DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Exposing the Threat of Islamist Terrorism

**Fegasderty** · 12-27-2007, 07:01 PM

Andak,

The issue with Nuking Mecca comes to what might happen if there were a sustained, serious terror campaign on the US, and why Islamists are a huge threat to all Muslims - because they may provoke a "big war."

It has nothing to do with calls to genocide or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is merely a statement that the non-Muslim world will not tolerate Muslim terror against it at a high intensity for very long. Not every country is Israel or India. Russia would slaughtler millions. China's repressive actions are well documented. Europe is responsible for the horrors of WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and many colonial slaughters. And the US nuked Japan to ensure that it would win the Asian theatre of WWII.

Andak, when I talk about a nuked Mecca and Medina, I don't mean it as some sort of "rah-rah" saber rattling threat. I mean it as a very practical warning. Unless the Islamic world takes real, tough actions against Islamist and Islamist theology, this is a very real possibility.

That said, this is merely a distraction from this thread - the quotes about Spencer are at best misleading and at worst intentially, flatly, maliciously false.

Your point in response to Parsi's was overstated. Instead of saying - no, there are some who have offered to debate Spencer or talk opposite to him, but they haven't agreed on terms (and apparently at some point have, including on FrontPageMagazine), you made the contrary point - Spencer isn't willing to debate Muslim scholars. That's just as false as Parsi's comment- moreso, because it comes with your accusation that Parsi wasn't being accurate, but you are just as innaccurate.

12-27-2007, 07:01 PM	#6
Fegasderty Join Date Mar 2008 Posts 5,023 Senior Member	Andak, The issue with Nuking Mecca comes to what might happen if there were a sustained, serious terror campaign on the US, and why Islamists are a huge threat to all Muslims - because they may provoke a "big war." It has nothing to do with calls to genocide or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is merely a statement that the non-Muslim world will not tolerate Muslim terror against it at a high intensity for very long. Not every country is Israel or India. Russia would slaughtler millions. China's repressive actions are well documented. Europe is responsible for the horrors of WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and many colonial slaughters. And the US nuked Japan to ensure that it would win the Asian theatre of WWII. Andak, when I talk about a nuked Mecca and Medina, I don't mean it as some sort of "rah-rah" saber rattling threat. I mean it as a very practical warning. Unless the Islamic world takes real, tough actions against Islamist and Islamist theology, this is a very real possibility. That said, this is merely a distraction from this thread - the quotes about Spencer are at best misleading and at worst intentially, flatly, maliciously false. Your point in response to Parsi's was overstated. Instead of saying - no, there are some who have offered to debate Spencer or talk opposite to him, but they haven't agreed on terms (and apparently at some point have, including on FrontPageMagazine), you made the contrary point - Spencer isn't willing to debate Muslim scholars. That's just as false as Parsi's comment- moreso, because it comes with your accusation that Parsi wasn't being accurate, but you are just as innaccurate.
	Quote