The christians strike back

[Tyr]

I think this has been covered before...Not sure though. Meh I'm in the mood for topic creation.

On the 25th of June, 2002 the Pentagon started to piece together a potentially nasty piece of intelligance placing a nuclear warhead from a former soviet republic falling into civilian hands, as the days go by their fears are made deeper by the evidence pointing to a American buying this nuclear weapon.
On the 2nd of July a nuclear device's location is discovered when it detonates on the outskirts of Mecca destroying most of the city including among other muslim holy sites the central mosque.

So what happens with terrorism being on the other foot and being far worse then anything that has gone before?

[DaSla]

can anyone say Irony.

[Paul Spring]

I seriously doubt that could ever happen. No non-Muslims are allowed in or near Mecca - I believe they actually have a separate highway that goes around the city at a considerable distance so that non-Muslims travelling through Saudi Arabia keep their distance.

[Nicksplace27]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

I seriously doubt that could ever happen. No non-Muslims are allowed in or near Mecca - I believe they actually have a separate highway that goes around the city at a considerable distance so that non-Muslims travelling through Saudi Arabia keep their distance.

Crashing a palne into the central Mosque is easier.

[Leo Caesius]

Actually, Mecca gets destroyed fairly regularly on AH.com:

US Capitol Destroyed / Ka'aba Destroyed

What would happen to Islam if Mecca and Medina were destroyed?

Changing the faith

Alien Federation offers Membership, at a price

I believe there are a few others, but I haven't been keeping track lately.

[Paul Spring]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

Actually, Mecca gets destroyed fairly regularly on AH.com:

US Capitol Destroyed / Ka'aba Destroyed

What would happen to Islam if Mecca and Medina were destroyed?

Changing the faith

Alien Federation offers Membership, at a price

I believe there are a few others, but I haven't been keeping track lately.

Well, all kinds of things "happen" regularly on AH.com.

[DaSla]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

Well, all kinds of things "happen" regularly on AH.com.

Perhaps I should E-Mail the king of Saudi Arabia of what we do to his city.

[Tyr]

Yeah its pretty regular but its been a while. Mecca is a rather important place, its destruction would have bigger implications then the destruction of say Portsmouth.
I know no non muslims are allowed in which is why I said the outskirts. Also muslims don't exactly carry cards saying they are muslim and there are plenty of white muslims (or maybe these could even be African Americans)

[Wozza]

Would this be a suicide bomding?

Well, we know what would not happen, lots of liberal-left commentators would not sit around and say the real issue was how the Moslems had provoked such an attack...

Obviously western government would try and track down the perpetrators, this would not stop huge conspiracy theories that they were involved. If the deed was tracked down to neo-nazis someone would still blame the Mossad also.

Then there would be more retaliation by Islamic extremists, and the world would turn nastier and nastier.

We would not see lots of "Christianity does not support this" comments, but "this is wrong" comments, a subtle difference but one that contains a world of importance.

[Paul Spring]

Originally Posted by Wozza

Would this be a suicide bomding?

Well, we know what would not happen, lots of liberal-left commentators would not sit around and say the real issue was how the Moslems had provoked such an attack...

Obviously western government would try and track down the perpetrators, this would not stop huge conspiracy theories that they were involved. If the deed was tracked down to neo-nazis someone would still blame the Mossad also.

Then there would be more retaliation by Islamic extremists, and the world would turn nastier and nastier.

We would not see lots of "Christianity does not support this" comments, but "this is wrong" comments, a subtle difference but one that contains a world of importance.

Agreed - the condemnation from Christians would be much stronger and more unequivocal than the condemnation of Muslims against terrorism. Of course, an attack like this would be of unprecedented magnitude, a magnitude that would horrify even the most xenophobic right-wingers.

[Leo Caesius]

You people have a rather odd opinion of liberals.

Of course condemnation would be stronger. Mecca's the spiritual capital of Islam. It's only value as a target is the role it plays in the religion of a billion people around the world. Nothing else, really. The only analogous outrage would be the destruction of, say, Jerusalem (for the Jews and Christians), Rome (for the Catholics), Benares (for Hindus), and so on. Now, if you buy into the bizarre tribalism that seems to characterize certain ideologies, then, sure, you might argue that the group in question had it coming to them, etc etc etc. But anyone who considers himself a civilized man and not a brute would naturally loathe to give voice to such sentiments.

