I like the idea. One problem though, what it it was Berkeley? :-)

Berkeley? Hmm.... I guess we do have to respond, don't we?

Oh, hell if it falls within a metro area it's covered by the big city.

OK, but shouldn't San Francisco be in the right hand column?

Yeah, but I would miss all the whining hippies.

Just damn, Rosemary. I like the cut of your jib.

:-)

I dunno. With the intra-terrorist-network rivalries that are bound to exist, what's to stop the Iranians from taking out Chicago and triggering a strike from us on Damascus? Such a deal! Two for one!

Interesting idea, but tough to implement...

The way I see it is this: Even if the Iranians attempt that to get a two for one - some other people won't like it and likely give them up before it happens. That is the point.

Scare the shit out of them so they don't sit back and allow there brethern to attack us.

We may have to make an example of a couple of their cities before the point hammers home....kind of like Japan....but eventually, even the Middle East might get the message.

I've been a fan of the "10 Eyes for An Eye" approach for a while now. I've never specifically considered it in the context of terrorism on US soil, but I'd bet that it would shut down all the shit in Israel in a hurry if the Israelis took several Palestinian city blocks for each suicide bomber on a bus. Probably wouldn't have to do that more than once or twice to get the desired results.

Dave, "I've been a fan of the "10 Eyes for An Eye" approach for a while now." That worked so well for the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WWII. Learn some history.

What do we do if Libya blows up some Americans on a plane over Scotland?

Israelis have had similar ideas about terrorism in their country. Blow up a bus, the Israel army wipes out a village. I think this idea conveniently ignores the fact that those responsible for the terrorism care very little about their own lives or the lives of the people around them.

Actually that in a large part plays into what terrorists want. The purpose of terrorism is to elicit an extreme response. Doing so, shows the people who are not fighting the abuse of power that the stroger force is willing to commit. It increases hatred and creates more people willing to fight on the side of the terrorists.

By showing restraint and limited retaliation to surgical strikes which target only those who commit acts of terrorism, the superior force weakens the belief that they are evil and must be destroyed. This decreases the number of people willing to commit acts of terrorism, insurgency, or guerilla actions.

It's not that they care little about their lives or the lives of those around them, it is that they feel that furthering their cause is worth more than those lives. It is a despicable tactic, but not one without thought or purpose.

That is why it is important that military actions performed be more surgical in nature. Even the full invasion of Iraq followed that in the sense that it targeted only forces that directly opposed us militarily and kept non-military casualties to a minimum. The efforts to build up Iraq's infrastructure and provide a stable and benevolent goverment leading into self rule for Iraq all supports that action.

Terrorists want to provoke us to extreme action. They want to force our hand and reveal to the world that we are the evil and corrupt ones that abuse our power to oppress. We cannot give in to that, even when the temptation is strong.

Ara:

Like I said on your site. We bomb Libya off the freakin map. Unless, Howard Dean is POTUS. Then I suppose we ask the U.N. what our response should be...

Aaron:

I agree with what you are saying but most of those Islamofacists wouldn't want Mecca and Medina as targets.

Aaron,

I think you're mistaken...the terrorists do what they do because they consider liberal democratic societies weak and incapable of self-defense...the set off their bombs because they believe that if a few bombs are set off, we'll knuckle under to their demands....if, on the other hand, our response is overwhelmingly violent and destructive of the infrastructure the terrorists depend upon, then they'll eventually learn the lesson.

That's a good question, Ara. Of course, it's not addressed in Rosemary's doctrine, so what do we do?

Yeah. Let's just sit here and let them kill Americans a few at a time.

I'm all for turning areas of the world into glass parking lots.

So some extremist group who hates Islam could just set off a bomb in New York and viola: No more Mecca.

If the response is sufficiently extreme and ruthless, it tends to have a deadening effect on the original perpetrators.

Actually, the Israelis do not respond to terrorism in the most effective manner. My response would be to empty out a complete Arab village or part of a town for every major Arab terrorism incident. The inhabitants would be driven to the Jordan river eastern border in armored buses, then expelled across the river at gunpoint. Then the houses would be taken over by Jewish families and all evidence of their prior inhabitation erased as if they had never existed. A few such retributions would have Arafat's fatah gang assassinating all known members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any others of that ilk. Which should be the intended affect. In war there are no innocent victims. And in total war, one must take the offensive early and stop at nothing to achieve victory.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

What Mark Noonan said.

I agree with Aaron as far as the idea is to produce as massive counter-strike -- one that can be exploited to further recruit from the disaffected, and now victimized, population.

Thing is, there is still room for more violence on the other side of their expectations -- that is, we could simply annihilate them, or raise the level of violence to a place they don't want to go. Such a radioactive Mecca that'll make The Hadj impossible to do for about 40,000 years.

We have the means. I suspect, if push comes to shove, we have the will, too. Maybe not. I'm hopeful we'll never know.

Turning to Rosemary's list ... I like the idea, except I would only have one American city in the left hand column.

Any American city goes, and we work our way through the right hand column, no questions asked, and then threaten to go through a list of second targets until the perpetrators, their families, their financiers, their collaborators, and their sympathizers unconditionally surrender upon demand. If they don't, a list of tertiary targets can be prepared fairly easy. Eventually, they'll run out of targets.

Excellent. Thank you, Rosemary. That's the way to win this War. Our Western way of life, our freedom, is at stake. We must stop appeasing our enemies.

So some extremist group who hates Islam could just set off a bomb in New York and viola: No more Mecca.

Yep.

Actually, my thinking is like this: If the world knows that our response will be like I outlined - more of those Islamofacists will be smoked out by their own kind before a major strike on us. Mecca is too precious to be risked.

We haven't really been threatened by a group that **hates** Islam. Just by the ones that seem to be really perverting it.

I would think that if a group hates Islam enough to bomb New York, they'd probably find it a lot easier to just bomb Mecca. Wouldn't they? The problem with the Islamists' view that Islam is in some kind of danger from a world that hates it, is that if that were true, they'd be worshipping a glass dome in the middle of the desert already.

Why limit ourselves to one?

If there is some "extremist" group that hates Islam that much (angry Hindus, perhaps?), I would think they'd have done something before, like try to crash a plane into the Kaaba. I'm far more worried about Muslim terrorists myself, and our appeasement of them.
I've had it with Political Correctness: "don't dare offend Muslims", "it is your duty to be tolerant of all religions, even if they're trying to enslave you or kill you". We were better off when we were fighting Godless Communism. As the Raving Atheist put it so well, "Ordinary politics wears a suit. Religion wears a dress. And nobody wants to hit a girl." I, for one, will not turn the other cheek to that ugly transvestite.
Ever since September 11, 2001, we have been told: 1) Most Muslims are peace-loving and opposed to terrorism, but also: 2) if we crack down on terrorists, why then these peace-loving Muslims will suddenly burst into flame and become terrorists themselves. Which is it?
I'll leave Muslims alone as long as they leave me alone.

