2006-09-27 00:16:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Over 100,000.00 people have died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
But dropping Nuclear Bombs on Japan actually SAVED a lot more lives then it took.
If the US stayed and fought the "fair" fight, a million or more lives would be taken.
So to answer your question - why not? If we are attacked again, and we attack Mecca and Medina - it'll show our enemy that we mean business, and we are ready to destroy them all. And I think it'll change their world, and turn them towards peace, just like it did with the Japanese.
2006-09-27 00:51:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Did the attack come from residents of Mecca and Medina? Probably not. Collective punishment is not considered moral and that is what that would be.
On the more practical side it would be absolutely stupid. It would probably unite all 1.2 billion Muslims in hatred against us. Then to protect ourselves we would have only one choice, genocide on a scale never seen. And that would be the end of us, even if we manage to survive.
2006-09-27 00:21:22 · answer #2 · answered by marsel_duchamp 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thankfully, people who think this are hopefully not in a position to influence policy making decisions. Not even this level of ignorance surprises me anymore and on the face of it, if you are just asking questions as a point of inquirey the answer is simple.
That which is holy, is holy. It will not matter if you suscribe to this belief system or not. Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, Hindism,
and I would argue holy places out of antiquity and beyond are all worthy of respect...or no religions are.
2006-09-27 00:32:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because not all Muslims believe in violence. If you destroy Mecca and Medina, there will be true anarchy all over the planet. We would be attacked, not only from without but also from within. I don't want to see that, it would just be ugly.
2006-09-27 00:23:40 · answer #4 · answered by mindrizzle 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
We still really dont know who,what, and where about 9/11 now do we?
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
2006-09-27 00:19:03 · answer #5 · answered by dstr 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If mecca and medina were bombed or worse destroyed the consequences for america would be devastating. Muslim countries would join forces and rise up against america. AMERICA WOULD BE INIALITED, WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET.
2006-09-27 00:21:15 · answer #6 · answered by i'm gay 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋
...no, if america is attacked again the warplans that are already made will launch an immediate attack on iran .... kinda the same way we attacked afganistan 1 day after 9/11 .... of course those plans didnt already exist we all just jumped in planes and boats and got there the next day and went to work .... lol, yeah if you believe that you are gullible ....the american troops were already in a couple of neibouring countries to afganistan and so was all the equipment for a couple of months prior ... so there had to already be war plans drawn out to go into afganistan .... another smoking gun that shows prior knowledge by the administration.... and if you see another attack on the US you can bet ur azz it wasnt some cave-dwelling towel head that did it ... it would just be the next excuse to invade the next country ... it really isnt clear to people i guess ... they like the candy-coated stories on tv better.
2006-09-27 00:33:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
because Mecca and Medina would have nothing to do with any attacks because the people that practice true Islam know that killing innocent lives is evil and will surely get you a first class ticket to hell.
stop your generalization.not all Muslims are evil.
2006-09-27 00:21:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
With all the muslims we have let in since 9/11. I hope you have a load of guns and ammo to kill them all, cause them monkey freaks would be going nuts for sure. Still, if we did get to kill them all while nuking their holy cities, it sure would brighten my millenium
2006-09-27 00:47:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
because Yazid changed into an ungodly guy who sinned hostile to God! compared to Jesus, Who "by no skill Sinned", changed into "Infallible", did no longer have sex with 9 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous ladies, did not kill anybody, and did not rape captive women human beings slaves!
2016-11-24 21:58:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