Ah, but never mind all that. When civilization gets in the way of a good round of liberal bashing, it's civilization that inevitably loses. These sorts of mental exercises provide some very interesting insight into the way that some of you think.

[Paul Spring]

I think that Wozza is trying to point out that there is an unfortunate tendency among many on the left to try to at least partly excuse terrorist atrocities by saying "yes it's terrible, but they were oppressed by such-and-such an imperialism so in a way it's the fault of our government too". Hardly anybody on the left or the right would give Christian terrorists that kind of a break.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

I think that Wozza is trying to point out that there is an unfortunate tendency among many on the left to try to at least partly excuse terrorist atrocities by saying "yes it's terrible, but they were oppressed by such-and-such an imperialism so in a way it's the fault of our government too". Hardly anybody on the left or the right would give Christian terrorists that kind of a break.

Well, for starters, where are these hypothetical Christian terrorists coming from? Greenville, SC? Then no, they don't get to play the oppression card. Are they Assyrians? Copts? Then perhaps they can. If these Christian terrorists are the moral equivalent of the Eurotrash terrorists in Die Hard, then yes, don't expect anyone on the left to make excuses for them (it remains to be seen what those on the Right will do).

In any case, it's fairly obvious to me at least that what Wozza was really trying to do was simply take a gratuitous stab at liberals.

[Paul Spring]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

Well, for starters, where are these hypothetical Christian terrorists coming from? Greenville, SC? Then no, they don't get to play the oppression card. Are they Assyrians? Copts? Then perhaps they can. If these Christian terrorists are the moral equivalent of the Eurotrash terrorists in Die Hard, then yes, don't expect anyone on the left to make excuses for them (it remains to be seen what those on the Right will do).

In any case, it's fairly obvious to me at least that what Wozza was really trying to do was simply take a gratuitous stab at liberals.

Since the original post talked about American terrorists, it seemed to me that it was implying fundamentalist Protestant American Christians out for revenge against what they see as an evil religion.

It's certainly a stab at liberals, but I think a well-deserved one, certainly not gratuitous.

[Othniel]

Christians are taught not to retailiate. It would be against the teachings of Christ to do so

Matthew 6:38-40

"You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; But I say unto ye resist not evil, but whomsoever hsall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy clock also."

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

It's certainly a stab at liberals, but I think a well-deserved one, certainly not gratuitous.

You would say that, wouldn't you? Well, you're nothing if not predictable, Paul.

Gratuitous means "unnecessary" or "unwarranted." I don't see how anything in Wozza's post, including

Originally Posted by Wozza

Well, we know what would not happen, lots of liberal-left commentators would not sit around and say the real issue was how the Moslems had provoked such an attack...

...was necessary or warranted. So I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you; "gratuitous" it was and "gratuitous" it will remain.

[Paul Spring]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

You would say that, wouldn't you? Well, you're nothing if not predictable, Paul.

Gratuitous means "unnecessary" or "unwarranted." I don't see how anything in Wozza's post, including

...was necessary or warranted. So I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you; "gratuitous" it was and "gratuitous" it will remain.

See my post below - I think he was commenting on a very real problem with American liberals, a tendency to (indirectly at least) blame the US for everything bad that happens.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

See my post below - I think he was commenting on a very real problem with American liberals, a tendency to (indirectly at least) blame the US for everything bad that happens.

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's almost as if every time the topic of terrorism comes up, it registers a Pavlovian response in conservatives to attack liberals. You people are beyond hope.

In any case, the idea that "American liberals blame the US for everything bad that happens" is a conservative perception, not to be confused with reality. One might equally say that conservatives blame liberals for everything bad that happens.

[Paul Spring]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs? It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's almost as if every time the topic of terrorism comes up, it registers a Pavlovian response in conservatives to attack liberals. You people are beyond hope.

In any case, the idea that "American liberals blame the US for everything bad that happens" is a conservative perception, not to be confused with reality. One might equally say that conservatives blame liberals for everything bad that happens.

Leo, if we were to rule out any response that went a little off topic, the longest thread in the entire Chat section would have a maximum of 2 posts. You could call it a "Pavlovian response" that's "beyond hope" if you want, but I see it as a serious issue. In this case the perception matches the reality almost perfectly.

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Paul Spring

You could call it a "Pavlovian response" that's "beyond hope" if you want, but I see it as a serious issue. In this case the perception matches the reality almost perfectly.

Well, being a card-carrying member of the "Blame (liberal) Americans First Club," you would, now, wouldn't you, Paul?

That doesn't make it any less irrational.