Comments on: Obama, Osama and Tancredo

By: Pakipoptart

Pakipoptart — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:14:32 +0000

I had the chance to visit the Barak Obama national headquarters here in Chicago this weekend. I asked one of Barak’s guys to explain why Mr. Obama would want to break international law and violate a country’s sovereignty. The guy explained that the press had a field day with this and all Mr. Obama implied was that after all diplomatic channels were exhausted, then he would seriously consider a strike. I replied by questioning him that wasn’t that one of the current Bush administration’s arguements for Iraq. This was pretty much where the conversation ended.

By: Puliogre in da USA

Puliogre in da USA — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:12:20 +0000

im waiting for barak obama to become the richard nixon of iraq. get elected by people who are sick of war. then invade like 5 more countries…

By: Fahad Zafar

Fahad Zafar — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:10:08 +0000

American Presidential hopefuls Obama and Tancredo are fundamentalists. For me they stand at the same level as Al Qaeda. I think ordinary American public should come out openly and criticize them for there comments. If they dont them, then most of the moderates (who belive in Live and Let others Live) like me would have no other option but to be either be with 'west' or with 'east'. Which again would not be good for the peace of the world. Dont make it a crusade. America doesnt need new Bush(s) in whitehouse, american voters should elect a moderate for the peace and betterment of this world. Please dont elect businessmen who rage war for there own monetary benefits (refer to Farenheit 9/11) rather with any genuine reasons. Please elect Leaders with vision for peace! PM Brown has already started to distance himself from US policies, which shows his far sightedness (Refer to Brit Military statements in Afghanistan & Iraq). Make it a better place, for you and for me and for the entire universe!

(Your constuctive arguements are welcome)

Cheerz!

By: Ponniyin Selvan

Ponniyin Selvan — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:18:50 +0000

I don’t think Tancredo’s suggestion will be an effective deterrent. Mecca has been already attacked once and sacked in 830 A.D by Ismaili Muslims (from wiki) and it is no big deal for the terrorists. People with al-qaeda mindset stormed Mecca in 1979 claiming that Saudi Arabia is not Islamic enough.. (ironical ) Some people in Pakistan thought that to be the action of US and burned the US embassy in Islamabad in 1979..

By: Manju

Manju — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:29:36 +0000

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

No prob. The administration just has to inform the Carlyle group of any attack in advance. This way they can allocate the Bush and Saudi royal family $$$ appropriately. Everyone will then be happy and wealthier. BTYW, Carlyle may go public so we can all get in on the action.

By: Upbhransh

Upbhransh — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:54:15 +0000

Opps remove “finger’ and “firmly” from previous post. I think that would hurt

By: Upbhransh

Upbhransh — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:52:36 +0000

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

Saudi Arabia is quite a curious animal. It has one hand in the pants of Exteremist Islamic world stroking there fundamentalistic weenie by pouring in money for spread of wahabism and the middle finger of other hand firmly massaging up the Bush familys collective balls.

By: Amit

Amit — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:56:52 +0000

If the religious sites are harboring terrorists or weapons then one could argue their destruction is justified. maybe he's talking about "actionable intelliugence" like Obama.

But isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - a country whose rulers have been in bed with right-of-center Bush dynasty for some generations now?

By: Manju

Manju — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:31:38 +0000

Thanks but seriously-that was not a rhetorical question from me I am seriously interested to know what the logic can possibly be in support of Tancredo’s statement which (to me) is clearly either irresponsible, ill-conceived rhetoric or xenophobia.What does anyone supporting Tancredo believe will be the result of actions that he proposes?

Allow me to take a stab:

If the religious sites are harboring terrorists or weapons then one could argue their destruction is justified. maybe he’s talking about “actionable intelliugence” like Obama.
I believe he was talking about a retaliation for a nuclear attack. Not sure how that makes a difference.
the bombing of mecca may break the faith of terrorists since presumably allah would protect mecca. perhaps he thinks the doomsday scenario in #2 justifies this scenario.

just guessing

By: Clueless

Clueless — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:54:45 +0000

of course if what Tancredo said were to happen would be awful. But so would a bunch of nuke attacks on western city by islamic groups.

But most of all a nuke attack on a few western city that kill millions in the west, would be really awful for people like us, who would be victims of hate crimes.