I saw that, and thought it was almost certainly the worst idea I had ever seen. I don't know if the English language is capable of expressing just how utterly stupid that plan would be. Even "internationalising" the war in Iraq isn't this dumb. At worst that would fail miserably. Taking this idea we would fail miserably and we'd kill a whole lot of random innocent civilians.

I doubt the terrorists would be happy about it, but they wouldn't hesitate to use it againts us. And they would have fertile ground to do it, as we would have proved for all time that the only thing more dangerous than attacking the US is remaining neutral while someone else attacked us. At least if they attacked us they'd be able to justify getting crushed.

We would have instilled abject terror in a group which would then have nothing to lose, and if we were dumb and evil enough to kill hundreds of thousands of random innocents then we would richly deserve what would come afterwords. And that's assuming that Arrayan Nation didn't attack us just to watch Mecca burn.

Analogies fail, this is the single dumbest and most evil idea I have seen in the war on terror. I'm all for defending ourselves, counter attacking, going out and finding the bad guys, shooting them, and shooting anyone dumb enough to get in our way... but bombing Mecca because somebody in Pakistan decided to bomb us only escapes being purely evil because it is so counterproductively stupid.

Michael:

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. :-)

So Michael, just for clarification....was that a 'yes' or a 'no' vote for the glass parking lot idea?

Damn! I forgot to add Islamabad to my hit list.
Can't believe I forgot about Pakistan...

"That worked so well for the Nazis in Eastern Europe during WWII. Learn some history. - Claude Tessier"

Hmm. Come to think of it, didn't MAD work with USSR? And what about Japan in WWII?

"Actually that in a large part plays into what terrorists want. The purpose of terrorism is to elicit an extreme response. Doing so, shows the people who are not fighting the abuse of power that the stroger force is willing to commit. It increases hatred and creates more people willing to fight on the side of the terrorists." -Aaron Pohle

Bullspit (as ever so clever Gen. Clark put it). Ever heard of Mogadishu? Or perhaps Vietnam? The only modern instances of defeat of the American Military have come when the cost of victory is higher than the perceived value of said victory. I've heard enough Hamas and AQ's say they will stop at nothing until we are wiped off the face of the earth or forced to bow before a Caliphate. In case you didn't hear that, THEY WANT TO EXTERMINTATE OR ENSLAVE US. Therefore, if we do not win, we lose permanently.

The only way these people understand you mean business is if you stick by Hammurabi's code. Political sanctions and whimperings of the State Department do nothing without a credible threat of force (go ask Libya about their sudden change of heart). Fear is what they understand. Fear is used to be their weapon. It is time we showed them what fear really is.

You guys crack me up!

You bomb one of our cities and we unleash 10,000 times the explosives on our "sister city" as a response.

Of course Gaddafi gets grandfathered out of that deal.

I would have offered Libya the same deal as POTUS except...

"The Libyans must turn Gaddafi over to the US Army. You don't like it? See the "Rosemary Option" above and get back to us. You have 12 hours to make up your minds."

Wasn't there a very bad Star Trek episode about this?

Cobb:

What heresy do you speak? A bad Star Trek episode...NEVER!

I sort of agree with Arnold's idea of driving out the populace of certain areas and removing all trace of their previous habitation.. but I disagree that Arafat would change his thinking in any way because of it.. if anything, he would use it as propaganda to support his crusade.. he clearly doesn't give a damn about his supporters.. he purposely keeps them in refugee camps in order to have something for the idiotic palestinean-sympathetic 'journalists' to write anti-American stories about

but, if we denied muslims access to certain historical sites.. the Dome of the Rock being the first example.. for maybe 6 months beyond ANY terrorist activity.. you'd see some major changes.. of course, we'd have to send in some major forces to enforce the restriction.. but if we made it very clear that they would have their access restored after suicide bombings were completely eliminated, and no more jihad-esque protest marches with 10 year old kids carrying AK-47s.. I think something might be accomplished

Claude - allow me to invoke Godwin's Law.

More to the point, why don't you explain which 'eye' the Nazis lost in the first place?

Rosemary,

well, at least you've got that holiday spirit. It's nice to see you've finally rejected Christianity, after all, those innocent children we obliterate are potential suicide bombers and/or terrorists. "And Jesus did mutter under his breath, nip it in the bud." Talk about suffer the little children!

I've got a better idea. Instead of 10,000 times, we'll go with 70 X 7...that way it'll have a hint of new testament in it to go with the old testament eye-for-an eye. Oh, and during the holidays, we can offer a 2 for 1 special. We'll bomb 2 of your cities for each of our cities you attack.

It's nice to see a woman advocating the deaths of non-combatants for once. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks. Aside from the fact that your idea is completely immoral and hateful, I like it....wait, I take that back, it sucks.

btw, did you get the family picture?

yeah, but you gotta love the simplicity of it

K.I.S.S. (Kill Islamic Sister-city Solution)

Mark Noonan's list:

New York City - Paris
Washington D.C. - Paris
Los Angeles - Paris
Chicago - Paris
San Francisco - San Francisco
Seattle - Berlin

On a serious note (because I don't take this thread seriously, and the notion of this type of retaliation digusts me and goes against everthing I have ever been taught since I was born.) we should allow the CIA to target and assassinate legitimate threats to society. Under this policy, Idi Amin, Noriega, Huessin, Casto, Stalin, Kim Jung-Il...all gone. What a wonderful world this would be if we would relieve those oozing fucktards of their ability to breath. Happy Holidays!

If I had to choose between A) live under Islam, or B) kill every Muslim on the planet, I wouldn't hesitate to choose B. And I'd die, too, if necessary. Better dead than a slave. (By the way, I'm not a Christian either, so you can't use the Jesus argument on me. Better dead and in Hell than a slave.) Fortunately, however, there are a number of options in between.
We don't have to use our nukes or kill any children. Here's what I would do: Invade Saudi Arabia. (Let our Generals work out the precise military strategy for that, that's what we pay them to do.) Kill all their _religious_ leaders (or all those who don't renounce Wahabism). (In my opinion, it would be just to lock their "religious police" inside a mosque and set it afire, to pay them back for what they did to their own schoolgirls. Other Americans may have short memories, but I, for one, have not forgotten, nor forgiven that atrocity.)
Then impose on the Saudis, by military force, a constitution that establishes strict separation of mosque from state and complete religious freedom for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This would be very much like what we did in Japan. Occupy as long as we have to. After the very center of Islam (and therefore the source of all Islamic terrorism) has had enough years of a non-terrorist, non-totalitarian variation on that religion, then, I think, the rest of the dominoes will get the picture and fall in line.

