Some say nuke Mecca - and all the other Muslim capitals.
Allahpundit says nuking Mecca would only make things worse.
One commenter argued that announcing we would nuke Mecca would act as a deterrent.
I agree that we need to increase our deterrence NOW, before any nuclear attack here.
And I think we should increase our deterrence for ANY and ALL attacks, not just a nuclear attack.
And we should aim our deterrence NOT at jihadists - who'd love to get killed and for whom there is no deterrence, or at Muslims, but at the governments of all Muslim nations.
Perhaps we should have our ambassadors ell them the following:
ANY ATTACK AGAINST ANY AND ALL USA INTERESTS ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE WILL BE REGARDED AS AN ATTACK BY YOUR NATION AGAINST THE USA, AND WE WILL RESPOND WITH ANY AND ALL MEANS AT OUR DISPOSAL - INCLUDING NUKES IF WE WANT - IN ORDER TO EXTRACT A HORRIBLE PRICE.
SO YOU'D BETTER REDOUBLE YOUR ANTI-TERROR/ANTI-JIHADIST EFFORTS.
That just might motivate THEM to fight jihadism and to reform Islam. Or at least to monitor and arrest all jiahdists.
IF YOU THINK PAKISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA AND INDONESIA AND THAILAND AND AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND EGYPT AND GAZA AND SYRIA ARE DOING ENOUGH, THEN THIS PROPOSAL GOES TOO FAR.
IF YOU AGREE THAT THESE - AND OTHER NATIONS - ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH, THEN THIS PROPOSAL MIGHT CORRECT THAT.
IF YOU THINK PAKISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA AND INDONESIA AND THAILAND AND AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ AND EGYPT AND GAZA AND SYRIA ARE DOING ENOUGH, THEN THIS PROPOSAL GOES TOO FAR.
IF YOU AGREE THAT THESE - AND OTHER NATIONS - ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH, THEN THIS PROPOSAL MIGHT CORRECT THAT.
2 comments:
You are absolutely right.
And let us be clear, any nuclear attack on the United States would happen because of one of the two following scenarios:
1) a state gave weapons to terrorists to attack us
2) a state was criminally negligent and allowed their nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists.
In either case, that state should be obliterated.
Ah, the joys of caffeine.
Post a Comment