National Review Online

[Donut]

US right wing discusses "nuking Mecca"
By Patrick Martin

The Bush administration tells the public that its nuclear weapons policy is aimed at promoting peace and deterring terrorism. But within the ultra-right circles that play a decisive role in the formulation of US government policy, the use of nuclear weapons is seen not as an unthinkable last resort, but rather as a desirable option.

In this milieu, bloodlust goes hand in hand with jingoism and racism.

In a discussion on the web site of the National Review, one of the leading far-right publications, senior editors suggested that in the event of a nuclear or radiation device being used in a terrorist attack on the US, the appropriate response would be to attack selected Arab capital cities with atomic bombs.

Writing on March 7, National Review editor Rich Lowry declared that among people he spoke with there was “lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: ‘Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation.’”

When another National Review writer suggested that destroying Mecca might cause permanent outrage among one billion Muslims, Lowry rejoined, “This is a tough one, and I don’t know quite what to think. Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again, few people would die and it would send a signal.”

The National Review was briefly in the news last fall when one of its contributing editors, Ann Coulter, pronounced herself in favor of new version of the medieval Crusades. In response to Arab terrorism, she wrote in National Review Online, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” When the magazine issued a public apology—because of the embarrassment the incident caused the Bush administration in its Mideast diplomacy—Coulter objected and was dropped as a contributor.

In considering this public debate about how many millions to incinerate in the Middle East, one must remember that Lowry and his colleagues have the closest political and personal ties to the Republican Party, the Bush administration, and the Pentagon brass. At last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where National Review was a major sponsor, the speakers included National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson.

Casual discussion of mass murder is perfectly acceptable in political discourse in these circles, and at the highest levels of the American state. But so cowardly and cowed is the American press that not one reporter at Bush’s March 13 press conference dared ask him what he thought about the homicidal ravings of his close political allies.

[Mordenheim]

lol

that is just

wrong

[Timber Loftis]

Well, let's not forget that fully half of the pro-Bush sock puppets over at the NRO can't find Tehran, Mecca, or Baghdad on a map. Plus, they think any extremist wears a towel on his head and either rides camels or owns a Mercedes and has servants that ride the camels. They just don't get it.

Now, certain NRO sympathizers are bright folks, of course. But, the group as a whole still has that down-home attitude combined with the misguided belief that somewhere between 1960 and today the Republicans quit being rich and started being champions of the little guy. They just don't get it.

As well, any NRO article you read does one very important thing: throw enough issues, problems, policies, and unfounded propoganda diatribe at the reader that a general haze floats through the reader's mind, confusing all issues. This is their goal, you see: obfuscation. Don't take it to heart. It's what you do when you can't really justify your position in the long run.

[Mordenheim]

"As well, any NRO article you read does one very important thing: throw enough issues, problems, policies, and unfounded propoganda diatribe at the reader that a general haze floats through the reader's mind, confusing all issues."

is that not what ANY good propaganda group does? including the left

[khazadman]

Please don't tell me that you think that the policies of the Dems are to help the little guy? Their policies are designed to keep those who are already rich rich and to keep the rest from becoming rich. Hell look at who the richest people in Congress are. Here are the one worth more than $100,000,000:
1. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) $675 million
2. Rep. Amo Houghton (R, NY) $475 million
3. Sen. Jon Corzine (D, NJ) $400 million
4. Sen. Herb Kohl (D, WI) $300 million
5. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV) $200 million
6. Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA) $110 million
7. Rep. Jane Harman (D, CA) $100 million
Go here for a list of the top 50 in congress.
http://politicalresources.com/You_Asked/Richest.htm

I noticed that at less than $10,000,000 the list is dominated by Reps. Getover that and it's the dems who dominate the list.

[Timber Loftis]

Khazadman, I said the Repugs do not support the little guy. I never said the Democrats do. I equally revile both parties for generally being rich assholes who use us all.

Do not ascribe views to me that I do not state. I simply mentioned that the Repubs do NOT support the poor and NEVER have and the poor/middle class who think they do are sadly CONFUSED. I did not say there was some great champion liberator party out there.

To take the statement "X is bad" and turn it into "Y is therefore good" is completely illogical. You set up a straw man statement and then went and researched how to attack it. Because it was a straw man, your research (however informative) means nothing vis-a-vis the statement.

[Azred]

As much as I would like to disbelieve that anyone would seriously consider dropping nuclear weapons on Mecca--or anywhere, for that matter--as a response to terrorism, I cannot convince myself that such things have not been considered, much less discussed. I have thought of things like this before, but only in the context that they would make for a captivating plot for a novel or a movie; I would never seriously consider anything like this for even one second. Are these people insane?! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

[Indemaijinj]

No, they are humans.

[Ronn_Bman]

For the same reasons that the extreme right wing stories posted here can't be used to put the administration in a good light without having the article/story/reporter/network/etc crucified for his/it's leanings, this article should be disregarded.

Drivel is drivel after all, no matter what point of view it supports.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Drivel is drivel after all, no matter what point of view it supports.

We can agree here Ronn - and what had you so bored as to be researching and reading that drivel Donut - you need more outside pursuits - I hear there is a good cricket match on tomorrow - Australia v India for some trophy [img]smile.gif[/img]