I have an even better idea

Tim:

btw, did you get the family picture?

Did you email it to me? I didn't get one.

To extrapolate from claude's thinking:
"the Nazi's drove cars, therefore I must not"
"the Nazi's lived in houses, therefore I must not"
"the Nazi's brushed their teeth, therefore I must not"

I guess claude is an unbathed homeless guy (probably on drugs, since the Nazi's were against drugs) slipping in to use a library computer. Good thing the Nazi's didn't know about the Internet, or he'd be unable to share his nanoscopic wisdom with the world.

Tim:
Stop humping that tree long enough to see the big picture.

If we tell the world that is what we are gonna do - don't you think it may deter future attacks?

Don't you think that perhaps people will start handing over their bad guys?

Maybe, I'm being naive. But at least we are giving them all a good healthy head start to get the hell out of Dodge. When the shit hits the fan it is gonna be a hell of a mess

I'm not an atheist yet. The idea is just a bit of Old Testament mixed with a little Hammurabi. Ten eyes for an eye.

I'm not being hateful either. It's like we tell our kids - you do something bad, you will be grounded.

Just on a grander scale. A gigantic, nasty forewarning.

Tim the Soldier -- What is wrong with the concept of hitting the enemy where it hurts them the most? Seems like the enemy did not care who among us they killed on Sept 11th. All the victims of Sept 11th were non-combatants. Overwhelming force that leads to overwhelmin fear and terror is the only way Islamic militants will get ant sense knocked ito their thick skulls. BTW, I have had experience with islamic militants, having grown up on the Indian sub-continent and having spent a couple of years in the UAE. Extremist Islam has to be experienced, reading about it in textbooks or watching educational videos is never like meeting these guys face-to-face, and interacting with them.

I think one of the most egregious false claimsabout liberals is that we have no sense of humor. I consider myself a very liberal person -- pro-environment, pro-individual liberties, pro-democracy, pro-peace -- and when I think about my life, I find that I'm laughing for at least 50% of my waking hours, that kind of "happy to be alive" laughter that drug commercials attempt to capture but fall short of. I'm constantly telling jokes at work, making people laugh, trying to make the passing of each day a little easier for myself and others. I watch Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Bravo, and CBS. I even watched the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" once, and laughed a few times. Plus one of the guys was pretty hot. That helped.

I like to think I know a joke when I hear one, or when I read one.

But if this is a joke, it isn't funny. And if it isn't a joke, it just makes me feel sad and tired and a little less hopeful than I was before I read it.

This isn't just over-simplified or gratuitous or xenophobic or bloodthirsty or demeaning or inhumane. It's madness. Unthinking, historically blind, childish madness.

None of you could prove that such a doctrine would achieve anything but more war -- hence the lack of specific citations above. If the United States ever announced publicly that it would nuke Mecca if another of our cities were attacked by Islamic terrorists, those terrorists would only despise our government more. None of you could prove that killing people who are already willing to die is some sort of deterrent -- it's a foreign policy adaptation of our failed death penalty. Do any of you honestly believe that a person willing to murder in cold blood even values his own life? This is all so much rationalization to gussy up the underlying, visceral, genetic, racial emotion: They threaten us; wipe out their tribe.

Whether Rosemary was joking or not, the assent she's fished out of her readers tells the story nonetheless. I find claims of my own threat to Western Civilization ring somewhat hollow in the face of such blind vengeance.

Congratulations. You're officially primates.

Yep, Kusch, greater primates, homo sapiens sapiens. Congratulations, by your own admission you don't belong with us and are hereby relegated to your proper place with the spineless jellyfish.

Trading a city for a city, even by escalation, is less of a stretch than the cold War's Mutual Assured Destruction. The alternative, to offer no retribution, is to invite an eternity of jihadis attacking us, or to surrender to the Islamists. Neither is acceptable. As for wiping out their "tribe" I'd prefer to pave over their culture, transform their marketplaces into WalMarts, and commercialize their religious holidays then see another attack comparable to 9/11. They can reap the benefits of the 21st century after they learn the lessons of the 20th, and the number one lesson was do not mess with Uncle Sam.

John:

There are distinctions in this world between one thing and another. Things are themselves, and not other things. People are themselves, and not other people.

Terrorists are not the innocent men, women and children of Middle Eastern countries who you would massacre.

Jet planes are not nuclear bombs.

Humans are not non-humans.

Justice is not revenge.

Your willingness to de-humanize any person who strays from your worldview -- when you are demonstrably in no immediate mortal peril, when we have the time to choose other paths than assured mutual destruction, when we still have allies in the Middle East -- says that peace, safety, prosperity and happiness are not what you want.

Your world-view is just too simple, too vicious, too self-satisfied for me to comprehend.

I want a better personal legacy than being just another citizen of just another failed empire. When whoever inherits this place sifts through the rubble, I want to leave a record of why this was a worthwhile place to live. Oceans of fused glass and radioactivity don't tell any story I'm interested in.

You guys keep your threats and your bombs. I'll stay over here with my humanity.

Well, John Irving, count me among the spineless, and with John Kusch (who on any other day would probably hate to have me agreeing with him).

I'll limit this to (mostly) a pragmatic argument. The defense of this suggestion seems to be, "Sure it's horrible, but it'll work, and might make it less likely to ever come to pass." Fair enough?

A threat like this is meant to be so horrible that it scares the enemy, who now know not to mess with us. I think it's so over-the-top, and so out-of-character for us (not compared to the height of WWII, but as a discontinuity with our recent history) that many wouldn't believe it.

People are unpredictable. Of all those fanatics out there, do you think 100.000...% would believe us and say, "Whoa, they mean business! We'd better not try it." Can you guarantee that there wouldn't be a handful, just a few, just enough, who'd react: "You don't have the guts, and I'm going to prove it, and you'll be exposed for the cowards and frauds you are!" And are you really willing to live with the consequences?

So suppose it happens: We get attacked. Then we nuke their holiest cities. What happens then?

Before anyone retorts that "they already hate us, they're already carrying out attacks against us": There are a lot of Muslims, I'd guess hundreds of millions, who rather idly hate us, can't be bothered to fight us and are willing to be realists, but would sure as hell be, um, motivated after that. What would we threaten them with then? Death? Think they'd care? Hey, everyone who wrote, "Better dead than a slave": You think they wouldn't respond that way?

I'm not afraid of the Muslim street, militarily. I'd just rather we didn't commit genocide (as a response to their response) if another strategy could make it avoidable. This one makes it likely.

