Here's my opinion, do you agree?

Question

I'm opposed to "Patriot I and II", the Homeland security act and every other "big-government" idea and program because they intrude on individual privacy and freedom.

Am I in favor of terrorists having the same liberty and privacy? No, of course not. That's why profiling is an essential part of any police investigation.

Wahabism (radical violent Islamic belief system) originated in Saudi Arabia and has spread throughout the Islamic world.

When 19 Saudi Arabians flew planes into the Center of the West's Financial Empire (World Trade Towers), do you think an appropriate response would have been to bomb the Center of the Islamic religion's Empire (Mecca)?

And do you think that would have marked the end of Islamic terrorism against the united States of America?

Answer 1

I'm with you on the patriot acts, the sad necessity of 'profiling' (among other tools), and the spread of Wahabism (and Islamism).

I'll point out that a few of the hijackers were not Saudis - I think it was 16 Saudis, an Egyptian, a Yemeni and a Lebanese (or maybe a Jordanian, I forget).

Nuking Mecca probably wouldn't have been the greatest idea. What would you do next, if attacks continue - all you could do would be to nuke something less important than Mecca. Nuking some other cities - maybe Damascus, Bahgdad, Teran, Kabul, or Medina - though, and /targetting/ Mecca, might have established a deterent sufficient to prevent future agression of that nature.

But it's too late for that trick, now, so it's a moot point.

Answer 2

You must remember, the public LOVES public figures that are 'human'. He is not the first political figure to be portrayed as a celebrity. Unless you really study history, it is hard, as a teen, to imagine anyone before George Bush. George was not popular and considered veyr much to be 'boring'. Why? He came from a rich family, he had everything handed to hin on a silver platter. Do you know no one was allowed to enter the oval office without a full suit while he was in office? Obama is different, he worked hard for everything he wanted, during the first week he was in office, he was photographed wihout a suit jacket and tie; just a dress shirt. He can relate to the everyday american, not just the higher classes. The public also likes those that, although they may have had everything handed tot hem on a silver platter, are not afraid to show a human side. Like I said, he is not the first: -The Kennedy's -Michael Jackson -Diana, princess of Wales -Elvis Presly Thee are many other examples as well. These people were all human, and thats why they were loved;just like the Obama's, so much! Cheers!

Answer 3

I agreed with your first 3 paragraphs. In response to your last two questions about bombing Mecca, I think that would have been an incredibly stupid error that would have united the entire Islamic world, as well as a lot of other nations against us. It would have been such a fundamental blunder that even our current administration would have known not to do that...... at least I think that is true.
I think part of the problem is that we have cowards everywhere. Most of us are not willing to stand up and admit our government has been terribly wrong about foreign policy matters lately. Most Muslims are not willing to stand up and denounce the Muslim extremists that are subverting Islam. Playing it safe is not going to keep on working. Some people must tell the truth.

Answer 4

No, attacking Mecca would have guaranteed that a much higher percentage of Muslims world-wide would see the US as direct enemy.

For an analogy, how do you think the Christians of the world would view Japan or Singapore if it destroyed Rome. National politics would have nothing to do with the level of outrage that would ensue.

Islamic terrorism is no different than any other type of terrorism -- financial terrorism, political terrorism, Christian terrorism, Sufi terrorism -- in all cases, it's a few fanatics out of a much larger group (usually much less than 0.1%) who see senseless violence as a way to attack their enemies.

You don't blame the 99.9% who aren't involved for the criminal actions of the 0.1% or less who are. Just like you don't lock up the entire population of Colorado, just because 0.5% of that population has committed felonies.

Answer 5

If we had bombed Mecca, the entire Muslim world would have arisen in outrage. We would be powerless to defend ourselves without their petroleum produsts as well. While it seems like a "reasonable" reaction to our frustration and anger, in the long run, it would cause more havoc that it prevents.

Answer 6

I agreed with the majority of what you said until you got to the part about bombing Mecca. ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORSTS. Even the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. I do not want to be part of a country that will willingly murder innocents to make a point. If we reduce ourselves to that, how are we any better?

Answer 7

To tell you the truth the Islamist movement isn't the majority of anti-americanists... All Europe , Africa , Asia (apart from the japanese who you nucleared so...they like america) they ALL HATE US...
What the ****? Do you think only Arabs hate US? If you invaded in Europe (not that NATO hasn't done it) do you think we'd cheer of joy for you?

Answer 8

Neo - con alert!!!

I think people like you should be profile as Nazis.