have to invade India and Iran, and guess what would happen then... insurgents from India would skip border to and from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh... it's a 'thing' with such guerilla forces.