Right after 9/11, I favored nuking the capital of every country that materially supported terror against us. I figured someday we would lose a city and that would be our response, so why wait til we lost a city?

I was wrong, and I'm ashamed. George Bush took a more nuanced approach, meant to ensure that we would never have to do this. It was worth a try.

I'll go with the worst idea yet. Let's combine Zero-Tolerance and genocide. Let's make a rule so we don't have to use our judgement regarding those trivial nuances. We're smart enough to ignore all those inconvienant details.

Luckily for us the honorable men and women in our military would rebel rather than carry out such an obviously illegal order.

Suckered by 'beautiful simplicity' again. Here's another beautifully simple idea: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Gag. Retch.

It should be a clue that half the posters found ways to game this sytem with about two seconds of brainpower.

Yours,
Wince

If the death penalty doesn't deter murderers, then I'd like to know what does? Why not just go ahead and legalize murder then? So, then, why should I pay taxes? To give free welfare handouts to the murderers and rapists? I've had it with pacifists and their soft approach. I've had it with foreign aid, paid for with _my_ taxes, to cesspools like Saudi Arabia. They don't like our "imperialism"? Fine. Let's see them do without our wealth as well. If their culture is really equal to ours then they'll reach our standard of living on their own. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Energy Independence Manhattan Project. Develop our own oil and other sources of energy, everything it takes, and let the scum "perish with and in their own void" as John Galt said. It's time for Atlas to shrug. Also, guard our borders. Let no one in that doesn't agree with our freedoms.

Steven:

1) Are you calling me a pacifist? (Chortle)

2) I'm pro-death-penalty, as it happens. But I do think we should try hard to only execute, you know, the actual murderers. I'm kind of picky that way. By your analogy, I should support (or else I might as well legalize murder) executing a whole neighborhood when someone from it (or his cousin, or his friend) kills someone. Hey: If the neighbors were really worth sparing, they'd have stopped him.

SMA,

Cheap access to space would give us orbital power satellites, which could help the Energy Independence Manhattan Project. I like it. I also want to strictly enforce our existing immigration laws, but allow many more immigrants from the Americas to reduce the demand for illegals.

Yours,
Wince

Isn't that basically what we've been doing; you bomb two of ours (NYC, DC) and we take over 2 of yours (AFG, IQ)

Immigrants from the Americas are fine with me as long as they come here legally.
JPS: You didn't read what I wrote, obviously. I didn't advocate executing a murderer's whole neighborhood. I just said I was tired of subsidizing murderers and looking for the "root causes" of their "pain". If we stop subsidizing and appeasing our enemies, I don't think we'll need to nuke them. But we keep our nukes as a deterrent, as we did during the Cold War with Russia. On the capital punishment, I was responding to John Kusch who said it's no deterrent. What is, then?

The outraged response from liberals to Rosemary's idea proves, once and for all, that the Left has a serious humor deficiency. Let's test it still further.

Kim's List
------------
1. New York City -- depends on which PART of New York. Upper West/East Sides -- no penalty. Any other, Teheran.

2. Washington D.C. -- no penalty if the destruction includes the IRS and Education buildings, otherwise, Teheran.

3. San Francisco -- no penalty (maybe even a reward). Ditto Berkeley, Marin County, Malibu and Santa Monica.

4. Chicago -- the electoral districts of Jan Schakowski, Jesse Jackson Jr., Luis Guiterrez, Rahm Emmanuel, and Bridgeport (home of Mayor Daley): no penalty (yeah, I know, Wrigley Field gets it -- the Cubs aren't gonna win anything soon anyway). Anywhere else in Chicago, Teheran AND Damascus get flattened.

5. Ann Arbor, MI -- no penalty.

I'm sure you get my drift.

Kim:

HA!!!!

Won't you miss the hippies at all?

Well, the pacifists, led by John Kusch and JPS havent swayed me yet. i would rather our Govt took aggressive action than be a victim or see all of you gus and gals, who are regulars here be victimised by some Islamic Jihadi. John K likes to think that t here is something morally wrong about taking action, heavy-handed if necessary against our vicious enemy, who would destroy us all if given half a chance. Dunno, I cant get myself to be as spineless, and make up some fancy sounding, vacuous verbiage to display my spinelessness. remember, in WW-II we dropped the bombs on 2 Japanese cities, and firebombed german cities. I guess the Pres then ought t o have listened to some spineless citizens, who were more concerned about the well-being of the enemy.
And i suppose, we would all be happy now, living under the heel of Nazi thugs, or militaristic Japanese thugs. And you know what in that scenario, or for that matter, if we allow the Islamic jihadis to win, the first people they will pick out to kill and torture will be those they know are leftists, and the homosexual population!!!!!

Hey Kim:

Here's some humor:

Why don't we all rape your kids?

Okay, start laughing. No, really, start laughing. No laughter? You righties have no sense of humor.

Putz.

Wow a whole flood of responses to this thread while I was away.

The problem with attempting to use a mutually assured destruction threat against terrorists is that the destruction you are threatening is not targeting them. It is a fundamental difference between dealing with a terrorist group and dealing with another nation. MAD worked against the Soviets, and it will work against most nations, becuase we do have a way to directly that which is of the greatest value to them, their nation.

With the terrorists, however, that may not be the case. Several of you have argued that the lost of Mecca is enough of a deterrant to prevent them from attacking us, if they were convinced that such an atack would result in its destruction. Is that really true? Consider what would be likely to happen if we were to take such action. Assume that New York was destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Under this scenario we would then uphold our threat and use a nuclear weapon to destroy Mecca. What does that cause? It is very likely that all of Islam would turn against us, becuase after all, we just destroyed their holiest city in retaliation for the actions of few radicals. Would that that help to prove in the minds of the many muslism that are not our enemies that much of what these readicals said all along about us is true? Would we not be acting as "the great satan"? How many millions of people would turn against us for such an action? How many more non-muslims would reject and condemn us for such an act? We would have killed a vast number of innocent people in retaliation for the actions of a few. Would that not turn a great number of people in the world against us? Would that not cause a rift even within the US? How many in our own country would support that action? It would be a disaster on many levels. The US would face tremendous opposition, the fundamentalists would have many join them in the fight, seeing us as the true enemy for the first time. Such a scenario would a a fair probability of greatly weakening or even crippling the United States. It is possible that it would start a chain reaction of events that would destroy this nation.

I'm not saying that is what would happen. I'm saying that is a fairly strong possibility. Now, when you consider that. Do you think it is possible that some fairly irrationial terrorist somewhere, who hates the US so much that he has acquired a nuclear weapon, would think that the loss of his holy city was too high of a price to pay to destroy the United States?

You don't have to believe it would destroy us. You just have to see that there us enough there for someone in that position to believe it. If he does, than just the threat you would make would trigger rather than detur an attack.

As it stand now, the message to that terrorist is, "Attack us and we will hunt you down to the ends of the earth, nothing and no one can protect you."

Would you change that message to "Attack us and we will show the world that we can be every bit as evil as you claim we are."?

I think it would be a great mistake to adopt such a doctrine. The only way it works, is if the terrorists care more about the safety of Mecca than they do about the destruction of the US. Given their willingness the make themselves and anyone around them martyrs for their cause, I am not so confident that they would not choose to martyr even their holiest city.

And I do realize that the original post was said with more of a humorous flavor. My comments here are directed more at some of the comments made and at people discussing this as a potential doctrine.

I might sound all serious about it, and I do believe in what I say, but I can still see the humor in all of this as well ;)

I would also like to add that I am completly in favor of us taking retalitory action and even support pre-emtive action against these terrorists. I simply do not wish such action to make the situation worse. I believe that keeping such action directed at only those who commit or are planning or attempting to commit such actions against us, and those who directly support or protect them is the best way to go. It destroyes those that threaten us while also eroding their support.

The method of attack against terrorists is attrition. They have very limited resources. Forcing them to expend very high amouts of those resources for any actions, and greatly reducing the effectiveness of those actions is one step. Another is to further limit access to those resources. This is the policy that the US is currently following. We are pressuring and in some cases forcing nations and people to stop funding the terrorists. We have focused the fight in areas protected by our military in their terrotory where they pay a very high price for attacks that accomplist very little. We have hunted down groups that have attacked us. We find and destroy supplies and shelters and we continue to infultrate cells and capture terrorists.

They may not value their lives or fear death, but they do fear losing their ability to pursue their goal. Every terrorist that is arrested or killed is one less they have to use against us. AS their numbers, supplies, and money dwindle the operations they can perform against also shrink.

Our deterrance is to show that terrorism doesn't work against the United States. We will not commit and atrocity in order to retaliate. We will not ignore attacks against us and we will not surrender and back away. Our deterrance is their continued and ever more costly failure made possible by our strength and our resolve.

As it stands now, the message to the terrorist is: "Attack us and we'll shower you with billions of dollars in aid and trade, and put on TV specials explaining how your religion is the Religion of Peace."

We can cripple Islamic terrorism without dropping a nuke or even firing a shot. Just shut off the spigot, i.e., our money. They need our aid to survive. If their culture was truly equal to ours, they would already have a thriving capitalist economy on their own. They don't. They need our help to kill us. We are financing our own destruction. It's time for Atlas to shrug. Cut off this ridiculous foreign aid nonsense and: get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US. I know, I know, I'm heartless and un-compassionate. That means I'm not spineless, and my compassion goes to those who deserve it -- their victims.

Oh, and by the way, just as important if not more: Stop supporting our enemies psychologically, spiritually. Stop pretending that murderers are "moderates" just because they smile a lot. Stop the "Religion of Peace" crap. Stop propaganding for Islam in our tax-supported schools and universities. Stop trying to "make nice" with those who would enslave us, rape our women, and murder all homosexuals. Tell the truth about our enemies. Tell the President to stop smiling at and shaking hands with the Hitlers of Saudi Arabia. Every time he consents to be in the same room with a Saudi, he is giving aid and comfort to our sworn enemies, which the Constitution defines as treason. Saudi Arabia is the center and source of all terrorism. We cannot negotiate, compromise, co-exist, accomodate, appease, or "get along with" such an enemy. Saudi Arabia must be destroyed, psychologically, economically, and, if necessary, militarily. There is no such thing as "nice, Republican terrorists" like Saudi Arabia vs. "evil, Democratic terrorists" like Iraq. That's a false dichotomy.
"It is of such pennies and smiles that the destruction of your world was made." -Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Agreed: money is more powerful than bombs. America is the land of invention, of ingenuity, of ideas. If we wanted to stop using petroleum in ten years, we could do it. I have more faith in our scientists and our businessmen than I do in our government and our military to make America better and safer. Let's make petroleum irrelevant and make the Middle East irrelevant as a result. Make the freest nation in the world the energy capital of the world as well. Then maybe us tree-hugger can be patriots again. Are the car enthusiasts of America man enough to give up their roaring engines to cut the hamstrings of terrorism?

I did misread you when I responded to you, Steven. Sorry.

I'd read your statement on the death penalty as a general response to those of us who think this idea is unsound. I agree with a lot of what you've written and, like you, I get angry every time we talk nice with or about regimes like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I'm willing to forgive Bush for this because I'm convinced he's saying nice doggie until he has the rock firmly in hand.

Ronin: Smile when you call me a pacifist. I sure did, reading it. I'm normally denounced as a warmongering fascist maniac, so this is a refreshing change.

I'm guessing none of you people have read Al Gore's incredible work of fiction.. "Earth In The Balance".. the book where he proposes to rid the world of the evil internal combustion engine.. sounds like what you're also suggesting

I suppose it's possible we could eliminate cars and ride around on Segways.. of course, the average UPS delivery time might drop from 4 days to about 34.. but no biggie, right?

it's about time we developed those cool transporters, anyway! I'm sure we can do that in 10 years.. and we can use those hysterical liberals as the guinea pigs

I'm a little worried by this proposal. If the terrorists nuke Mecca with a 1 megaton bomb, do we have to drop ten on New York? I have relatives in New Jersey who wouldn't enjoy the fallout.

(Is that beter, Kim?)

Yours,
Wince

I'm surprised we haven't blown up 10,000 churches one fine Sunday morning in response to Christian extremist Timothy McVeigh's atrocity. Lidice Logic. Lenin Logic.

“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”
(Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918)

Of course, Felix the Mad Latvian wasn't just kidding around.

What do you call it when a blogger trolls the readers?

Fox:

What do you call it when a blogger trolls the readers?

Sarcasm.
Perverted.
Fun.

Slow news day?

I don't think we have to go quite this extreme.

The Muslims have conveniently labeled their holy sites - I think Temple Mount is their third most holy site for example.

Lets do a countdown.

Rosemary: turning over the rocks in the backyard to see what's underneath?

Brett: how about growing your own gas ("1-2 liters of H2 gas per day by a 10-liter culture of green algae") in your backyard to fuel your car? Stick it to the Arabs with fuel cells.

Sorry, Fox. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

The hydrogenases in question are being fed some carbohydrate fuel, and putting out CO2 (as well as formates). So the questions are, what fuel are you going to feed it, and where will you get it? Until those algae start splitting water, using sunlight as their energy source, you can grow as many 10-liter cultures as you like, and you won't stick it to anyone.

(Or were you joking? Sometimes I take people too literally.)

Let's have a National Day of Shooting. Blindfold everyone and give them a 9 mm handgun and three boxes of ammunition. People can feel their way around their communities, firing at will. At the end of the 24-hour period, let a siren be sounded. Everyone still alive is officially on the Right Side of History. They all get a thick slice of carrot cake and a nice Cafe Vienna, before getting fitted with a small nuclear bomb for the Final Assault on Evil, which will take place in either Canada, France or the Republic of Georgia. Finally, we'll all be safe.

Also: Here's a sure-fire way to make sure that blogging means never having to say you're sorry:

1) Introduce an idea so extreme in its moral ramifications that it borders on satire.

2) Wait for people to strongly agree or disagree with it.

3) Don't acknowledge the people who earnestly agree with the idea, or else mildly egg them on in a cheery, unhateful tone.

4) Mildly chastise those who disagree with it for their poor sense of humor. Reinforce similar chastising by others.

Result: The idea itself remains unchallenged, while those who agree with it are discredited. It's a veritable Philosopher's Stone of linguistic transubstantiation! Morally repugnant urges become clean family fun! Honest moral outrage is transformed into shrewish joy-killing!

I'd tip my hat to you, but it's full of vomit.

I didn't say it would be free, although it would likely be without the externalities of expenses for 'defense' (homeland and other-folks-land) and foreign aid our current reliance on foreign petroleum seems to make necessary.

Fuel aka food when the stuff grows naturally I assume could be in the form of lawn clippings(broken down in a bioreactor), kitchen waste (ditto) or even processed sewage. I'm not sure I get the thrust of your point, the article's is that the algae DO split water and yield hydrogen as part of an alternative metabolic pathway under the described conditions.

I'm not saying this is ready off-the-shelf, although sophisticated fuel cells themselves are available for use in powering cars and homes using hydrogen as fuel. As hundreds of millions of new automobiles come into use in Asia raising the demand for oil, the joke is going to be on us and our spatially distributed economic and social infrastructure if we don't pull our heads out and work seriously on alternatives to petroleum to power our automobiles. Growing algae has to be, if we work on the problem, simple compared to growing corn, at which we excel (albeit with plentiful inputs of oil).

Perhaps the economics will break strongly toward industrial scale production of hydrogen, on the other hand being able to produce several hundred liters of hydrogen per week in one's backyard, depending on the season, might well be a sensible supplement to buying the stuff at a 'gas station' and justify the expense of owning and operating your own 'green oilwell' to convert solar energy into storable, portable fuel.

Getting to the point of nuking our dealers (speaking from the point of view of a junkie, which we basically are when it comes to oil) cuts both ways: we can blow any part of the planet we choose to smithereens but then we'll have to go in to take over and defend any resources we require from then on.

Nuking Mecca in particular would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, it would be difficult to imagine a more spectacularly self-defeating act of vengeance or policy, joking aside. Osama clearly indicated before 911 that he wished to provoke the USA into a reaction that would help him convince the world's Muslims that we are their enemies and determined to destroy their religion, in order to assist his goal of revolutionizing the Muslim world: vaporizing the Ka'aba would lead to a war of mutual extermination. Cutting off the money spigot by meeting our energy needs within our borders would both relieve us of the need to erect an empire to preserve our lifestyle (the PNAC alternative) and serve our vengence frosty cold.

Fox, you wrote:

"I'm not sure I get the thrust of your point, the article's is that the algae DO split water and yield hydrogen."

The thrust of my point is that you implied that with this breakthrough, we can now wean ourselves off of oil. I am pointing out that this doesn't solve our problems. That's all, and I'm pretty well away from the topic of the post (which I've been arguing against).

I just wanted to warn against wishful thinking. These algae don't produce energy, they interconvert it more readily. The energy still has to come from somewhere. If burning biomass could reasonably power the nation and get us off of oil, we'd be converting to it.

On small scale, home-by-home: If you can feed this thing with your lawn clippings, and then burn the hydrogen, why not just burn your lawn clippings? You'll get more energy out, and it'll save you the trouble of compressing or liquefying the hydrogen.

An addendum: You're half-right that the enzymes in these algae split water. I didn't mean to be vague earlier. "Splitting" implies breaking it down into hydrogen AND oxygen, which requires a hell of an energy input. That is not described by this article. If the byproducts are carbon dioxide and formates, there is a reducing agent around, supplying the electrons and making the thermodynamics favorable.

In other words, you still need to feed these algae some source of stored energy. And a lot of alternative fuels are fine in themselves, but won't be competing with oil anytime soon.

John:

4) Mildly chastise those who disagree with it for their poor sense of humor. Reinforce similar chastising by others.

I'm not sure that I did that. If I did, I'm sorry for it.

The reason that I didn't respond to the dissenters was because I agree that the idea itself is sheer lunacy. I respect your opinion and that of the others. I am responsible for letting the thread get out of hand, so for that I also apologise. I should have clarified earlier than now but I really believed that a majority of the readers knew I wasn't serious. Was I being naive? Yes.

So, when you are all done retching I hope that you can forgive me.

The article clearly states, as I quoted: "The recent demonstration of the production of 1-2 liters of H2 gas per day by a 10-liter culture of green algae opens up a new chapter in the biofuel technology, necessitating further research in this area." The enzyme is part of the internal metabolic pathway of the algae ("In green algae, ferridoxin (PetF) serves as the physiological electron donor to HydA, tranferring electrons from the photosynthetic electron transport chain to the chloroplastic HydA enzyme under anaerobic conditions."), which produces the hydrogen, under the described conditions, without the input of any energy other than sunlight (quoting from the linked article again): "It has been demonstrated that under conditions of oxygen shortage, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells switch to fermentative metabolism [in the context of this article, hydrogen producing] within minutes. C. reinhardtii cultures produce large amounts of H2 gas when experiencing sulfur deprivation..."

Nowhere is there any reference to any stored source of energy or special requirements other than either anoxia or restricted sulfur to get these specific algae to directly produce hydrogen gas as a byproduct of their photosynthetic metabolism. The H2 gas is one of the byproducts emitted by the algae under this metabolic regime, again quoting from the article, "The algal [Fe]-hydrogenases has its main role during fermentation that occurs in the light, resulting in the production of large quantities of H2, formate and carbon dioxide while reducing the production of ethanol and eliminating totally the production of acetate. Thus, hydrogenase participates in reorganization of reducing equivalents and photosynthetically-generated electrons from fermentation by reduction of protons. H2 gas ultimately acts as the major electron sink under these conditions."

This discovery was made 3 years ago. Petroleum used in IC engines (which has benefited from decades of research from tens of thousands of scientists and engineers over 140+ years) is a non-renewable resource undergoing relentless demand growth requiring increasing expense to extract which is all too often located in politically volatile regions increasingly likely to require military expense to access.

Fuel cells are a relatively advanced technology with some highly desirable characteristics versus the IC engine. Hydrogen production from photosynthesizing algae is a recent discovery that does without the need to use electricity, for example, to split hydrogen from water or crack hydrocarbons. Yes it will need to be compressed and liquefied, but photosynthesis via sunlight is the source of the hydrogen gas itself.

Its not some powder you sprinkle in water then run electricity through. Its gas from the plant, just like every molecule of oxygen we breathe, liberated as a waste product using energy from sunlight.

I"m coming a bit late to this discussion but Michael Demmons said:

I like the idea. One problem though, what it it was Berkeley? :-)

Heh...

I would use the same 10,000 to one ratio and for every city block of Berkeley destroyed, I would offer to build 10,000 blocks in any area they chose... Mosques and Madrassas might get built at a lower ratio since they seem to be serious over there and this is not aparent in Berkeley...

Everyone forgets, Berkeley cannot be destroyed by a Nuclear Bomb. They have an ordinance against the importation of Nuclear weapons into the city. Pity...
By the way, does anyone know the penalty for it?

Fox,

If there isn't a fuel (aka food, aka stored source of energy), where are the CO2 and formate coming from? You're not discussing a balanced reaction.

"I'm surprised we haven't blown up 10,000 churches one fine Sunday morning in response to Christian extremist Timothy McVeigh's atrocity."

Where did you get the idea that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian of any kind? He was no more an "extreme" Christian than he was an "extreme" Marxist or Objectivist. He was a racist, a follower of neo-Nazi William Pierce, who wrote "The Turner Diaries" advocating the murder of all blacks and Jews. And I get tired of hearing the Ku Klux Klan held up as an example of what's wrong with Christianity. The defining idea of the KKK is _racism_, not Christianity.
What's wrong with Christianity is its missionary monotheism and its anti-self, anti-sex, anti-homosexual doctrines -- all of which is also what's wrong with Islam. But not all Christians hold those bad ideas or not consistently, so they shouldn't be blamed for them.
We don't need to blow up any churches or mosques. Here in America, we're doing something far more effective: separating church from state, and stopping the churches from legislating their morality on the rest of us. The day we force the Muslims to do the same, on that day, and no sooner, we will finally be rid of terrorism.

ronin,

"What is wrong with the concept of hitting the enemy where it hurts them the most?"

Because it violates the U.S. military's law's of war and the Geneva Convention. Yes, I know that our enemies don't honor the terms of the convention, but I'll be damned (as a soldier) if I am going to lower myself to kill women and children non-combatants.

On a lighter note, if a kid has a bomb strapped to his/her chest and is running towards me, that little freak is gonna be a grease stain quicker than you can say "eel sperm."

JPS,

From what I have read on the process here is what is happening. The algae when deprived of oxygen(and apparently sulpher) use energy from photosynthesis to extract oxygen from water and it releases hydrogen as a byproduct. What the article does not mention is that the reaction is not continuously sustainable. They ahve to cycle the algae though 2-3 days of normal photosynthesis where it is not producing hydrogen to allow it to store enough energy to survive 4 days of oxygen deprived photosynthesis where it produces. So a more realistiv assment would be that they can produce 4-8 liters of Hydrogen a week with a 10 liter algae sample.

The problem is that even 8 liters of Hydrogen gas, while a lot for algae to produce is not really a lot of stored energy. Hydrogen has a very low energy density.

Even with the more effecient fuel cells you can only get about 2 miles/liter in an average sized car. So the 8 liters you produce will allow you to drive around 16 miles. Not a very viable solution at this stage. Still, it is an interesting technology.

As for hydrogen being a renewable resource, that's true. Oil, however, is also technically renewable(it can be produced in a labratory) it is simply not even remotely cost effecient to do so. Though the cost for hydrogen production is significantly lower, the energy benefit of hydrogen as a fuel are also fairly low.

Aaron,

Thanks for that.

What I am trying to say is that if the algae are releasing "large quantities" of carbon dioxide and formates as a byproduct of hydrogen production, they are being fed some sort of organic matter as a reactant. That's where the oxygen they "extract", in your terms, goes: Into oxidizing some organic fuel. It isn't being released as oxygen gas, and that makes all the difference in the world.

That's my objection. If these algae just took in photons and turned water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, then yes, our fundamental problem would be solved, and the rest would be engineering. That hasn't happened yet. Really.

But that's not what's going on here: You're taking (basically) sugar plus water and turning them into CO2 plus hydrogen. Fine, great, neat; but ultimately you're still burning biomass, and there are still problems with that such that it won't wean us off our dependence on oil.

Incidentally, the energy density problem is worse than you think: The article is talking about hydrogen gas. You're thinking 2 miles per liter of the (liquid, usually hydrocarbon) fuel that fuel cells convert to hydrogen. Eight liters of hydrogen gas, at standard ambient temperature, is equal to about 0.01 liter of liquid hydrogen at its boiling point. You're not going to move a car anywhere near 16 miles on that.

From Fox's link:

"Electrons released from the degradation of starch, proteins or lipids...are delivered to [Fe]-hydrogenases, leading to abundant hydrogen gas production."

Starch, proteins, lipids--those are the organic fuels I'm referring to. This is fine science, and I enjoyed reading it, but it does not solve our energy problem.

I'm surprised we haven't blown up 10,000 churches one fine Sunday morning in response to Christian extremist Timothy McVeigh's atrocity.

Let me conduct a multi-point knockdown of this gratuitous and deceitful smear. Here are some important differences between McVeigh and al Qaeda:

(1) Timothy McVeigh acted along with one other person, and the whole thing was self-financed. Muslim terrorists, whether they are called al Qaeda, JI or a host of other acronyms, function with either active or passive state sponsorship.

(2) After the Oklahoma City bombing, militia group memberships took a big dive, and no new threats were voiced or carried out by the movement. Muslim terrorists have been killing Americans for decades, starting in the late 1960's with Robert Kennedy's assassination. Even before 9/11, Muslim terrorists had killed hundreds of Americans in incidents ranging from airplane hijackings, embassy and airplane bombings to kidnappings in which Americans were tortured to death and then mutilated.

(3) Church congregations did not support the McVeigh bombing either morally or financially. In fact, McVeigh's actions were denounced from every pulpit. By contrast, mosques are known for incubating terrorist cells via both ideological and financial support.

(4) When the Oklahoma City bombings occurred, Christians did not stage large-scale demonstrations proclaiming their support for McVeigh-style terrorism. Christians comdemned his actions without qualification. After 9/11, Muslims conducted joyous celebrations of the event, ululating and passing out candy in the streets. Muslims called the attack simply America's just deserts for what they felt to be unfair American policies.

(5) The fomenting of McVeigh-style terrorism does not exist in American churches. Mosques throughout the world, even in America continue to promote and fund Muslim terrorists.

(6) McVeigh wasn't fighting for the advancement of Christendom - the US is 95% Christian - he was fighting for purely secular motives - namely to avenge Waco and Ruby Ridge. The proper target would be militia members and their supporters who are bent on a continued campaign of terror. But there are none - militias disbanded and renounced anti-government violence after Oklahoma City. By contrast, Muslim terrorists are fighting, with support from governments and mosques, to impose Islamic rule on the world. To this day, we are getting a continuous stream of threats to destroy America, and a serious of post-9/11 terrorist attacks that have killed over a dozen Americans in a number of foreign countries.

(7) McVeigh and company did not threaten to kill tens of thousands of people. Muslim terrorists are promising to do so.

(8) McVeigh and company killed FBI agents by destroying an anonymous government building. Al Qaeda went after the most prestigious building in New York City and both the White House and the Pentagon - the seat of American power.

Of course Gaddafi gets grandfathered out of that deal.

I would have offered Libya the same deal as POTUS except...

The point being made here appears to be American hypocrisy at letting Gaddafi go. Which would be wrong - the principle in question is how high a price the US should pay for capitulation without war. Having Gaddafi come in from the cold without toppling him doesn't constitute hypocrisy - it demonstrates an understanding that prices are flexible, and dependent on the conditions attached. If the US insists on Gaddafi's removal, this will cost, at minimum, a few hundred American lives and a troop presence for a number of years in Libya that will be expensive and controversial. Billions of dollars in damages, intelligence on terrorists and random inspections of WMD's seems like an excellent deal for the US. Compare this with the EU's deal with Iran, in which the US got essentially nothing, from a security standpoint - no money, no terror intelligence and no WMD inspections.

The price of every deal is going to be different, just as the price paid today for a commodity will differ from the price paid tomorrow. And paying either a higher or lower price tomorrow does not constitute hypocrisy - it's simply what the market demands at any given time.

JPS,

You might be right on the density of hydrogen being even worse, I was thinking those figures were for gaseous hydrogen, but I don't know for certain. Either way it is far too little energy to be remotely viable.

The Arabs threaten our people with death I say we threaten the Islamic three holy sites.
We tell them you hit us with WMD anywhere and we vaporize Mecca, Medina and The Dome of the rock.
That's it nothing left of the holy sites but smoking holes in the ground. they can try to do the haj thing if they want but there wouldn't be nowhere to go.
We should do a demonstration to show them the vunerabilities of these sites.

Barry,

I think you've just shown us your vulnerable area. (Hint: it's just above your neck)
Q: If a guy kills your son or daughter, does the state have a right to execute him AND his family? While Big daddy Abdul might have crashed the plane into the WTC, little Abdul is still learning his shapes and colors. Yours is the chickenshit response.

Rosemary, did you think that you'd get these types of responses in this thread? There's plenty of anti-Arab sentiment being thrown around that we are all bound to get hit with it. You stirred up a hornet's nest of hatred that took your idea seriously even if you didn't.

Tim:
Nope, I didn't expect it. I can understand it though. People are angry and anger makes people say angry things that they wouldn't normally say, think or do. It takes away rationality. I think most people here knew I wasn't serious.

Barry was, I think, talking about targeting historic sites surgically, not mass murder.

Last night I read in Islam Online some facts about "Islamaphobia" on the uprise in Germany. Reading this, I guess it's supposed to satirical, I sure as hell hope it is no ones (at least anyone's with any kind of web presence) idea of a good idea, five days in arrears of it being posted detracts nothing from the serendipity of it.
I blogged recently about how I had no plans for seeking rehab for my addiction to the internet, I just may have to kick what can only be construed as an enlightening habit. I linked one over from a right wing conservative news parody because there was nothing new there to tweak their greedy little brains about, I thought that blog forum was bad, this one bounced was off of an idea that was so based on such closed minded rancor, I looked out my window to see if the SS from the Third Reich was coming after me. Then I just had to see what the responses were like, luckily, as in the other site, it wasn't just a bunch of rightys slapping each other on the back over the glorious road of world domination the "dub" is leading us down.
As any kind of joke I find the author's comment along the lines of a racial joke told to me, reffering to how I fit into the stereo type of my race with the punchline being something like "and your race is only worth one ten thousanth of (whatever the joke tellers race might be)"
Is the United States so segmented that the only way to find unity is to demonize a common enemy? Is Michael Jackson our defacto ruler and was his dangleing a baby out of a window a signal for all US citizens to put my most charished bill of rights in peril? Isn't there enough drama on TV and the movies that we need to hastened the end of world unity if not the world?
See. Now those last two questions took two of the most pressing issues of our time and bent them satirically without managing to offend anyone. That's how it's done. You don't need to be PC about it, but gosh dang offensive is offensive.
Don't worry about any time I've wasted here, I've got substantial grist here for one if not two of my blogs.

P.S. Who gets angry about tripe on the internet anyway?

Barry:

I seem to remember that the Dome of the Rock is in Jerusalem, which is de facto, if not de jure, in Israel. I have a feeling that the Israelis would be a mite tetchy re anybody letting off nuclear weapons there. And of course, they do have nukes of their own. Not to mention a previous history of attacking American assets when it suited them. (Remember that US electronic surveillance ship they bombed the crap out of at the start of the six Day War.)

Rosemary:
There isn't anything surgical about a nuclear weapon - however you target it, everybody in the world gets to share the fallout eventually. The number of nuclear detonations necessary to trigger a "nuclear autumn" is frighteningly small. Somebody mentioned America's growing corn quitye a way back in this string, it would take a relatively minor climatic change to shift the growing region for corn southward to the point where it was not a viable crop in the USA. what would that do to your economy?

Nuclear winter and nuclear autumn are wholly unproven effects resting on a set of completely unproven guesses. Technology requires a new twist on Twain - there are lies, damn lies, statistics and computer models. I am so sorry that Sagan spent his prestige on something so obviously not science. I'm sure he thought it was for a good cause. I certainly thought so at the time.

Yours,
Wince

Nuiking Mecca and Medina would just be a start. If hostilities continue, low yeild neutron weapons can be used against most or all of the other Muslim population centers.